PETER PAUL'S LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON POST

HillCAP.org ^ | 10-12-05 | Peter Paul

[doug from upland]

LETTER ON HILLCAP.ORG

Peter Paul's Letter to the Washington Post

October 11, 2005

Editors of the Washington Post

Re: House of Cards, Washington Post Sunday Magazine, October 9, 2005

I was elated to learn that the Post editors assigned a Pulitzer Prize nominated "investigative" reporter to finally report all the facts surrounding the campaign finance fraud that Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign committed in 2000. (see www.hillcap.org)

Since I am both the contributor of the more than $1.2 million in unreported contributions at the heart of the criminal charges brought by the Justice Department against Hillary's finance director David Rosen, and the whistle blower whose civil fraud suit against the Clinton's led to Rosen's indictment, I had more than a passing interest in the truth finally being published by a "paper of record".

You can not imagine my disappointment upon reading "House of Cards" the 8000 word tabloid style white wash of the role played by Hillary Clinton in inducing and directing the largest campaign finance fraud on record.

As you can see from the two email requests I made to April Witt, (appended below) after spending twelve hours on the phone in interviews with her for the story, I valiantly tried to ensure that the basic facts that are reflected throughout the public record, including your own newspaper, were included in her story. Amazingly, April would refused all my requests. She would not even refer to the scoop by the Post's then reporter Lloyd Grove, of Hillary Clinton's spokesman's admission that they knew the Gala fund raiser I produced for her in August, 2000, "cost more than $1 million and was an in kind contribution".

This admission is extremely important to understand the significance of the first of three fraudulent FEC reports filed by Hillary's campaign two months later, three weeks before her election. That FEC report intentionally misled the FEC, and the voters who relied on it, regarding the amount I personally contributed (more than $1.2 million according to the Office of Public Integrity's case in chief against Rosen), and the fact that I personally was the donor, not my public company.

This omission regarding a "smoking gun" that your own paper uncovered, as well as the others described in my emails, demonstrate the most outrageous effort to protect and advocate for Hillary Clinton that I have yet seen in the Mainstream Media. It even trumps the New York Times’ February, 2005, 2200 word attack piece on me that blamed the "felonious" donor (me) for making the largest donation of Hillary's campaign, and then demanding that it be legally reported.

I would hope that when your editorial board reviews the facts presented in my emails to April Witt, that you would make some effort to amend your 8000 word "romance epic" to include the most salient facts of the story, even though they may raise legitimate questions about how Hillary induced me to become her largest contributor, hid the fact from the voters of New York through deceptive statements made through your paper on August 15 and August 17, 2000, and then enabled three fraudulent FEC reports to be filed, while making no effort to correct them for the last five years, or to refund the undisputed illegal contribution of more than $1.2 million as corroborated by the FBI.

As a candidate, and now the elected Senator from New York, she has a continuing legal duty to ensure that all reports made by her campaign to federal agencies like the FEC and IRS, are accurate and that any illegal contributions are returned within thirty days of notice of their illegality. All of which Hillary continues to defy. No one from Hillary’s campaign has yet to contact me about the evidence I have been supplying to Hillary since June 28, 2001, confirming what the FBI has stated in its own affidavits, that I personally contributed more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign.

Please review the attached emails and act in accordance with your solemn responsibility as a leading member of the Fourth Estate to ensure the public is honestly and accurately informed of the actions of their public servants and elected officials, so they can make educated decisions on exercising their constitutional rights to vote and petition their government with grievances.

Very Truly,

Peter Paul

[MikeA]

Why is it when the Slimes and the Whitewashington Post report on Tom Delay or Karl Rove they look for all the information they can find establishing guilt while ignoring any exculpatory information, including the outrageous actions of the prosecutors or their single-minded and obsessive drive to throw anything that will stick at their targets?

But when it's Hillary Clinton, or nearly any other Democrat, the only thing that gets reported, if anything gets reported at all, is whatever seems exculpatory, including trashing the reputation of the accusers, and ignores all information pointing to guilt. If this story were about a top Republican, you can bet suddenly the media would be interested in reporting all the facts pointing to the guilt of the Republican in question and no mitigating factors, including the inapplicabilty of the laws such as is the case in the Rove and Delay matters, wouldn't be reported or considered relevent.

Sheesh, our media is no different than Pravda or Tass was in the USSR. And I can't imagine you'd get any more of a one party perspective from North Korea's television and print news media.

[expatpat]

Where are the emails?

[expatpat]

You are forgetting the fact that the W. Post is the house organ for the Democratic Party. What on earth do you expect?

[billhilly]

We need to stop bothering the Washington Post. They (the reporters, editors and owners) are most likely sitting in some conference room applauding some democratic victory somewhere.

[Joe Boucher]

In 1974 during the Watergate I read the Wash.Post eagerly ,daily while in the Army and working at the Pentagon.
Since then it has become a slanted biased rag that I wouldn't whip my butt with.

[connectthedots]

go to the link.

[doug from upland]

WASHINGTON COMPOST STORY

[doug from upland]

Go to the HillCAP link and scroll down for the link to the emails.

[Cicero]

I hate to say it, but they were mostly peddling lies back then, too.

[Mia T]

bump

ESTRICH BOOK EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN

[Mia T]

bump

Moribund old media, quite simply, are part of the clinton agitprop. We must stay clear of them. Bypass them. Who needs them, anyway?

My original response to your announcement of the upcoming Post article:

Careful Doug...

When the Left assesses clintoncorruption (treason, rape, or whatever), a clown-like character of the crime or the criminal is the reliable default mitigating factor, with the magnitude of the mitigation directly proportional to both the intensity of clownlike affect and the seriousness of the crime and inversely proportional to the distance to an election in which a clinton is running.

We used to execute rapists and traitors. Today we elect them president?

sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)


by Mia T, 8.23.05


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

the MAD hillary series
WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS
FOR THE CHILDREN,
FOR AMERICA,
FOR THE WORLD


madhillary.com (coming soon)
hillarytalks.blogspot.com
_{COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005}

MAD hillary series #1 ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON + CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON TO OVAL OFFICE	MAD hillary series #2 HILLARY'S MIDDLE-FINGER MINDSET Do you really want THAT finger on the button?
MAD hillary series #3 "What, me worry?" THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON TO OVAL OFFICE	MAD hillary series #4 NANO-PRESIDENT the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton
MAD hillary series #5 SCHEMA PINOCCHIO how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor

[ChildOfThe60s]

Whip or wipe? Better for wrapping fish.