7/13/2001 CRIMES BY THE CLINTONS AND OTHERS TO BE REVEALED TONIGHT ON ABC’S “20/20"

DATE: Friday, July 13, 2001

NETWORK: ABC TIME: 10:00 pm ET

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes public abuse and corruption, will “watch” with interest as its client, Peter Paul, and others detail perhaps the biggest campaign finance crime in the history of American politics on ABC’s “20/20" tonight.

Peter Paul, who now resides in Brazil, donated $2 million in “in kind” campaign contributions to finance the Hollywood Tribute to Bill Clinton, which netted $1.5 million for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign. ABC’s “20/20" will reveal hard evidence that Mrs. Clinton did not report these contributions as she was required to do under law to the Federal Election Commission.

In addition, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Ed Rendell (now a candidate for governor of Pennsylvania) will be implicated in the Pardongate scandal, along with other high-level Democratic Party officials.

Peter Paul has already filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles against the Clintons and others to recoup his $2 million in campaign contributions. Hollywood stars such as Barbra Streisand, Cher, Brad Pitt and John Travolta will be material witnesses in the case since they have knowledge of Peter Paul’s involvement in the Hollywood Tribute for Bill Clinton. Monday, prior to Judicial Watch’s press conference at 12:00 noon ED at the National Press Club, Peter Paul will also file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

The ABC “20/20" piece has been in the works for over six weeks, and Brian Ross and his staff traveled to Brazil to interview Peter Paul, as well as conducted other interviews of actors in this scandal. ABC News was able to verify Peter Paul’s story.

“Typically, Peter Paul, as the ‘givee,’ has been indicted by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, while no action has been taken by federal authorities in New York against the Clintons. ABC’s ‘20/20' piece should change this equation, once the hard evidence that the Clintons have committed egregious criminal acts becomes known to the American people,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.

-- I am (not@Martha.Stewart), July 13, 2001

Answers

uh...yes you are

-- (oh@yes.), July 13, 2001.

And the silence is deafening.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 16, 2001.

"And the silence is deafening."

I didn't watch it. I have no information about it. When I do, I'll get back to you. In the meantime, I notice you have nothing much to say either.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 16, 2001.

Nothing much to say. Hmmmm, you found lots on a similar post...

And the silence is deafening.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), July 11, 2001.

And later on in that same thread, LN writes:

So, Alice's point was that working mothers catch more flack for having a job than working fathers do, even when their actions are identical.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 11, 2001.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 16, 2001.

Did ANYONE watch it? I didn't, but I'd be curious to hear from folks who did. Heck, I'd even be curious to hear what Rush said about it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 16, 2001.

"And later on in that same thread, LN writes:"

Maria, if you have a point, I can't make it out. I wrote that, but what does that have to do with this thread?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 16, 2001.

LN, you were able to extract great meaning out of the same statement on another thread and yet when I post it, you can not decipher anything. That's my point.

Anita, I only caught a little. The same old story: Clinton is a bad person and the dems will say where's the proof.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 16, 2001.

"LN, you were able to extract great meaning out of the same statement on another thread..."

Because on the other thread, there was a meaning to decipher. And Alice confirmed that my interpretation of her point was correct.

"... and yet when I post it, you can not decipher anything."

I wonder why?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 16, 2001.

"I wonder why?"

And the silence is deafening... [he grins, ducks, runs].

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 17, 2001.

"I wonder why" is a declarative statement not a question. Did you have some question in mind? You can wonder all you want, LN. Am I supposed to decipher your wonderment? The silence is deafening (on your last post) because I had no clue you wanted a response. You can not extract meaning from my statement and you wonder why. I don't wonder anything at all about that fact.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 17, 2001.