The Quiet Conservative September 11, 2007
All the News that Fit to Print?
I mentioned Senator, and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton’s September 7th court date in the
last editorial. This is where attorneys argued that she should be included again in the civil fraud suit
against her husband, the former President of the United States. You probably missed the wall to wall
coverage over the weekend in all the Kansas papers and on the national news. You missed it
because there wasn't any. It wasn't deemed worthy of a story from even one of the major papers or
networks. I looked for the news to at least mention it Friday night, then Saturday, then Sunday. If
you watched the news you might know all about what footwear Senator Craig was wearing in the
bathroom stall in a Minneapolis airport. You might know whether he double knots his laces or not,
and what hand signals he gave under the stall divider for a runner on third and bases loaded. But you
wouldn't know the fact the Democratic presidential front runner and her husband are being sued for
fraud in the collapse of a public company that involved over a million dollars in illegal campaign
contributions. It just didn't rate a mention.
The company is Stan Lee Media and Stan Lee is the creator of Spiderman among other comic book
icons. The long and short of the suit alleges that Hillary Clinton and her husband double crossed the
CEO of the company, stole an investor, reneged on promises, collapsed the company, and acquired
over 1.6 million dollars in illegal campaign contributions to her 2000 New York senate campaign. All
while filing four false campaign reports and being penalized thousands of dollars by the FEC. In
April of 2006 Hillary was dismissed from the suit because of a California law that protects public
officials. The appeal on Friday was to get that changed. Evidence not previously considered, in fact
evidence that was hidden, was found that not only showed she was actively involved in the scheme,
but her involvement constituted what should be a federal felony. What the result of this appeal will
bring should be known in as little as ten days.
Prior to the Internet the every day person had to rely on the media for their news. An honest press
should have reported on this story. They are not honest. But, the stranglehold on information is
broken thanks to the Internet. So if you want to read the whole sordid tale, you don’t have to take
my word for it. Read the actual court filings. They are on line. And, if you can find them, access
them, and read them, the press can. The case against Bill Clinton is Case No. BC 304174. The
appeal to add Hillary back into the main case is Appeal No. B191066. That is all you need to find
it. If you go to Yahoo or Google, just type in the case number and nothing else, the search engine
will direct you to the court filing. If you type Peter Paul vs. Clinton the same thing happens. Simple
enough to do to find out about the alleged dirty dealings of the former President of the United States
and the Current senator from New York. Pretty simple. But apparently too difficult for a professional
journalist to do.
So the question is- why hasn't a single paper or television station given this coverage? Is it because
her new campaign was caught accepting money from a possible Communist Chinese bag man? Is the
current Chinese scandal overshadowing the past crooked dealings in 2000? One report from reporter
Jim Kuhnhenn of the Associated Press has already began the twisting of reality in this new scandal
by his report “Clinton returns money, sets precedent”. The angle he tries is that since she is
returning the crooked money she was caught accepting in violation of campaign laws, she is
somehow noble and raising the bar. That would be somewhat awkward considering Friday’s court
action. Unless no one knows about the hearing. Unless no one reports it. It will take time to see if
this angle gains popularity with other members of the fifth column…I mean fourth estate.
Call your paper today. Ask them about the case. Ask them why it hasn't made the front page.
Then ask them if the press is truly a free watchdog or a political operation. Ask them if the former
President of the United States, who is in the press quite frequently, might be a topic of interest in this
story. Ask if the potential future president being accused of fraud, and there is evidence of that,
would be a worthy story. Then ask why they refuse to cover it. That should tell you quite a bit
about the quality of your news source. If they shoot back with the fact they are reporting about
Norman Hsu, don't let them off the hook. There is room in the paper for both stories. If you read
tomorrow's column, it will cover a bit of the backstory for that unfolding unpleasantness for the
Clinton campaign. After you read it you might want to call back to your paper and ask them about
that also. Because they sure will not be printing it.