Replies

It Pays to Have (Appointed) Friends in High Places
The Fraudulent Senator: Part 7 of a 7 Part Series
Politics/Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
March 21, 2006
With the Abramoff scandal prompting Democrats to charge that the Republicans in Washington are mired in a culture of corruption it is perhaps the wisest of the left who remain silent, passively condoning the ultra-partisan activities of their leadership. There are good reasons for many elected officials on the left to choose to remain silent. One of those reasons is that one never knows when something from the past is lurking in wait. One of those elected officials from the Democratic side of the aisle is the junior Senator from New York and former First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That Clinton is positioning for a run at the White House is a given. Her re-election to the Senate is almost a lock. She has made such an obvious attempt at moving to the center – and in concert with her husband, the ex-president, making statements that track him moving more to the “progressive” left each time he opens his mouth – that it would be surprising if she hasn’t already received a solicitation letter from the Republican National Committee.

Senator Clinton’s position is furthered along by the fact that she has been involved in so many scandals, both legal and political, that any mention of impropriety or misconduct – especially in light of the indictment of Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and the resignation of Randal “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) – is viewed with a yawn and a, “So What? That’s politics in Washington, isn’t it?” Hillary Clinton has proven to be her party’s version of “the Teflon politician.”

Certainly each administration has the opportunity, and the discretionary right for that matter, to hire, place and promote those that they deem valuable to any given government entity over which they have administrative authority. Many times these appointments and promotions are executed as “rewards” for hard work during a political campaign or for loyalty. Although such appointments are viewed as lacking ethics and often times scrutinized by the mainstream media it is a reality that only the naïve, those blinded by the purity of their ideology and the politically partisan can deny.

It can be supposed, then, that the eight years of the Clinton Administration allowed for time to effectively create a legion of Clinton appointees who would be placed throughout the various federal government agencies and departments. No doubt many of these appointments were warranted by the merits of the individual. But where the appointee’s job performance would ferret out those appointed without the appropriate job skills, there is no filter, no safeguard to detect those whose appointments were based exclusively on political loyalty, whether to a political party or an individual politician.

The Barrett Report

A prime example of how political appointees and politically motivated promotions can be beneficial to those who bestow them can be evidenced in the recent release of the Barrett Report.

The Barrett Report, released January 19th, 2006, is so named for the Independent Counsel David M. Barrett who was charged with investigating the facts surrounding the allegation that former Clinton Administration Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros failed to pay income taxes on "hush money" payments he made to a mistress. The allegations left Cisneros facing an 18-count felony indictment charging conspiracy, obstruction of justice, fraud and perjury. Cisneros later pled guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI about cash payments to his former “liaison.” The plea was accepted by US District Judge Stanley Sporkin, who ordered a $10,000 fine instead of the potential 90-year prison. Cisneros was later pardoned by President Clinton.

One of the key reasons Secretary Cisneros wasn’t exploring the housing conditions of the federal penitentiary system was that he had friends in high places, very high places.

A key operative in clouding the facts surrounding the Cisneros investigation was Lee Radek, head of the Justice Department's Office of Public Integrity. Mr. Radek was elevated to his post by Jo Ann Harris, Justice Department Criminal Division Chief, who was in turn appointed to her post by President Clinton in 1993.

The smallest amount of research illuminates the fact that Mr. Radek was no stranger to playing on the “offensive line,” especially where matters involve campaign finance and members of the Clinton Administration.

It was Radek who vigorously opposed the appointment of a special prosecutor in the Clinton-Gore 1996 “Chinagate” campaign finance scandal. Mr. Radek also was integral in thwarting an investigation into illegal fundraising by then Vice President Al Gore that took place at a California Buddhist temple. In that instance Radek ordered federal prosecutors to stop the investigation. In yet another incident, Radek refused to pursue allegations of a possible three-way quid-pro-quo scheme between the Teamsters Union, the Clinton White House and the Democratic National Committee. This time the allegations involved Teamsters President Ron Carey and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Harold Ickes (now the head of the 527 group The Media Fund).

It should be pointed out that Mr. Radek’s family has ties to Democratic operatives in Washington DC including Washington power broker and DNC rainmaker Patrick O’Connor, who held influence with the Clinton-Gore White House and then Clinton-Gore fundraiser Terry McAuliffe.

The 474-page Barrett Report promised to be a treasure-trove for those who circle when they smell Clinton blood in the water. But this bloodletting was not to be. While those on the left side of the bitterly divided partisan aisle on Capitol Hill loyal to the Clintons ran interference, legal wranglers challenged the report’s release and eventually received a court order calling for the redaction of 120 pages.

In the report Mr. Barrett states, “Enough high-ranking officials with enough power were able to blunt any effort to bring about a full and independent examination of Cisneros' possible tax offenses in the face of what seemed to many to be obvious grounds for such an inquiry." He said his office received "little in the way of cooperation" from the Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service.

Barrett recently issued a press release stating:

"After a thorough reading of the report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a cover-up at high levels of our government and, it appears to have been substantial and coordinated...The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered. Unlike some other cover-ups, this one succeeded.”

He concluded that a more accurate name for this report would have been, “'What We Were Prevented from Investigating.”

Conservative columnist Tony Snow, no stranger to Washington politics, wrote that, “By all accounts, the 400-page Barrett report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects.”

In the end, the redacting of the Barrett Report can do nothing less than present many a disturbing question, including:

What was in the report that could possibly be damaging today and to whom?

Who were those perpetrating the “high level cover-up” and who were they trying to protect?

Given the fact that Radek is essentially a Clinton/Democratic operative, was it appropriate for him to be involved in any way with this investigation and the fruition of the report?

And, continuing with the notion that Radek is a Clinton/Democratic operative; would the redacted portions of the report have affected Hillary Clinton’s chances to once again reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Suffice it to say, it’s good to have friends in high places…or to have placed friends in high places…

The combination of being able to place politically friendly people in positions that could end up coming into play, should the long arm of the law come to call, and having friends who can make things happen for you is a potent combination. To say the least, the Clintons amassed quite a few powerful friends and appointed quite a few friendly people during their eight years in the White House.

Peter Paul and the Gala Event

Perhaps the most stunning example of blatant campaign-finance malfeasance, and perhaps the most egregious in the history of American politics, centers around an event that took place on August of 2000 in the form of a star-studded political fundraising event on a 112-acre estate in the Brentwood Hills outside of Hollywood, California.

This event came to be known to the Hollywood set as The Hollywood Tribute to President William Jefferson Clinton but, in reality, it was also a fundraising event meant to benefit the senatorial campaign of then First Lady Hillary Clinton. The Federal Election Commission and Hillary Clinton’s Senate Campaign Finance Committee came to know the gala event as “Event 39.”

Event 39 brought together the glitterati of the “progressive” left, Hollywood elites and the power-brokers of Southern California, all eager to rub elbows and gain influence with the Clintons. After all, everything that Bill Clinton touched turned to gold.

But putting on any event in Hollywood isn’t anything that can be done with a few thousand dollars. Nor do Hollywood “A-List” celebrities and powerbrokers answer the phone for just anyone. Throw into the mix that the event is going to honor the “progressive” left’s first two-term president and help to finance the senate race of the woman who espoused the ultra-liberal mantra that it takes a village to raise a child, and the logistics and costs can become quite “involved.”

Enter onto the Clinton stage of “step-right up and take your chances,” Mr. Peter F. Paul; producer, businessman, former international lawyer, mover and shaker.

Paul was approached by a former employee, Aaron Tonken (now felon Tonken thanks to a mail and wire fraud conviction), who wanted to impress Paul with his access to then President Clinton and DNC Chairman Ed Rendell. It is through this introduction that Paul was solicited to produce Event 39.

In a nutshell, Paul’s motivation for helping the Clintons out was to capture the star-power of soon-to-be former President Bill Clinton so as to exploit it for a private business venture. It is no secret that former presidents, simply by the nature of having been president, command rainmaker status when it comes to organizations, initiatives and companies. Mr. Paul saw this opportunity when it presented itself in the form of an introduction to the Clinton money machine.

Paul had co-founded a tremendously successful dot-com entertainment company with Stan Lee, the creator of several highly successful comics including Spiderman, X-Men, The Incredible Hulk and more. His plan was to utilize Bill Clinton’s star-power to promote his business venture once Clinton left office. This was all set to become a reality when Paul and Clinton – through Ed Rendell and James Levin (a Chicago Democratic machine flunky) – entered into an employment agreement that required Paul to produce Event 39.

(Read more about "the players" in this scandal by reading Justin Darr's piece Partito Nostro: Doing Business with the Clinton Syndicate)

All sides were agreeable; the White House sent all the signals that the post-presidential employment agreement was solid, Paul, satisfied that a deal had been struck, started the ball rolling on Event 39. Everyone seemed to be quite happy with the arrangements.

(You can read more about the intimate details of Mr. Paul and Mr. Lee’s partnership by reading Part Two of this series titled Hillary’s Nemesis: Peter Paul by Joan Swirsky)

Paul produced, coordinated and underwrote Event 39. He booked the location, negotiated with performers to donate their time and talent and put together an invitation-only concert and dinner fundraising event that carried a $1000 a seat and $25,000 per couple price tag for admission. According to Paul, who referenced the FEC General Counsel Reports, “the event raked in over $1 million for Hillary’s senate run. It became the largest event ever produced for a president in Hollywood and the largest private concert closed to the public.”

As with any fundraising venture, be it charitable or political, costs mount. In the end, Peter Paul spent more than $1.2 million dollars of his own money on Event 39, as attested to in an FBI affidavit. But that wasn’t the extent of Paul’s contribution to Hillary Clinton’s Senate 2000 Campaign.

At the request, and with the encouragement and support of the likes of Ed Rendell, Terry McAuliffe and Harold Ickes, Paul entered into the world of Clinton/DNC campaign finance, a world that included a $30,000 contribution and a commitment to co-host a DNC fundraising dinner in February of 2000, the “honor” – and the expense – of hosting Al Gore’s first major Hollywood fundraising event and the “opportunity” to have co-hosted and underwritten a VIP fundraising luncheon and tea for Hillary Clinton. Paul also donated a check for $2000 to Hillary’s senatorial campaign. This will be important to note.

Peter F. Paul had become the single greatest contributor to Hillary Clinton’s senatorial campaign. Everyone was happy and the money was rolling in for the Clinton fundraising machine until the Washington Post ran one of its few articles critical of Hillary Clinton.

The Wheels of the Bus Start to Fall Off

It should be pointed out that while the Clintonistas in the mainstream media like to paint Paul as a Democratic operative who was firmly ensconced in the hierarchy of Hollywood’s liberal left, the truth of the matter is that he was a successful businessman adept at recognizing an opportunity for furthering his projects. In fact, research makes it apparent that he did what any good businessman does when it comes to politics, he played both sides of the aisle, or as they say in many political realms, he “sprinkled the infield.”

Up until Paul’s introduction to the Clintons his business was thriving. Soon after, however, the same could not be said. (Read Part Two – Hillary’s Nemesis: Peter Paul for a more in-depth accounting of the demise of Mr. Paul’s company)

Just days after Event 39 the Washington Post ran Lloyd Grove’s article questioning whether Hillary had turned soft on crime. It would seem that in Paul’s earlier years as an international lawyer he had run amok of the legal system in the form of pleading guilty to the felony of defrauding a communist dictator, this “defrauding” being an initiative to undermine Fidel Castro. The conviction was for his roll in what has now come to be known as the “Cuban Coffee Caper.” Suffice it to say that Paul would have been better off if he had been involved in the “Cuban Cohiba Caper,” what with Bill’s affinity for “fine” cigars.

At this accusation, Hillary’s mouthpiece, Howard Wolfson, sprang into action. Wolfson stated for the record – he vowed – that Hillary Clinton “will not be accepting and donations from him [Paul].” But, it only took 48-hours for Wolfson to discredit his initial statement when he announced that Hillary’s senatorial campaign had returned a $2000 contribution from Paul, received in June of 2000 in connection with two additional fundraisers that Paul financed.

Not so surprisingly, a brilliant example of the Clinton gall took place a week later. After both Hillary and Bill sent personal letters to Paul designed to reassure him of their close personal relationship, comments in the media notwithstanding, a fax was sent by David Rosen, the national finance director for Hillary’s senatorial campaign – on “Hillary Clinton for Senate” letterhead no less – Paul was again solicited for a campaign contribution, another $100,000 for the First Lady’s senate campaign.

To bring the duplicity of Hillary Clinton’s public face into even clearer focus, and because Peter Paul – is more worldly than the typical Clinton target – he refused to generate one more cent for Hillary’s senate campaign unless he was granted assurances from “the man” himself. Hillary, the First Lady and senatorial candidate herself, arranged a meeting between Paul and the president.

This meeting took place on Air Force One in Los Angeles. There were a few dozen back slaps, a few “I feel your pain’s,” a videotaped thank you to Paul and a promise that the deal between he and Paul to do promotion for his publicly traded company was a solid. The up front costs to Paul were $10 million in stock, $5 million in cash and a $1 million donation to the president’s foundation. Clinton’s reassurance found Paul contributing another $55,000 in marketable securities to Hillary’s campaign right on the spot; a $55,000 campaign contribution from a man publicly described as persona non grata by Hillary’s campaign spokesman just weeks before.

The Crime

Having gall is not a crime in the United States. Neither is being disingenuous. But knowingly breaking campaign finance law is against the law.

Regardless of the public decry that Hillary Clinton would not take money from Peter Paul, the fact that she did isn’t something in which the criminal justice system would be interested. Saying one thing and then doing another is perfectly acceptable by legal standards although ethically it is reprehensible, especially as a characteristic in someone who is running for public office.

The criminal justice system, however, by its mandate, is required to be interested in the filing of false reports to the Federal Election Commission. This is what Hillary Clinton’s senatorial campaign did, and more than once.

In February 2001, while Paul was struggling with problems surrounding his personal empire, he discovered that in separate filings to the FEC Hillary Clinton’s senatorial campaign had hidden the $1.2 million-plus that he had contributed to her campaign. In fact, they had underreported the cost of Event 39 itself by more than $700,000 not to mention the fair market value of the donated time of the performers.

It is this underreporting that is the crime. In the game of hard money/soft money political campaign contributions, Hillary’s senate campaign would have had to pay back more than $800,000 in hard money contributions at a time when her campaign could least afford it. In fact, if she would have played by the rules, her campaign would have gone bankrupt.

(For a more in-depth accounting of the financial accounting read Part 4 – Hillary Clinton and Event 39 by A.J. DiCintio.)

On July 16, 2001 Paul wrote – and had delivered to Clinton in her senate chambers – a demand letter requesting that she return his unreported donation, something she is required to do by law. In the letter he stated that her campaign’s FEC filings had underreported the actual cost of Event 39 and cited the section of the Code of Federal Regulations that requires illegal contributions to be returned within 30 days of determining their illegality. Also on July 16, 2001, one month after filing and serving a civil complaint on Senator Clinton detailing the fraud she had perpetrated on him, Paul filed a complaint with the FEC.

Senator Hillary Clinton neither returned Paul’s contribution, as required by law, nor did she direct her staff to amend the FEC filings.

The Mechanized Hum of the Clinton Machine

What do they say about a Hollywood Mogul scorned? That saying may not yet be coined but if Peter Paul has anything to say about its wording it should be quite impressive.

Paul, not willing to take his fleecing sitting down, had started to blow the whistle on yet another Clinton scandal. The question this time was whether or not the “progressive” left and the mainstream media would defend one of its own or feed them to the wolves bred in Arkansas.

In March of 2001 Paul presented all of his evidence to Justice Department attorneys. In June he filed a civil lawsuit against the Clintons. Also in June, Paul’s attorneys began detailing the allegations against Clinton directly to then Attorney General John Ashcroft and Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff. He filed additional complaints with the FEC. And in July he gave an exclusive interview to ABC 20/20’s Brian Ross detailing the fraud committed and the Clintons complete lack of ethics.

You would think that the right information in the right hands would make for blockbuster judicial, political and media events. In the case of the Clintons, you’d have thought wrong.

The result of Mr. Paul’s FEC complaint saw the US Justice Department’s Office of Public Integrity – remember Lee Radek – indicting Hillary Clinton’s national finance director David Rosen on three counts of election fraud. The big problem here is that Rosen couldn’t have possibly been responsible for filing any of the FEC reports due to the fact that wasn’t legally required to file any reports and did not sign the reports that were filed, a very obvious point by its nature. The resulting trial ended with Rosen’s acquittal. The jury found that Rosen wasn’t responsible for the filing.

The signature required on the FEC filings was that of the Hillary’s campaign treasurer, Andrew Grossman. On December 13, 2005, Grossman entered into a secret agreement with the FEC allowing Grossman to admit culpability in filing false reports and commanding him to pay a $35,000 civil fine. To this day the US Department of Justice has not charged Andrew Grossman with anything even though he testified under oath in Rosen’s trial that he never heard of an event costing over a million dollars.

Meanwhile, Mr. Paul’s civil suit moves forward. The California Supreme Court has upheld Paul’s civil suit, denying all Clinton appeals for dismissal. Paul’s case is the first-ever fraud and coercion suit brought against a US President and/or a US Senator. A motion to depose Senator Clinton is set for a hearing on April 7, 2006.

The question here is this: will Paul’s lawsuit get a fair hearing?

As stated earlier, during the eight years of the Clinton reign many people were appointed and promoted to offices and departments throughout the US government. While some of these appointments and promotions were warranted on merit alone, others were dispensed because of loyalty to the Clintons.

Case in point, between 1994 and 1998 then President Clinton appointed seven new judges to the US District Court in Washington DC. Each and every appointment was one due to loyalty. In fact, their appointments were so transparent that they went around calling themselves the “Magnificent Seven,” that was until an eighth was added.

Another case in point, prior to the trial of David Rosen, the presiding judge, Judge A. Howard Maltz, pronounced to the mainstream media that Peter Paul was a “thoroughly corrupt and discredited witness” and that Senator Clinton, “had nothing to do with the fraud being tried.”

Judge A. Howard Maltz was a Clinton appointee.

Questions But No Answers…For Now

Some questions arise when one takes in the whole of the Hillary Clinton/Event 39 issue:

Was Rosen intentionally directed to supply false information to Hillary's treasurer, Andrew Grossman, who signed the false reports filed with the FEC?

Given that Hillary Clinton is not want for knowing what is going on in her own operations, what did she know and when did she know it?

After being informed of the FEC violation on July 16, 2001 – complete with copies of checks and invoices proving Paul’s financial commitment – why did Hillary Clinton allow another false filing to the FEC on July 30, 2001?

After vowing to the voters not to accept any money from Paul in august 2000, why did Bill and Hillary continue to court Paul’s financial contributions?

Now that Hillary Clinton’s senatorial campaign has admitted it hid $839,000, an amount that it has reported in the latest amended FEC filing of January, 30, 2006, why won’t she refund the contribution?

Why hasn’t the US Justice Department launched a full-scale investigation into the largest case of campaign finance fraud in US history?

Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton’s senate campaign treasurer, Andrew Grossman – the man who actually signed the false reports – been indicted on the same charges for which David Rosen was prosecuted?

Why does the latest, fourth FEC report on Event 39, fraudulently attribute $225,000 as a personal contribution from Stan Lee after court transcripts verify that he testified he gave no money to Hillary's campaign?

Does Lee Radek, or any other Clinton appointee have anything to do with obstructing the initiation of an investigation into the largest case of campaign finance fraud in US history?

Why has the mainstream media, the alleged self-anointed protectors of the public trust, been deafeningly silent on this issue?

(Read more on the media cover-up in Parts 5 & 6 by Noel Sheppard, Robbing Peter to Pay Hillary & Robbing Peter to Pay Hillary Redux)

Why was The Barrett Report redacted? Why are the findings of the Barrett’s investigation being kept from the public? What is in that report that Hillary Clinton needs to keep secret?

Many who read this story will simply dismiss it as Clinton-bashing or the vast right-wing conspiracy, the phrase that Hillary Clinton herself coined. Still many others will take it as truth, word for word and with good cause; there are so many unanswered questions surrounding everything about the Clintons and their public and private lives.

But the fact is this, without the ability to divorce the influence of politics from the investigative and judicial processes the odds of finding out the truth are grim. The number of unanswered questions surrounding the situation is disturbing.

The ultimate question remains. Are these questions disturbing enough to compel the American people to demand the truth from all those involved? I certainly hope so, because Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

If we are so disengaged as to allow Hillary Clinton to escape the challenge of an unfettered legal investigation into the circumstances surrounding Event 39 then we can’t really be critical of any other politician, Democrat of Republican, who chooses to bend the rules of campaign finance to their benefit.

The choice is clear, we either find the diligence and the integrity to demand that our elected officials meet an acceptable ethical standard or we get what we deserve.

Related Reading:

Clinton Officials Blocked Probe, Counsel Says
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060119-114702-3723r.htm

Who is Lee Radek?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20720

The Federal Election Commission
http://www.fec.gov

Publish the Barrett Report Now
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/09/178552.html

The Hillary Clinton Accountability Project
www.hillcap.org

The Fraudulent Senator: A Seven Part Series
http://www.newmediajournal.us/daily_columns/the_fraudulent_senator.htm