Hillary Clinton & Event 39: Legal House of Cards or Little Crooked House?
Pookie
Legal House of Cards or Little Crooked House?
The Fraudulent Senator: Part 4 of a 7 Part Series
Government/A.J. DiCintio
March 16, 2006
When former K Street mogul Jack Abramoff struck a deal with the
Department of Justice, he unwittingly supplemented a famous piece of
Watergate advice with the following corollary: "To follow the money, trail
the lobbyist." Unfortunately, investigative reporters of the elite media
have so overreacted to this useful counsel that they periodically succumb to
wild fits that send them chasing a photo of a lobbyist sipping eggnog with
bigwig holiday revelers, an act that only a gotcha-obsessed mind interprets
as the most awful of Washington's lobbyist shenanigans.
Despite these momentary lapses of purpose (attributable to Pack
Mentality Disorder), investigative reporters are to be respected for their
dogged dedication to work that is essential to the nation's well being. With
that fact in mind, you would think they'd go gaga over a scandal involving
big money; a lavish, celebrity-studded Hollywood gala/political fundraising
event; Federal election law; and a civil lawsuit, all involving Senator
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumptive front-runner for the 2008 Democratic
Presidential nomination and recipient (among numerous other awards) of the
2004 German Media Prize honoring her as "a model politician for millions of
women around the world."
Yes, you would think such a story would motivate investigative
reporters to get hot on Mrs. Clinton's trail. But you would think wrong; for
the truth is that except for a 2001 ABC 20/20 piece by Brian Ross (which
Peter F. Paul, the plaintiff in the aforementioned lawsuit, criticizes for
serious omissions) and April Witt's "House of Cards," published in the
Washington Post, October, 2005, (which omits important topics that reflect
negatively on Mrs. Clinton), the major media have been nearly as silent
about the scandal as Mrs. Clinton has.
But in a time when money has corrupted politics so much that
politicians were moved to "reform" political campaigns by restricting the
free speech of ordinary citizens, it is essential that the public be
informed about a scandal that involves not only the most prominent face of
the Democratic Party but also the most prolific fundraiser among all
politicians. (Doubters of Mrs. Clinton's mania for money should know that in
2005, she collected more than $21 million, triple the amount raised by a
Senator as well connected as Virginia's George Allen.)
To fulfill its purpose of helping the public understand the legal
aspects surrounding Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, et al. and the Hollywood
gala/fundraiser named "Event 39," this piece will divide them into two broad
categories: those that pertain to Federal Election law and those that
pertain to Mr. Peter F. Paul's civil suit. Although the two categories are
inextricably intertwined, separating them will help readers to understand
each more easily and to "follow the money" in the broadest sense of that
term.
Then, readers can decide for themselves whether this latest of Mrs.
Clinton's scandals is best characterized by "house of cards" or "little
crooked house," an image derived by taking a moral rather than a geometric
lesson from the appropriate Mother Goose rhyme.
Mrs. Clinton, Event 39, and The Federal Election Commission
The saga of Event 39 began only weeks before August 12, 2000, the day
a mansion in Brentwood, California, hosted the lavish Hollywood Gala
produced by Mr. Peter Paul so that soon to be ex-President Bill Clinton
could be properly honored by Hollywood celebrities and Mrs. Clinton could
have her Senate campaign appropriately enriched by their cash. How Mr. Paul
was able to assemble and present such a star and money studded event in just
four weeks is a question for another place and time, including conferences
where leaders of all kinds pay big money to learn how to get things done.
However, there is a question about Mr. Paul that is absolutely
essential to the topic at hand: How did he come to produce an event to which
he himself contributed a huge amount of money and which brought him into
intimate contact with the Clintons, their friends, and their staffs. Surely,
Mr. Paul must have been either a long-time friend of the Clintons or a well
known heavy-hitter among Democratic contributors.
The fact is that neither was the case. So, why did Mr. Paul suddenly
throw his talents and his cash into political waters? And how as a political
neophyte did he manage to begin his new venture not in state or local ponds
but in a glittering pool populated by the President, his wife, and numerous
other Democratic VIP's?
Following is an abbreviated version of Mr. Paul's account of that why
and how, an account that the public can examine in full in the text of PAUL
v. CLINTON at www.hillcap.org.
According to Mr. Paul, then Democratic Party Chairman Ed Rendell
approached him in the spring of 2000 about hosting two June fundraisers for
Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign, a request that Mr. Paul both agreed to and
honored. Mr. Paul goes on to say that after he hosted the events, he was
approached by Clinton friend Jim Levin, who asked him to pay for a big
fundraiser to be held before the Democratic Convention in August.
By the time of the Levin contact, Mr. Paul had been considering how he
might entice a post-Presidential Bill Clinton to work as a rainmaker for
Stan Lee Media, the animation company he had co-founded with Stan Lee, the
writer who created the modern "superhero" genre at Marvel Comics. Therefore,
says Mr. Paul, he proposed a deal to Mr. Levin whereby he would produce and
make a substantial contribution to the fundraiser (which became Campaign
Event 39 or The Gala) if Mr. Clinton would agree to work for his company.
According to Mr. Paul, Mr. Clinton agreed through Mr. Levin; and according
to Federal documents, Mr. Paul began writing a lot of checks.
It was after he settled the details of the Gala with Mrs. Clinton's
campaign that Mr. Paul spent those four frantic weeks and a boatload of his
own money to produce a political tribute the likes of which Hollywood had
never seen. And when it came off in grand fashion, he must have believed he
had succeeded fully regarding the "why" of his mission; for he says that
during the many hours he sat with Mr. Clinton during the Gala, Mr. Clinton
agreed with the offer (whose details are revealed later in this piece) as he
did again the following day at the home of Barbra Streisand, where Mrs.
Clinton also reacted positively to it.
There, in brief, we have Mr. Paul's account of how and why an
entrepreneur possessed of promotional skills, experience in big time fund
raising, and a pipeline to Hollywood stars came to produce a mega-fundraiser
deserving of the title "Hollywood Gala Farewell Tribute" (a name Mr. Paul
himself proposed). His account also explains how he came to know the
Clintons as much more than an ordinary campaign contributor and to interact
with their friends and staff, including David Rosen, Mrs. Clinton's national
finance director, and Aaron Tonken, a young man Mr. Paul regarded as a
Hollywood con artist but whom Democrats as important as Bill and Hillary
Clinton and Ed Rendell celebrated as a grand impresario of Democratic Party
fundraising.
We return now to Mrs. Clinton and Event 39 with this question: Had
Mrs. Clinton placed her trust in the right person? That question was
answered in part with a resounding "yes" when Mr. Paul, who according to FBI
affidavits put up more than $1.2 million of his own money to produce the
Gala, saw to it that it came off lavishly and successfully as eight
international headliners feted President Clinton with such heartfelt
sincerity that the soon to be ex-President was moved to tears.
Mrs. Clinton, however, wasn't interested solely in the entertainment
portion of the Gala. But not to worry; for she also was rewarded handsomely
when Mr. Paul's results in raising money for her campaign coffers equaled
those he achieved when he secured celebs such as Diana Ross and Cher to
serenade and gush over her husband.
Indeed, nothing attests to Mr. Paul's excellent work more than a U.S.
Department of Justice document stating that 1200 glitterati attended the
concert portion of the gala ($1,000 per ticket) while 350 very special
luminaries attended the sit-down dinner ($25,000 per couple). According to
the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project (HILLCAP), that glowing group
raised $1 million in hard money for Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign. But the
salient point is not this gross amount; it is how much the campaign should
have netted after it accounted for costs and contributions under rules laid
out by Federal law.
In this regard, HILLCAP asserts that by underreporting the cost of the
gala, "the Clinton campaign avoided paying at least $800,000 in hard
money -- not including the fair market value of the performances -- during
the crucial final weeks before the election." HILLCAP further asserts that
"If Paul's contribution had been reported fully as required by law, it could
have bankrupted the campaign."
We know that Mrs. Clinton always needs money; but with respect to the
underreporting, which is now undeniable, she might have mused Hamlet-like
"Ay, there's the rub." Mrs. Clinton, however, pondered no rub; for she not
once but three times filed statements with the FEC understating the Gala's
cost by more than $700,000.
Aware that his contributions had not been properly reported, Mr. Paul,
on July 16, 2001, wrote to Senator Clinton demanding she return his money
and also filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. Mr. Paul's
letter to the Senator carries particular significance because it asserts
that that the cost of Event 39 had been understated; it asserts that by not
reporting his contributions, Mrs. Clinton made them illegal; and it cites
that portion of the "Code of Federal Regulations" that requires "illegal
contributions [be returned] within 30 days of determining the illegality."
Mrs. Clinton neither returned Mr. Paul's contribution nor amended her
FEC filing. For its part, the FEC initiated an investigation of Event 39,
resulting in an indictment and prosecution of Mr. Rosen on charges of making
false statements regarding the more than $1.2 million contributed by Mr.
Paul, thereby validating Mr. Paul's assertion that he had indeed contributed
that much of his own money.
In May 2005, a jury found Mr. Rosen not guilty of the charges.
Regarding the verdict, Paul Chavez of the Associated Press quotes the jury
foreman as saying that Rosen lacked the "means or clout" to carry out the
actions the government alleged and that his role "was as a fundraiser." Mr.
Chavez quotes another juror as offering the explanation that "he [Rosen] got
in over his head."
If Rosen "got in over his head" in that alluring pool, someone must
have pushed him. After all, Mrs. Clinton and other sophisticates around her
surely knew that an event as grand and lavish as Event 39 didn't come cheap.
Hadn't it been widely reported, for example, that the Brad Pitt Jennifer
Aniston wedding, which accommodated a mere 200 guests at a Malibu mansion
only two weeks before Event 39, cost $1 million?
And what of Mr. Paul, who had consistently asserted that more than
$1.2 million of his own money went into paying for the Gala and who had
pointed out in his July, 2001, letter to Mrs. Clinton that the concert alone
had cost approximately $875,000, a fee that Mr. Paul alleges Mrs. Clinton
helped to negotiate. (That act alone would prove that Mrs. Clinton knew that
Event 39 cost more than what she told the FEC.)
Meanwhile, inside the Beltway, FEC officials may or may not have been
aware of the implications of the Pitt Aniston wedding. But they were
certainly aware of Mr. Paul's charges and continued to believe that
something was rotten in the state of Event 39. The agency, therefore, kept
its investigation open, announcing in 2005 that it had found "probable cause
to believe that New York Senate 2000 and Andrew Grossman, in his official
capacity as treasurer" violated Federal election law and the Commission's
regulations.
With respect to this finding, the Commission and the Respondents, in
December of 2005, entered into a Conciliation Agreement that requires
Respondents to pay a civil penalty of $35,000 and amend New York Senate 2000
's disclosure report to reflect $721,895 of unreported in-kind
contributions. It is important to note that Mr. Paul, who certainly knows
the Gala's true cost, believes that the amended report Mrs. Clinton filed on
January 30, 2006, continues to misrepresent the source and amount of his
contribution. As a result he intends to file a new FEC complaint. But since
Mrs. Clinton most likely believes that the Conciliation Agreement puts her
in the clear, the question now becomes this: Can she finally sigh that "all'
s well that ends well?"
Wise counsel suggests that Mrs. Clinton hold off on such a sigh for at
least three reasons other than the new allegation: (1) According to Mr.
Paul, the Department of Justice has not signed off on its interest in Event
39 (2) Mr. Paul's civil suit is still pending (3) The Court of Public
Opinion has yet to consider the full implications of the Event 39 scandal.
If it proceeds as scheduled, the civil suit will bring to light new
information of importance both to the public and to the Department of
Justice. However, the American people can begin to make judgments about the
scandal based upon information already available. With respect to these
judgments, Ms. Witt is entirely correct to say that the central question is
"Who knew?"
Regarding that question, a Federal jury decided that Mr. Rosen didn't
know. In contrast, the FEC's finding of probable cause that Mrs. Clinton's
campaign violated Federal election law asserts that Mr. Grossman knew. But
how can it be possible that only Mr. Grossman knew? Who else must have
known? Once again Ms. Witt is right on target when she asks, "Did the
Clintons know that all that love Hollywood-style had come with such a big
price tag?"
The specific question for the public is, of course, "Did Hillary
Clinton know?" This question interests Dick Morris, a political consultant
who began working intimately with Bill Clinton in 1978 and served as White
House Political Consultant from 1994 to1996.
Writing in the New York Post (January 15, 2006), Morris arrives at his
conclusion methodically, first characterizing Mrs. Clinton's management
style: "I've worked with Hillary: She's a master of detail." He also
considers motive: "Had Hillary reported accurately the cost of the event,
she would have had almost $1 million less in hard money than she got by
understating it. This extra hard money was pivotal to her ability to finance
her 2000 Senate campaign." (Here, Mr. Morris, who knows a thing or two about
money and political campaigns, reflects HILLCAP's line of thinking.)
Having brought method, expertise, and a blue-collar common sense to
analyzing the problem, Mr. Morris arrives at his conclusion: "A decision to
underreport the costs of an event like the Hollywood extravaganza by almost
three-quarters of a million dollars could not possibly have been made
without her [Mrs. Clinton's] knowledge and approval - probably, at her
direction."
Actually, most Americans analyze human behavior as Mr. Morris does,
refusing to limit themselves to the strictures that fill lawbooks or to be
distracted by ad hominem attacks slung by politicians and their shills.
Instead, they arrive at their conclusions by considering both factual and
circumstantial evidence, always in the light of the realities of human
nature.
With respect to Event 39, nothing exemplifies the wisdom of ordinary
Americans better than exchanges posted on the Washington Post's website on
October 10, 2005, in which Ms. Witt responds to questions from the public
regarding her article. The summaries below, taken from the full texts at
washingtonpost.com "Live Discussions," represent essential reading for all
who would presume to say they are informed about Event 39.
Los Angeles, CA: The writer asks why Ms. Witt did not quote the
"Howard Wolfson" article from the Washington Post, August 17, 2000, which
supports the notion that the campaign knew the Gala's true cost but
attributed it to in-kind contributions (a meaningless distinction for FEC
purposes). The writer also asks why Ms. Witt does not discuss the
implications of the faulty report that the campaign submitted to the FEC
"two months later."
April Witt: Ms. Witt responds that the Post article only implies that
Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, admitted that the campaign knew
that the Gala cost $1 million, explaining that she didn't write about
Wolfson's statement because it (the article) doesn't place the $1 million
sum "inside direct quotes." Then, Ms. Witt makes the following important
comment: "I found no record in the Post database that anyone from the
campaign demanded a correcton [sic] on that $1 million dollar-figure at the
time. So that certainly raised questions for me about why the figures
ultimately reported to the Federal Election Commission were so much lower."
Los Angeles, CA: The writer asks how it can be believable that Mr.
Paul "gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary's campaign . . .spent three
hours sitting next to hillary [sic] and Bill at the concert, then three more
hours sitting next to Bill over dinner" and yet "would NOT tell them what
he did for them." The writer also asks why Mr. Rosen was the only person
indicted and tried.
April Witt: To the first query, Ms. Witt responds as follows: "Peter
Paul has been quite clear in saying consistently that he made the
contributions in order to curry favor with Bill Clinton in hopes of doing
business with him after the president left office. So why on earth would he
want to keep those contributions secret? I can't think of a logical
explanation. The jury didn't get one." To the second question, she responds,
"I don't know what Hillary knew and I'm not in the business of making
guesses. But you are not the only person to ask why all blame fell to
Rosen."
New York, NY: The writer asks why Ms. Witt didn't interview the
Clintons for her story, opines that Ms. Witt "treated [the Clintons] like
innocent bystanders," and asks about Mrs. Clinton's role in "cultivating
Peter Paul and inducing him to give her money."
April Witt: Ms. Witt responds by stating that she had access only to
the Clintons' lawyer. She then goes on as follows: "Certainly Hillary played
a role in cultivating Peter Paul. There are many photographs, as well as
video footage, of her speaking with Peter Paul in a very chummy matter. He's
said consistently that he wouldn't have given any money just because Rosen
asked. It required encouragement from the Clintons, he says."
Chicago, IL: The writer points out that even after "Hillary Clinton
[was] served with a civil complaint, an FEC complaint and a demand letter
all supplying facts and checks substantiating Paul's claims," her campaign
filed a "third fraudulent FEC report." The writer then asks "how can you say
you dont [sic] know what Hillary knew about at least the last FEC report
that could not be blamed on Rosen?"
April Witt: Ms. Witt responds as follows: "You are certainly correct
about the timeline as I recall it. Far be it from me to try to channel Sen.
Clinton, but she might well argue that she didn't take everything Paul
alleged in his civil suit as gospel. She's fighting the suit vigorously,
after all. Unfortunately for her, the FBI subsequently confirmed Paul's
allegation that the gala cost more than previously reported to the FEC."
As Americans sit on the Court of Public Opinion, nothing better takes
them to the point at which they can form their opinions about Mrs. Clinton's
involvement in the scandal surrounding Event 39 than the perceptive insights
of their fellow citizens reported above.
And readers should do just that regarding Hillary Clinton, the "model
politician" who in August of 2000, upon learning of Mr. Paul's felony
conviction twenty years prior, denied taking money from Mr. Paul only to
return his $2,000 contribution when the truth came out.
The "model politician" who vowed never to take any further
contributions from Mr. Paul, only to hit him up for $100,000 in the form of
a "stock transfer" nine days later.
The "model politician" who publicly distanced herself from Mr. Paul
only to join with her husband in continuing a close relationship with him,
even inviting him aboard Air Force One, where, according to Mr. Paul, the
President convinced him to contribute the aforementioned marketable
securities, a contribution which as a matter of demonstrable fact Mr. Paul
did make.
And, finally, the "model politician" who developed a case of
Clintonian Amnesia about the whole Event 39 Affair, including the more than
$1.2 million contributed by Mr. Paul and the false reports submitted to the
FEC.
Peter F. Paul v. William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, et
al.
As a preface to this section, it is appropriate to comment about Mr.
Paul's felony convictions. Indeed, some readers will ask why this
information was not introduced at the outset of Part One. The answer to that
question is simple: Mr. Paul's convictions have nothing to do with the facts
surrounding his activities in producing and contributing to Event 39, with
the underreporting of Event 39's cost by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, or with
any Federal actions brought as a result of that underreporting.
With respect to the civil suit, whether in a court of law or in the
Court of Public Opinion, people may rightly take Mr. Paul's past into
account as they assess the truthfulness of statements he alleges he made and
others made. However, no reasonable person would argue that his past bad
acts require us to disbelieve everything he alleges; for accepting the
principle behind such an argument not only contradicts reason, it also would
bring an end to all courtroom testimony by felons who have agreed to plea
bargains. Will any person, for example, argue that the information Mr. Jack
Abramoff is providing to the Department of Justice ought to be disbelieved
on its face?
It should be clear, then, that those who directly assert or imply that
Mr. Paul's past in any way has something to do with the relationship between
Federal election law and Event 39 are the worst kind of political shills.
But what of those who do the same regarding his civil suit while ignoring
hard as well as circumstantial evidence? We can be certain they are the kind
of people who dismiss as mere "peccadilloes" Bill Clinton's lies and
contemptible behavior, especially toward women, and accept as God's truth
the literally hundreds of can't recalls, can't remembers, and can't
recollects Bill and Hillary Clinton have uttered ad nauseam for years on
end.
For those who are interested in evaluating the suit with respect to
civil law, from its implications regarding Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the
underreporting of Event 39's costs and Mr. Clinton's involvement with Mr.
Paul and Event 39 to its general implications regarding the Clintons, a
brief summary follows. Those who wish to read the entire text may do so at
www.hillcap.org.
With respect to Mr. Clinton and his friend James Levin, the suit
alleges fraud and deceit regarding "the business relationship and employment
agreement negotiated by Plaintiff and Defendant William Jefferson Clinton,
by and through his agent, Defendant
James Levin, in mid-July 2000 and commencing after Defendant William
Jefferson Clinton left The White House in January 2001" and seeks awards for
compensatory and punitive damages as well as for a number of costs.
In layman's terms, Mr. Paul alleges that he would never have expended
"in excess of $1.9 million" on the gala if it were not for promises Mr.
Clinton made to work with him and his companies after he left office,
promises which Mr. Paul alleges Mr. Clinton "had no intention" of keeping.
For those interested in knowing the terms of the deal Mr. Paul alleges he
negotiated with Mr. Clinton, they are as follows: Mr. Clinton would receive
$10 million in stock and $5 million in cash in return for promotional work
lasting a few years.
With respect to Hillary Clinton, her Senate Committee, and David
Rosen, the suit makes two fundamental allegations (1) civil conspiracy in
that the parties "tacitly and/or expressly" agreed to the fraud and deceit
attributed to Mr. Clinton (2) fraud and deceit in that the parties falsely
represented that they would report Mr. Paul's contributions made to Mrs.
Clinton through the Gala to Federal election authorities in a manner that
was consistent with Mr. Paul's "donative intent" and "applicable laws and
regulations."
In total, Mr. Paul's lawsuit lists seventeen causes of action, all of
which bear upon the scandal regarding Event 39 or reveal the powerful
influence Mrs. Clinton's campaign had with the White House. With respect to
that influence, how does one otherwise explain film and photos showing Mr.
Tendo Oto, Mr. Paul's Japanese business partner, sitting immediately behind
President Clinton at the Hollywood Gala or attending a reception at the
White House? Is it legal for a campaign to accept contribution from a
foreign national? Is it correct protocol to place a person without security
clearance (Mr. Oto doesn't even have a Social Security number, the starting
point for researching security clearance) in such proximity to the
President?
Of course, these details about Mr. Oto represent only a few of the
myriad facts that Mr. Paul is prepared to offer at trial: a huge pile of
documents, financial data, video, photos, and testimony that will greatly
increase in size when it is augmented by information obtained through
pre-trail depositions.
The "Case of Mr. Tendo Oto" is, nevertheless, very significant because
it reminds us that a jury in a civil case draws its conclusions based upon h
ard and circumstantial evidence, bringing a large dose of common sense to
bear upon both. Nothing better exemplifies this truth than the civil verdict
rendered against O.J. Simpson and in numerous other cases in which a
defendant has previously been found not guilty in a criminal trial.
That fact explains why Mrs. Clinton has labored so mightily to have
Mr. Paul's suit dismissed. But even if she were to succeed, the feeling of
political security she would achieve will be fleeting; for Mr. Paul can
always appeal his case to the Court of Public Opinion, rightly the highest
court in the nation and one about which Lincoln observed, "You can fool some
of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but
you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Joe S.
"Pookie" <pooki...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:yjnSf.35$jt3...@fe08.lga...
> Hillary Clinton & Event 39:
> Legal House of Cards or Little Crooked House?
> The Fraudulent Senator: Part 4 of a 7 Part Series
>
Peter Paul's suit was dismissed by the judge because Paul presented no
evidence of any value. His suit was mindless ramblings.
mlsote...@yahoo.com
Pookie
<mlsote...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142583528.7...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> the Clinton obssesion is all they have left, sad times for wingnuts.
True...other than the administration, the House, the Senate, the majority of
governorships, the majority of state Houses & soon, the judiciary...