Normally it is the Republicans who anoint their next presidential candidate four years in advance. This time, however, it is the Democrats. If you can't acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2008, you are either in denial, naive, or simply not telling the truth. If Kerry is still hanging around in 2007, the Clinton attack machine will make him nostalgic for the days of the SwiftVet ads.
The GOP is focusing on Hillary because it hopes to rough her up in 2006 and perhaps stall her momentum in 2008. Too bad Rudy won't run. He is probably the only one that might have a chance at stopping her.
As Hillary prepares for her 2008 run, there are probably two questions that are running through her mind: Married to Bill, or divorced from Bill? Bill dead, or Bill alive?
I thought that Finklestein was out of the closet. Anyway, who cares? As for Peter Paul, he is a Democrat, not a Republican. Is he in your circle of west coast acquaintances?
legendgames.net
Hillary's Diva Disaster
Analysis by MaxedOutMama
With the notable exception of the NY Sun, the print media has been almost adamant in its determination to ignore David Rosen's indictment and impending trial for conspiring to falsify campaign finance reports for Hillary Clinton's 2000 senate campaign, most significantly by securing a fake invoice to support a much lower figure for the costs of a fundraiser. Such an understatement would have allowed the Clinton campaign to use campaign donations as hard money rather than soft money.
Information and allegations related to a civil suit against Hillary's campaign and other parties will undercut the media's ability to ignore this story. It now seems likely that the end of the media blackout will shortly be followed by revelations which may well short-circuit Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential bid.
The documents and allegations not contained in the Rosen indictment are listed on the new website, hillcap.org. The website is clearly set up for political reasons; the website openly states that it is a project of the conservative United States Justice Foundation and that its intent is to foster examination of the campaign finance irregularities in Hillary Clinton's 2000 senatorial campaign. Yet in this case and because of the outstanding indictment the origin of the documents does not undercut their significance, although it does dictate a cautious evaluation of these allegations.
David Rosen's trial was scheduled to begin May 3rd. Rosen's indictment, which does not refer to the contributor and senator involved by name, is available at the website. There is no doubt that the event referred to was an August 12, 2000 Hollywood Gala joint tribute to Bill Clinton and fundraiser for Hillary's senate campaign. The documents posted on the Hillcap website provide the information that the "C-1" referred to in the indictment was Peter Paul and his companies, including Stan Lee Media.
Peter Paul has filed a civil suit against Hillary and Bill Clinton, Hillary's campaign committee, Jim Levin, Aaron Tonken and Gary Smith. He alleges that these parties conspired to defraud him of 1.9 million in campaign contributions made largely under an understanding which was not fulfilled. In his complaint Paul alleges that he was originally approached by Tonken and asked for contributions. As the relationship became closer, Paul states that he himself came up with the idea of working with President Clinton once the President left office, that representatives of the Clintons led him to believe that Mr. Clinton would work with Paul to promote his corporate ventures once the President had left office as long as Paul was sufficiently helpful in the interim, and that those promises were not kept.
Paul's complaint alleges that in April 2000, Edward Rendell requested that Paul pledge $150,000 in stock to the DNC to underwrite a "Hollywood Supports Gore" fundraiser on June 8th. Paul states that he pledged the stock and paid the expenses through Tonken, that Rendell, Rosen and Tonken also asked Paul to pay the expenses of a June 9, 2000 luncheon fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's campaign, and that Paul also pledged $150,000 in stock to be delivered in September. At the luncheon Paul wrote an additional check for $2,000 directly to Hillary Clinton's campaign and this is verified, for it is the campaign contribution that was returned in August.
Paul met Hillary Clinton at the luncheon, and Paul alleges that in June he met with Rendell, Tonken and Berger to plan a DNC fundraiser at Paul's home. During the course of the preparations, Paul alleges that he spoke directly to Rosen and said that he wished to support the DNC with the purpose of developing a relationship with President Clinton that would allow Paul to work with Mr. Clinton after he left office. Subsequently, Paul alleges that Rosen arranged for Tonken to ride back to the White House in Mr. Clinton's limousine after a DNC fundraiser in Georgetown, that Chaka Khan witnessed the conversation, and that Tonken gathered both that President Clinton was interested in working with Paul after he left office and that President Clinton was very interested in having Paul support Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Following that conversation, Paul alleges that Rosen informed him that President Clinton wished Paul to speak with James Levin as his personal intermediary. According to Paul Levin also told him that President Clinton wished Paul to work out his arrangements with Levin, and both Rosen and Levin conveyed the message that negotiations as to a future working relationship would proceed more smoothly if Paul could assist Hillary Clinton's campaign.
As a result of these discussions, Paul states that he developed the plan for the Hollywood fundraiser with Hillary Clinton's campaign, that it was Paul's idea to have it be a joint affair combining a tribute to President Clinton as well as a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's campaign, and that Hillary Clinton's campaign selected the date of August 12, 2000 for the fundraiser.
From Rosen's indictment, we learn that Rosen worked on location with Paul for several weeks to prepare for the fundraiser, and that Paul ("C-1") made in-kind donations of over a million dollars to pay for this event. Paul explicitly claims that he made it clear that his goal was to secure President Clinton's promise to work with him once his term had expired, and that Paul made a formal written offer of terms and conditions governing that future relationship. According to Paul, Rosen said he had conveyed the offer to President Clinton. Paul understood that the offer had been accepted when President Clinton agreed to appear as the honoree, allow Paul complete control of the event, and promised through intermediaries that President Clinton would appear at no further Hollywood events.
Paul states he had only agreed to pay for $525,000 of the costs related to the Hollywood fundraiser, but he was forced to bear costs of over a million after threats from Rosen, Levin and Tonken that if he failed to meet the full cost the agreement with Mr. Clinton would be abrogated. Paul also alleges that both Clintons called him during this period to thank him for his efforts and to encourage him to continue them.
By all accounts it was quite a success, except perhaps for Paul who states that he was forced to borrow money to cover the costs. According to the indictment, about 350 people attended the concert and dinner, which cost $25,000 per couple, and over 1000 attended the concert, which cost $1000. There are a number of details in Paul's complaint which presumably could be checked, such as a separate agreement with Paul signed by Rosen involving a Japanese national by the name of Oto and the fact that the Secret Service was instructed to allow Paul a free hand with seating arrangements. Paul claims that during the event President Clinton spoke with him and confirmed the agreement to work with Paul after President Clinton left office.
Less than a week after the Hollywood fundraiser, Lloyd Grove of the Washington Post questioned the Clinton campaign's connection with Peter Paul while raising the issue of Paul's old felony conviction. As a result, Wolfson, representing Hillary Clinton's campaign, stated publicly that the campaign would accept no donations from Paul (conveniently ignoring the fact that they had already benefited to the tune of over a million dollars), and in fact returned Paul's cash donation of $2,000 from the June luncheon. Yet according to Paul the Clinton representatives kept requesting money while publicly disavowing the connection.
The points that most directly implicate Hillary Clinton are the allegations raised in two Washington Post articles and the response by Hillary Clinton's campaign. She could not have been unaware of the real situation regarding the in-kind donations that Paul had made to her campaign, and it defies credibility that she was unaware of the controversy over Paul or Wolfson's statements on her campaign's behalf. Paul alleges that he raised his concerns about the public repudiation of the connection with Levin, and that he was assured by Levin that this was merely a media strategy which did not cancel the ongoing relationship. Levin's reassurances came along with the advice that Paul should remain silent about his role in the meantime.
Paul claims that Rosen continued to pressure him for the delivery of the $150,000 in stock he had previously pledged to Hillary Clinton's campaign, but that he was reluctant to deliver because he had so substantially exceeded his promised contribution for the Hollywood fundraiser. The complaint alleges that Paul and Rosen reached a compromise of $55,000 worth of stock.
Possibly due to the concerns raised by the Washington Post articles, Paul alleges that Rosen requested that the transfer be made to what Rosen described as a women's rights organization in New York, the Working Families Party. A document purporting to be a copy of Rosen's fax with the name of the organization, $100,000 dollars, and an account number to which the transfer should be made is posted on the Hillcap website. According to the website, the transfer of stock valued at nearly $55,000 was completed but the Working Families Party denies ever having received it.
By October Paul alleges that he was having trouble communicating with the Clintons or their assigned intermediaries. Paul further states that by late November these communication difficulties had engendered doubt as to whether President Clinton had ever intended to fulfill his commitment to work with Paul after he left office. Paul was also concerned about reporting his contributions, which he claims Rosen had told him need not be done until after the election.
At the end of 2000 Stan Lee Media began to suffer financial problems and eventually filed for bankruptcy. Paul alleges that he was shocked to discover in 2001 from the FEC's website that none of his contributions except for the $2000 returned to him had ever been reported, although there was a record of a $366,564.69 contribution from Stan Lee Media. Concluding he had been defrauded, in June of 2001 Paul filed suit asking for return of his contributions.
On July 16, 2001 he wrote to Senator Clinton demanding that she return his contributions as required under federal law since they had not been reported and were thus illegal. A copy of this alleged letter is posted on the website, which also states that the letter was hand-delivered to Hillary Clinton's Senate Office.
Peter Paul is not a particularly credible source. However, the indictment against David Rosen lends weight to Paul's basic allegations. In addition, the information contained in his complaint provides a number of details that can be verified. Paul names witnesses to various meetings, one written agreement, a photo session with Tonken at that White House for his Japanese connection Oto, and alleges that he received written thank you notes signed by the Clintons for his work on the Hollywood fundraiser.
Hillary Clinton must have known of the Washington Post articles and Wolfson's disavowals of any intent to accept donations from Peter Paul mere days after the Hollywood event. She must have known that Peter Paul had just made a massive in-kind donation to her campaign. Without a tacit understanding that Paul's in-kind donations would not be reported or at least not under his name, it is hard to imagine that she would not have countermanded Wolfson's statements before the discrepancy could be brought to bear against her. A dispassionate observer might reasonably suspect that the representation of the donor in the FEC report was related to the press's scrutiny of the relationship between the campaign and Paul.
While Hillary Clinton herself probably cannot be directly implicated in any offense against the law, it is hard to see how she can claim plausible deniability in this matter. And given the highly public nature of these events, the record of the Washington Post articles, and the eventual outcome of the Rosen trial, most journalists would feel the need to express open skepticism over any claim that Hillary Clinton did not at least remain silent about her knowledge of a significant violation of campaign finance laws during her 2000 campaign. |
