Clinton Video Impact Will Be
Decided by the Public
By Carrie K. Hutchens
I remember when the
scandal came out that Bill Clinton had engaged in sexual activity
with an aide, and he was denying it. Many people I have talked with
felt that what transpired was between Bill and Hillary...until Bill
lied to them (members of the public) by saying he hadn't had sex
with Monica, and until he lied under oath. That's when these people
became outraged. After all, Bill didn't have to lie. He could have
said it was a private matter between him and his wife, but he opted
to lie instead. Worse, he lied under oath. He was guilty of perjury
and got away with it.
People weren't happy!
Now, Hillary has been
accused of lying about fundraising and getting away with it. Did she
and is she? I don't personally know, but I do know that there is a
film coming out called, ""Hillary Uncensored" and that there has
been a preview of it on the internet that is reported to have
received approximately 1.4 million hits. "Anti-Clinton
video draws Web audience" By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press
Writer, gives more detail about this interesting development.
I must say I laughed
when I read, "'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."
This statement seems
to forget that the world knows that Bill Clinton lied, even if he
didn't have to pay for his act of perjury. And what about the papers
that the Clinton's couldn't find and allegedly turned up one day on
a table and all those types of incidents? Do the Clintons and their
supporters think that time makes all this stuff go away as though it
never took place? Apparently they do!
It doesn't matter if
any of the material in the film was rejected by a California state
court. It doesn't matter if Peter Paul does have convictions. If
this film truly documents what it is alleged to document, it will be
the public that determines it's value, not some judge that can throw
things out because of personal opinion or due to a technicality. The
public will be able to judge its worth or not. And if the public
doesn't like what it sees--that lead that Clinton is now enjoying
may do an about-face and put her on the tail end of popularity.
I personally know of
a former politician that lied during his campaigns (as well as
whenever) and had no hesitation in lying viciously about others. One
of his supporters said that if he lied, he must have had a good
reason. All kinds of things were believed about this man that were
untrue and many people seemed to feel privileged (as a result of
their false assumptions) to be supporting and aligned with the man.
He charmed his way out of many of mess, but all charmed things must
eventually come to an end and it did. He walked on too many people
and lied too often and made too many major mistakes. He lost the
third term election big time. And, where the majority once thought
he could walk on water--they came to have little good to say about
All it takes is for
the public to see that they were made fools of and they get more
than a bit ticked off! And when the public gets in that rotten mood,
politicians may be looking at their political funeral. Of course,
some politicians go into hiding when things look bad and find a way
to sneak back out in hoping the public has forgotten their bad!
Hillary seems good about that little trick, but will it work for her
Uncensored" have a negative impact on Clinton's campaign? The
public's reaction will tell us more than any supposing could ever!
Time will tell if
anyone even cares that the Clinton's seem to think the law is for
everyone but them!
is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is
active in fighting against the death culture movement and the
injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.