Hillary Clinton Faces a Viral-Video 'Truth-Boating'

[snopes]

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the latest to feel the sting from a small but growing demographic that could have an outsized impact on the presidential race: people who've had bad experiences with a candidate, and who know how to use YouTube.

At issue is a 13-minute preview video co-produced by Peter Paul, a convicted felon and one-time donor to Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, who's now turned against Clinton in her presidential run.

Titled The Shocking Video Hillary Does NOT Want You To See!, the video has been viewed on YouTube almost 177,000 times.

http://www.wired.com/politics/online.../clinton_video

[Elbe]

Originally Posted by ronniemac8

I haven't even seen the video yet but I believe any U.S. citizen could make a great video against Hillary.

The Clintons are the easiest target of all politicians.

The Clintons are SCUM!

The clintons are a lucasarts scripting utility? No, wait, that's scumm.

I imagine all politicians are easy targets for anyone with a gripe and access to a video camera and youtube. The Clintons are just rather more famous than most.

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

Originally Posted by Elbe

The clintons are a lucasarts scripting utility? No, wait, that's scumm.

Although the first thing I thought of was the film Scum. Particularly the scene where Hillary beats Bill's head in with a sock full of snooker balls and informs him "I'm the daddy now".

[RBCal]

Boy the "Truth Boaters" sure have a pretty "scummy" background.

Peter Paul is a convicted cocaine dealer and a James Nesfield a sleazy Wall Street manipulator.

Harrington had turned Spitzer’s office on to an Internet chat room where a colleague of hers, James Nesfield, used to find funds willing to do something called “market timing” -- quickly buying and selling mutual fund shares, something Nesfield acknowledged in chat room exchanges “might seem out of the normal request.”

Out of normal because, unlike stock which are bought and sold every day, mutual funds are meant to be held long term in company retirement accounts like 401(k)s. And the rules governing mutual funds are supposed to make sure they’re not “day traded” for quick profits that dilute the value of everyone else’s shares.

“That was his [Nesfield’s] job. And he got paid if he found mutual funds that would do this,” says Harrington.

And, according to Nesfield, people at some of the most respected mutual funds – funds that advertised themselves as beacons of integrity – went for his pitch.

Nesfield, the point-man in the market timing scheme, admits he was searching for individuals within mutual funds like Janus who were willing to take the bait and bend the rules.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in628000.shtml

[Broken Sword]

Originally Posted by RBCal

Boy the "Truth Boaters" sure have a pretty "scummy" background.

Peter Paul is a convicted cocaine dealer and a James Nesfield a sleazy Wall Street manipulator.

Exactly what does a 1979 cocaine conviction have to do with allegations in 2007 concerning events that occurred from 2000 through 2006? I mean, Hillary Clinton clearly was willing to associate with Peter Paul in 2000, so what does cocaine have to do with anything?

(I'm not supporting the allegations, although it looks undeniable that the Clintons were ethically out-of-bounds at the very least. I'm just questioning your attempt to attact the allegations solely by making a red herring attack of the person behind them.)

[Il-Mari]

Originally Posted by Broken Sword

Exactly what does a 1979 cocaine conviction have to do with allegations in 2007 concerning events that occurred from 2000 through 2006? I mean, Hillary Clinton clearly was willing to associate with Peter Paul in 2000, so what does cocaine have to do with anything?

She probably wouldn't have had as much to do with him if she had known before hand about his background.

(I'm not supporting the allegations, although it looks undeniable that the Clintons were ethically out-of-bounds at the very least. I'm just questioning your attempt to attact the allegations solely by making a red herring attack of the person behind them.)

There was very little in this fundraiser that hasn't happened hundreds or thousands of times by other politicians from both parties.

The drug dealing may be a 'red herring', but Peter Paul's illegal stock manipulation in Stan Lee Media (in which he was trying to get the Clintons to get involved in) and subsequent false claims about how the Clintons ruined him make him eminently untrustworthy, since he's trying to shift the blame for his financial crimes onto the Clintons (and trying to get some public support for his rapidly deteriorating lawsuit against them):

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...t_clinton.html

- Il-Mari

Originally Posted by Broken Sword

Exactly what does a 1979 cocaine conviction have to do with allegations in 2007 concerning events that occurred from 2000 through 2006? I mean, Hillary Clinton clearly was willing to associate with Peter Paul in 2000, so what does cocaine have to do with anything?

(I'm not supporting the allegations, although it looks undeniable that the Clintons were ethically out-of-bounds at the very least. I'm just questioning your attempt to attact the allegations solely by making a red herring attack of the person behind them.)

Actually "Hillary was willing to associate..." is not true.

It might be good to check out Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F...orial_campaign

[Bryan With a 'Y']

Originally Posted by ronniemac8

I haven't even seen the video yet but I believe any U.S. citizen could make a great video against Hillary.

The Clintons are the easiest target of all politicians.

The Clintons are SCUM!

Very articulate.

Yes, I remember the first Clinton presidency. An unprecedented economic expansion, a positive international image, and oh, yeah, we were actually looking for Osama Bin Laden.

I know that made me ashamed to be American.

Do you seriously believe that another 4 years of a Clinton in the White House would be good for our country?

If so, what makes Hillary qualified to be The Commander and Chief?

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by ronniemac8

Do you seriously believe that another 4 years of a Clinton in the White House would be good for our country?

If so, what makes Hillary qualified to be The Commander and Chief?

Do you by any chance mean "Commander *in* Chief"?

[Bryan With a 'Y']

Originally Posted by ronniemac8

Do you seriously believe that another 4 years of a Clinton in the White House would be good for our country?

If so, what makes Hillary qualified to be The Commander and Chief?

I believe that your comment was naive and inflammatory.

I believe that it's better to consider the facts before us than to pick a "bandwagon" as if politics were a team sport.

I believe that the Constitution has suffered greivously from the last two terms of an administration that behaves as if the ends always justify the means.

And I believe that there's a reason why the Republican Congress had to resort to harping on President Clinton's personal life.

I remember a tongue-in-cheek article that was published in the satirical weekly The Onion when GW Bush took office. Many a true word spoken in jest.

Oh, and the President isn't my Commander-in-Chief. That title applies only to active military. Was that your intent?

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Bryan With a 'Y'

I believe that your comment was naive and inflammatory.

I believe in not feeding trolls. It only serves to make them comfortable hanging around with human beings.

- snopes

[Bryan With a 'Y']

Originally Posted by snopes

I believe in not feeding trolls. It only serves to make them comfortable hanging around with human beings.

- snopes

True enough. I'm afraid it's a time-zone issue; I'm likelier to snap at the bait before my coffee kicks in.

Mea culpa.

[Tweetilynn]

Originally Posted by ronniemac8

Do you seriously believe that another 4 years of a Clinton in the White House would be good for our country?

If so, what makes Hillary qualified to be The Commander and Chief?

Absolutely. The republicans harped on his personal life because there was nothing else for them to harp on. The man is a womanizer but that does not keep him from being able to run the country. I feel he did rather well at it. Add to what Bryan said, we were actually operating without a deficit iirc. How far in the red are we now with the present administration? How many rights have we lost or had taken away? How many soldiers have died over WMD's that didn't exist? It wasn't the Clinton's who made us a laughing stock to the entire world.

ETA: of course there couldn't have been another four years for Clinton because he had already served his eight.

[Hip Zu]

Originally Posted by Tweetilynn

How many rights have we lost or had taken away?

I see/hear this often as a talking point / criticism of the current administration. Exactly what "rights" do you believe we have "lost" or "had taken away" during the past eight years?

I'm not trying to flame here. I'm genuinely curious what "rights" people believe this administration has "taken away" from the American public.

-- Hip Zu

[Buckle Up]

Originally Posted by Hip Zu

Exactly what "rights" do you believe we have "lost" or "had taken away" during the past eight years?

The rights to not be held without charge, to know one's accuser and the crimes for which one is accused, the right to speedy trial, to be free from government surveillance and spying, and while I would not necessarily call this a "right," this administration has done much to take away my faith and pride in my country via committing many acts of torture and the propogation of an endless war.

One writer's take on Bush and the Constitution (warning, some mildly explicit language)

[Tweetilynn]

Originally Posted by Buckle Up

The rights to not be held without charge, to know one's accuser and the crimes for which one is accused, the right to speedy trial, to be free from government surveillance and spying, and while I would not necessarily call this a "right," this administration has done much to take away my faith and pride in my country via committing many acts of torture and the propogation of an endless war.

One writer's take on Bush and the Constitution (warning, some mildly explicit language)

Thanks Buckle Up. You covered much more eloquently than I could have. Also thanks for that link. Wow, if Dubya said anything near what they claim...WOW. I'll be glad when he's out.

[Hip Zu]

Originally Posted by Buckle Up

One writer's take on Bush and the Constitution (warning, some mildly explicit language)

Isn't this site dedicated to discovering the truth about myths, not spreading them?

This guy's "rant" about what the President supposedly said (corroborated by numerous unnamed sources, of course) is a classic FOAF legend used to bolster the writer's already apparent agenda.

If the President actually said what this writer claims he said, why would the members of Congress who heard it -- apparently numerous members -- only tell one other person (Doug Thompson, the writer of the rant)? Why wouldn't the Thompson identify which members of Congress disclosed this quote? Why would those members of Congress want to remain anonymous?

And, more importantly, when one Googles the quotes, why is Doug Thompson the only source for these quotes? He must be the most connected guy in DC...

-- Hip Zu

[damian]

Originally Posted by ronniemac8

Do you seriously believe that another 4 years of a Clinton in the White House would be good for our country?

Because the last 8 years with another Bush were so great?

If so, what makes Hillary qualified to be The Commander and Chief?

She has the same quals as Dubbya.

[Sly Dog]

Originally Posted by damian

She has the same quals as Dubbya.

Shouldn't we be looking for someone with better quals than Dubbya?