Courtesy of Cao’s Blog.
A California appeals court ruled today that a lower court judge acted properly when he dismissed Mrs. Clinton and her 2000 Senate campaign from a lawsuit by the donor and former Internet entrepreneur, Peter Paul.
“The record as presented to us strongly suggests Senator Clinton’s and Clinton for Senate’s conduct was perfectly legal,” Judge Dennis Perluss wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.
Mrs. Clinton could still be forced to give a deposition or testify at trial in the civil case because a portion of it remains pending against Mr. Clinton. In 2004, the California Supreme Court turned aside Mr. Clinton’s appeal seeking to be dropped from the case.
“Whether Senator Clinton responded to media reports after the event about Paul’s convictions *in a manner calculated to protect her image in a hotly contested political campaign does not bear on President Clinton’s intent at the time the promise was made,” the judge wrote. “President Clinton may have intended to work with Paul after the election when the heightened scrutiny would have passed, but was ultimately dissuaded by the collapse of Stan Lee Media and Paul’s fugitive status.”
*She flatly denied knowing him.
Peter Paul weighs in here:
In a ruling handed down today on whether Hillary Clinton should be given first amendment protection for civil frauds she committed to fund her US Senate campaign, a three judge California appellate panel, including two appointees by Gov Grey Davis who had worked in the same law firm together representing the ACLU, ruled that it would not allow newly released video evidence capturing Hillary in election law violations because:
“Because it would be inappropriate for us to decide on appeal whether Senator Clinton or Clinton for Senate violated federal law in connection with the solicitation of Paul’s in-kind contributions, Paul’s motion to admit a videotaped recording of a July 17, 2000 telephone call among Paul, Stan Lee and Senator Clinton in which they discuss the Hollywood Tribute and his request for judicial notice related to this issue are denied.”
The court also denied consideration (judicial notice) of court testimony by admitted Clinton agent to Paul, Jim Levin, who testified that he was delegated by the Clintons to initiate the illegal campaign solicitation from him on their behalf.
Paul v Clinton will now proceed against the remaining defendants, former President Bill Clinton, Grammys producer gary Smith and strip club owner James Levin, who exhausted their appeals to the California Supreme Court in 2004 and their trial date for March, 2007 will now be reset for 2008 with Hillary Clinton guaranteed by the judge to be required to testify under oath as a material witness.
I think I understand now why he felt the need to produce a video chronicling his dealings with the Clintons.
Hat tip: Lucianne
Well, that’s a relief, because nothing about this story raised questions, as far as I was concerned………………………………… okay, I’m lying:
Fellow host Jon Elliott claimed on the liberal radio network that Rhodes had been mugged while walking her dog, Simon, on Sunday night. Elliot, who said Rhodes lost several teeth in the attack, waxed about a possible conspiracy.
“Is this an attempt by the right-wing, hate machine to silence one of our own?” he asked on the air, according to Talking Radio, a blog. “Are we threatening them? Are they afraid that we’re winning? Are they trying to silence intimidate us?”
Scurrilous charges! What, you ask, does he base this smear on?
Pointing out that Rhodes was wearing a jogging suit and displayed no purse or jewelry, Elliott speculated that “this does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging.”
You know what else it didn’t appear to be?
A police source said Rhodes never filed a report and never claimed to be the victim of a mugging. Cops from Manhattan’s 17th Precinct called her attorney, who told them Rhodes was not a victim of a crime, the source said.
Rhodes’ lawyer told the Daily News she was injured in a fall while walking her dog. He said she’s not sure what happened, and only knows that she fell down and is in a lot of pain. The lawyer said Rhodes expects to be back on the air Thursday. He stressed there is no indication she was targeted or that she was the victim of a “hate crime.”
Well, it appears to me that Air America host Jon Elliot owes the right wing an apology.
It’s just breaks my heart that so many left wing bloggers ran with the mugging story, smearing right wingers.
Maybe a non profit, non partisan media watchdog group, like Media Matters could look into this outrageous affair!
I have no idea what that means, but it’s better than the left’s explanation for what happened.
Oh dear, a Gawker reader explains:
Randi Rhodes was no more assaulted by a right-wing fanatic on Monday than Dick Cheney was. She, in fact, fell down and injured her teeth outside of a Midtown Irish bar at around 6 o’clock Sunday evening after downing about fourteen Ketel One Bloody Marys. She was abusive to the barstaff and generally gross, crass, loud, and pretentious. I genuinely hope she has a speedy recovery. I never would’ve disclosed this (I believe that anyone should feel free to hang out at Irish pubs at any time and not be concerned about someone publishing their behavior) if Air America hadn’t grossly interpreted a drunken indiscretion and allowed it to be morphed into some bullish rhetoric on air.
That would explain why she doesn’t remember what happened.
It appears that Media Matters just may be in violation of Maryland’s laws on soliciting contributions if they have not yet completed all their necessary registration requirements, and it apparently they haven’t, as Conservative Belle has discovered.
So Conservative Belle took it upon herself to look into Media Matter’s non profit status with the state of Maryland since it solicits, and receives donations there.
She contacted the Maryland Secretary of State’s office with some pertinent questions, and got the following reply:
The organization needs to submit their board of directors list with alternative business addresses in order to complete registration with our office. An organization should not be soliciting without first completing its initial registration. Solicitations for charitable contributions sent via email to Maryland residents count as soliciting charitable contributions in the State of Maryland.
I cannot say for sure what exactly we would do with the organization if it were in violation of the Maryland Solicitations Act. It depends on the situation and all facts involved. We would want to solve whatever the problem may be though.
Michael P. Schlein
Office of the Secretary of State
Annapolis, MD 21401
Oopsie! Someone may be in a spot of trouble.
Yeah sure, this isn’t a Clinton caliber scandal; nobody’s been indicted, lied under oath, stuffed anything in their pants, been disbarred, or sold secrets to China. Nothing like that…(at least we think), but it’s still juicy for it’s implications. As Newsbusters’ Mark Finkelstein quipped:
…if the organization is this cavalier about the the legal finepoints, might they not be similarly blasé when it comes to reporting the facts?
So true, so true.
Media Matters has let a comment stand on their site for more than 24 hours, calling for the death of every single person on the “right.” This wouldn’t have lasted ten minutes at LGF.
Although I know it to be something many would condemn, I have to say that I believe this nation, this world, and everything in it would be far better off if there was a button I could push that would END the life of every avowed “CONSERVATIVE”, “REPUBLICAN”, or “RIGHT-WINGER”. Of course, I would likely break my finger clean off my hand from pushing it so hard…lol
Saturday October 13, 2007 12:40:54 PM EST
Wowee, where’s the love?
Thanks to Cao’s blog for that.