An April 29 CNSNews.com article by Fred Lucas rehashed once more "Hollywood businessman" Peter Paul's lawsuit against the Clintons but failed to mention Paul's long felonious history. This is suprising (or maybe not), since Lucas has previously (if incompletely) noted Paul's rap sheet.
Lucas also uncritically passes along Paul's spin:
Paul has said the motivation for his lawsuit was to provide compensation for his business. However, he said he also oped the lawsuit would expose the illegal fundraising as well, which he believes law enforcement has ignored.
Lucas doesn't mention that the "business" for which he wants to provide "compensation" -- Stan Lee Media, for which Paul no longer works -- is the same one in which he orchestrated a $25 million stock-manipulation scheme, to which he pleaded guilty. Lucas also doesn't mention that another motivating factor in Paul's pursuit of his lawsuit is a desire to reduce his sentence on the stock-fraud charge.
Lucas also never asks the obvious question: If one of Paul's main motivations is to "expose the illegal fundraising," why hasn't Paul been charged with illegal fundraising? Or is his Clinton lawsuit a way to keep that from happening?