Defending the Truth

I am also testing the new media function. Now you do not have to select the "Google" or "Youtube" icons to post videos. Whatever link you put up that has a video, it will automatically retrieve it

Thank you for putting this in here.

It reminds me much of our cases here in Iowa for the reason of the laws fully broken and the judges that allowed it, helped it happen and then worked to conceal their crime. Even though Rod and I have never been criminals the Democrats here tried very hard to make us such to cover their own corrupt a$$es. Law meant and means nothing to them. Everyone is at risk when people like Hilary and the Demoncratic cronies are able to strike out after their thefts and allowed to cover up their deeds.

Public offices should not be for sale. Only once have I contributed to a public candidate. For one contribution I aksed for one phone call with the candidate. After I had my say he asked, "And want do you want?" I told him thats it I want to see you win this election. He then again asked, "But want would you want for you? What would you ask for?"

Our system needs a change when private citizens have no rights against bullies in high places against people like the Clintons and others out there in public offices.

We need to all have one voice in this matter reagardless of our personal veiws.

To set the record straight, Peter Paul does have a criminal record and is guilty of fraud on different accounts. He's guilty of defrauding the Cuban government of $8.75 million dollars by selling nonexistent coffee. He is also guilty of a securities fraud which (for manipulating Stan Lee's stock; this was what he was arrested for in Brazil, to which he recently plead guilty) cost "losses to the investing public and financial institutions of approximately $25 million".

Perhaps they were correct in saying that Peter Paul cannot be trusted, and the fact that this video only shows his side of the case is disconcerting to say the least.

Also, to suggest that the Clinton's are guilty of capsizing Stan Lee by "stealing" one of it's top investors is an absurd insinuation. The Clinton's can't "steal" the investor; the investor in his own prerogative decided not to invest. To me it seems like Paul has something against the Clinton's for this reason, which further sheds some doubts into his accounts of the case.

I'm not really sure how the video of the phone call truly implicated Hillary. It was allegedly five minutes long but the youtube video only showed a few seconds of it. I don't think the documentary adequately explained how it tied Clinton to fraud of the event. If anything, Paul is more guilty of fraud in the event for paying for most of the $2 million cost by fraudulently borrowing the funds from Merrill Lynch (which lost about $5 million in lending to Paul).

All of the video's apparent bias (and half-truths) aside, if more adequate evidence is provided, Clinton should obviously be brought to justice. But I don't think we've seen such adequate substantiation, just bias and seemingly empty (of substance) allegations.