Another library, another refusal to release historical documents related to Hillary Rodham Clinton…..

Like other Democrat candidates, she has decried the “stunning record of secrecy” of the Bush administration; her campaign Web site vows to bring a “return to transparency” to government. Unfortunately, records at the National Archives, as well as the Clinton Presidential Library are off limits to the public. And now, ABC News is reporting that the “University of Arkansas announced that the Blair Papers would not be made public until 2009.” Andrea Cantrell, the head of research services at the university library’s Special Collections, told reporters that the Papers were not yet processed. But that claim seems questionable, at best.

Those papers were written by Diane Blair, a close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who taught and engaged in Arkansas politics until her death due to lung cancer in 2000.

As a trusted friend during then-Gov. Bill Clinton’s successful presidential run in 1992, Blair was permitted to extensively interview 126 senior and junior Clinton campaign aides, which resulted in four enormous binders full of information.

The information was to be published in a book that Blair, a historian and author, ultimately never wrote.

Only two copies of the Blair Report were ever made; one was given to the Clintons, the other remained in Blair’s custody until after her death, whereupon the books were given to the University of Arkansas Library. source

Mrs. Clinton has touted her “35 years of experience” as a major qualification to be the Democrat nominee, and naturally, “she who must not be questioned” expects everyone just to take her word for it.

My Clinton-fatigue meter is working serious overtime.

This is a Special Truth-boating Post for all those who believe a “story” isn’t news unless it’s published in the New York Times, the following is an AP story from the Business and Financial section…..LINK
and Screenshot (in case they change their minds and take it down). hat-tip n2l

First came the Orwellian mash up YouTube video that portrayed Hillary Rodham Clinton as Big Brother. Then came a clip of her off-key rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Now, a stinging 13-minute video by a bitter Clinton foe is finding its own Internet audience.

The clip, a preview of a longer film by one-time Clinton donor Peter Paul, has scored more than 1.4 million hits on Google Video and about 350,000 on YouTube during the past week. Its popularity has driven it to the top spot on Google Video over the past two weeks.

Paul is a Hollywood entrepreneur, former partner of Spider-Man creator Stan Lee and convicted felon who has sued the Clintons in connection with a celebrity-packed fundraiser he helped organize for her 2000 Senate race. A California appeals court earlier this month ruled that Sen. Clinton should be dismissed from the suit.

But Paul has devoted a Web site to the case and his film, “Hillary Uncensored,” in recent days has been touring New England College campuses. On Tuesday, the film is scheduled to be screened at the Metropolitan Club in New York City.

The Clintons have long argued that Paul’s criminal record discredits him and in court pleadings have denied Paul’s claims against them.

“Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, and the Senate Ethics Committee,” the Clinton campaign said in a statement.

Paul’s anti-Clinton effort is getting help from two technical producers who set up the Web site for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 2004 campaign that went after Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry by raising questions about his decorated military service in Vietnam.

Robert Hahn and Scott Swett operate http://www.HillCAP.org, the Web site that Paul set up in 2005 to showcase court documents, videos and news articles related to his lawsuit. The video trailer “Hillary Uncensored,” and the schedule for the movie are prominently displayed on the site.

Among those featured in the video speaking in support of Paul is David Schippers, who served as chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during President Clinton’s 1998 impeachment hearings.

In his lawsuit and in the film, Paul says he spent $1.9 million for the August 2000 Hollywood fundraiser that featured such stars as Brad Pitt, Diana Ross and Cher. Paul maintains he organized the event because President Clinton falsely agreed to assist him in a new venture with Stan Lee after leaving the presidency in January 2001.

Campaign reports filed with the Federal Election Commission estimated the cost of the event at about $500,000. An ensuing criminal trial of Clinton’s former national finance director, David Rosen, on charges that he lied to the FEC about the fundraiser resulted in an acquittal. At the time, Rosen’s lawyer said Paul concealed the actual cost of the event from Rosen, a claim Paul denies.

The film also includes a tape recording recently obtained by Paul of Sen. Clinton thanking him in advance for staging the event, which he says is proof that she illegally coordinated the fundraiser with him. The appellate court ruling that dismissed her from the case concluded the call did not amount to new evidence.

The complexities of the case are all fodder for the video clip and the movie, spiced with clips of Hollywood performers.

“Her abuse of her power as reflected in my case should make everybody pause about entrusting her with the reins of government,” Paul said in an interview.

Paul is awaiting sentencing on his 2005 guilty plea to charges of stock fraud involving Stan Lee Media, the company Paul had wanted Clinton to join. In the 1970s, he was convicted of cocaine possession and of attempting to defraud the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.

Swett, who is running Paul’s HillCAP Web site, said the video has helped drive more traffic to the Web site, but that the activity is far less frequent than it was on the site he operated for Swift Boat Veterans in 2004.

“Then it was in the final months before the election and we’re a year out at this point,” he said. “There’s a lot of complexity to the Peter Paul lawsuit. You have to read through some of the documents to get a handle on it. That was less the case with the charges that the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs were making against John Kerry.”

+++++++++

“Please donate for the benefit of our friends and neighbors in Southern California”

This article is a week or so old. I can’t recall if it was before the Chinese dishwashers started making maximum contributions to Hillary, or after.

All the dirty money scandals with the Clintons start to blend together after a while, till it just seems like one giant stinkhole.

This is from the Miami Herald…

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is raking in so much dough that it’s hard for her staff to keep tabs on all the donors. Consequently, some embarrassing checks have been cashed.

A bunch of them came courtesy of Norman Hsu, the natty schmoozer of high-level Democrats who was recently busted on fraud charges. Hsu raised about $800,000 for Mrs. Clinton, who has said she’ll give back that money to the individual donors.

Now comes the revelation that Mrs. Clinton and several other Democrats, including presidential candidates John Edwards and Joe Biden, accepted contributions from trial lawyers implicated in a sleazy kickback scheme.

The facts, as reported in The New York Times, make it difficult to believe that taking money from these characters was an innocent oversight. The scandal was already in full bloom, and well publicized, when the candidates banked the donations.

At the center of the case is the New York law firm of Milberg Weiss, which made billions in legal fees by initiating class-action suits against large, publicly traded corporations.

The firm’s approach was aggressive and effective. When a company’s stock dropped significantly, Milberg Weiss would quickly sue, having recruited a shareholder as a plaintiff.

Typically, the lawsuit accused executives of misleading or defrauding investors. More often than not, the company would settle the case for big bucks in order to avoid a trial.

Milberg Weiss soon became the leading class-action firm in the country, though its activities drew the scrutiny of federal investigators. In May 2006, the firm was indicted for fraud and bribery.

Prosecutors called it a ”racketeering enterprise,” and alleged that Milberg Weiss paid people kickbacks to act as plaintiffs in 250 cases. The law firm has denied all charges, but at least three former partners have pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

One of the lavishly bribed was Howard J. Vogel, 61, of Aventura. Prosecutors say he got $2.5 million under the table for acting as lead plaintiff in several Milberg Weiss class-action suits. Vogel and former Milberg partner Steven G. Schulman have pleaded guilty.

So has ex-Milberg partner William S. Lerach, a former fundraiser for Edwards, who is himself a trial lawyer. Lerach is also a buddy of Bill Clinton dating back to his White House days, and donated more than $100,000 to the Clinton presidential library.

The odor of the criminal probe has been hovering around Milberg Weiss for some time, but apparently many top Democrats don’t mind the stink. Twenty-six candidates, including Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, have accepted campaign checks from donors connected to Milberg Weiss since the 2006 indictments.

Edwards took $4,600 from Lerach this year. Biden collected $2,700. Hillary Clinton grabbed $3,000 from Lerach, and a total of $4,600 from two other former Milberg Weiss lawyers.

She has also accepted $4,600 from the firm’s co-founder, Melvyn I. Weiss, who stands charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Surprisingly, a Clinton spokesman told The Times last week that Clinton doesn’t intend to return Weiss’ money. We’ll see.

Trial lawyers have traditionally supported Democrats with the same gusto with which oil companies and defense contractors have backed Republicans. Every party has its fat-cat interest groups who believe, quite correctly, that hefty political donations buy influence.

In this instance, the mystery is why Clinton and the other Democrats would take a nickel from anyone so prominently linked to such slimy allegations. There are plenty of reputable (and affluent) trial lawyers who’ve never been indicted for anything.

One possible excuse is that the candidates didn’t know about the Milberg Weiss scandal, which would mean they’d been living in a subterranean cave without the benefit of newspapers, TV or the Internet.

Another defense would be that they didn’t know about the Milberg Weiss donations, which seems farfetched considering the firm’s heavy connections to the party. After all, its lawyers kicked in $500,000 toward the construction of a new headquarters for the Democratic National Committee.

The final possibility — and the only believable one — is that the candidates knew all about the indictments and accepted the money anyway, hoping nobody would notice.

It’s not illegal for a politician to accept campaign contributions from a defendant in a pending bribery case, or from somebody who’s copped a guilty plea.

But it sure looks bad, not to mention hypocritical.

It also becomes extremely hard to position yourself credibly on the side of ethical reform, and to attack your GOP opponents for fostering a ”culture of corruption” in Washington, D.C.

There’s nothing worse than corrupting the justice system for profit, which is what Milberg Weiss is accused of doing. With the trials pending, the Democrats should have treated those campaign checks like an anthrax valentine.

Now it’s too late. All that is left to do is plead ignorance and sheepishly give back the money.

Especially if you’re Hillary.

Yeah, that’s going to happen

++++++++++

“Please donate for the benefit of our friends and neighbors in Southern California”

The usual suspects: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, and Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin issued a statement on Democrat trade policy rejecting a free trade agreement with our closest ally in Latin America, Colombia. According to them, it cannot be approved until “concrete evidence of sustained results on the ground in Colombia” regarding issues such as violence and corruption have been shown. This action was taken in July, and is now beginning to bear fruit.

Two candidates in Sunday’s regional elections in Colombia have been killed, bringing the total of candidates killed during the campaign to at least 21.

“There are still investigations underway, but we believe this is the Farc,”

Government officials say 21 candidates have been killed, although other sources put the toll higher at 29.

President Alvaro Uribe announced last week a $25,000 reward for any information leading to the arrests of those responsible for the murders of candidates.

Colombians will vote on Sunday to fill some 15,000 regional posts, including governors, mayors, regional assembly members and municipal officials. source

If Colombia’s hard left was upset before with Mr. Uribe, this has really stirred up the nest. Their only hope is help from Washington so they are returning to what worked before, this time recyling tired old charges that the president has links to paramilitary groups and insisting that the government has been protecting assassins who target union leaders.

Democrats seem only too happy to help. They can’t invoke the Leahy Law against civilians but blocking the FTA in the name of “human rights” is just as good. It satisfies the “sandalistas,” who still dream of a Cuban revolution for all of Latin America, and it makes the most important Democratic Party constituent, the AFL-CIO, happy by knocking off any threat of new international competition.

This may be good for shoring up the Democrat’s base but it is harmful to U.S. geopolitical interests in the Western Hemisphere and to an important U.S. ally and it will dash the hopes for a better life of millions of impoverished Colombians. Either the Democrats have very poor foreign policy judgment or they have sympathy for the devil.

The Democrats’ interventionism also damages the U.S. image in Colombia because it trivializes the will of the Colombian people. Mr. Uribe is immensely popular and the FTA, which he has made his own project, has worked its way through the democratic process. Who are the Democrats to say that the country is not worthy of the partnership? And as for support for the FARC, which Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) once claimed had “legitimate complaints,” Democrats might like to take note of the events surrounding the murder of the lawmakers and the public’s reaction. source

Momentum is growing. Yesterday, there were 108,679 views!

SPREAD THE WORD