HILLARY FILM GOES TO SUPREME COURT

BE SURE TO SEE THE VIDEOS AT BOTTOM OF THIS POST. On September 9th, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments surrounding a documentary that was made about Hillary Clinton in 2008. At the heart of the issue is the extent to which corporations should be permitted to financially support or oppose candidates.

A very interesting element to this case is the alliance of the National Rifle Association and the ACLU, who both support the makers of the film. Quoting the New York Times:

The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides, with the civil rights group fighting shoulder to shoulder with the National Rifle Association to support the corporation that made the film.

The ACLU appears to be the lone liberal group that has jumped sides.

Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse.

This case is making its way to the Supreme Court via Re-argument, which is extremely rare. According to the Times, the case Citizens United (makers of the film) is seeking to have overturned is AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Apparently, the answer to a hypothetical question was given by a government attorney at an earlier Supreme Court hearing and is being looked at as a possible reason for the SCOTUS hearing this case on the basis of re-argument:

At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.

Understandably, when a lawyer advocates the banning of books, it is likely to raise eyebrows (which it did).

In an unbelievable admission, a man on the regulatory side of this issue admitted that he thought books could be banned, but only after being pressed on the issue:

In an interview, Mr. Wertheimer seemed reluctant to answer questions about the government regulation of books. Pressed, Mr. Wertheimer finally said, “A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned.”

Those pesky facts. The left's positions are always so untenable that they would prefer not to reveal them. However, when they do, it's like the unmasking of a hideous reality. This isn't about leveling the playing field anyway. It's about keeping it uneven. George Soros has his mits in so many front groups that the left is able to promote its candidates without repurcussion.

Here is the entire NEW YORK TIMES piece.

Another interesting side note to this story involves one of the people who appeared in the film. His name is Peter Paul, whose experiences with the Clintons (Hillary in particular) were chronicled in his film called, "Hillary Uncensored", the contents of which included home made video footage recorded by Paul. The trailer for the film garnered more than 10 million views between Google and YouTube.

Here is the trailer:





Here is a video of the polygraph test Peter Paul took that appeared in Hillary: The Movie. He passed with flying colors. Fast forward to the 1:52 mark to see the administering of the test.