Posted on 10/08/2005 10:34:23 AM PDT by doug from upland
"In a land of moral imbeciles, I knew I could be king," Token said."
"Moral imbeciles" pretty much sums up the Clintons aspirations.
Oh, and by the way, I know you are pissed about the Post article, but I read it and tried to read it as a dispassionate reader, and I came away thinking Hillary has really sold herself to some scumbags and that the Hollywood crowd she seems so comfortable with and who promote themselves as such caring liberal activists are simply for sale to the highest bidder and are a bunch of greedy starf**king airheads. I thought it was an extremely unflattering article and I can't imagine Team Clinton is very happy about it. And you have to admit that this, er, colorful cast of characters involved in this fundraiser make for a pretty entertaining story.
But the Clinton philosophy has always been to do what they want, drag it out, and the effect will be blunted later. What was the FEC going to do for cheating, take away her senate seat? Nope.
There is something else she didn't report -- the value of the performances of Cher, Diana Ross, and others. That was reportable. They knew they had to report it because of the reporting they did for famous photographer Annie Leibowitz. She charges 25 grand for high end clients for a private sitting. But the Clinton campaign only declared $2,000 for the photos taken of some of the Hollywood elite. Why declare that and not the performers?
I hope the Clintons will be unhappy about it, but it is going to take us doing something to advance the story. Pirro has not wanted to touch this. I hope Edward Nixon will.
Another Hillary Finance Scandal
By Dick Morris
Slate | January 12, 2005
The indictment of Hillary Clinton's 2000 campaign-finance director, David Rosen, may pose a threat to the senator's presidential bid. For now, the federal indictment is focused only on Rosen, but it is not hard to see the process creeping up the campaign food chain to the senator herself.
At issue are the expenses the campaign incurred in an August 2000 fund-raiser for Hollywood glitterati. Rosen was indicted for claiming that the event cost $400,000 when, federal prosecutors allege, he knew the actual cost to be $1.1 million. Under federal campaign-finance rules, the Clinton campaign was obliged to pay for 40 percent of the cost of the fund-raiser. So, if the gala cost $400,000, the campaign had to pay only $160,000, but if the price tag was actually $1.1 million, the campaign would have been on the hook for $440,000.
By understating the cost of the party, Rosen was, in effect, giving Hillary's campaign an extra $280,000.
While there is no indication that the Senate candidate knew of the understating of the cost of the event, is it credible that she would not be aware of a decision that gave her campaign more than a quarter of a million dollars as it entered the final three months before the election?
Remember what was happening in August and September of 2000 in the New York Senate race. Republican Rick Lazio was gaining traction despite his late start (after Rudy withdrew) and had raised massive amounts of hard money through direct mail. Most of Hillary's money was in soft-money contributions.
Exploiting Hillary's long-time stand against soft money, Lazio challenged the first lady to eschew soft money and restrict her campaign to hard-money donations, raised under a limit of $1,000 per contributor.
This challenge threw Hillary's campaign into a panic. It could not hope to compete in hard money. It was at this time that Rosen chose to underestimate the cost of the Hollywood fund-raiser.
The sum involved was enough to pay for almost an entire week of television advertising in New York City and exceeds the total media budget of many smaller campaigns.
To raise this sum, Hillary would have had to get 280 donors to give the maximum $1,000 individual donation permitted under federal law at the time. A decision of this magnitude — how much to say the event cost — would have been a huge issue within the campaign.
This is no clerical error, nor is it likely to be one young man's decision to commit fraud to help the campaign. It is just not credible to believe that Hillary didn't know about and approve of the understatement of the event's cost.
Hillary has always been a detail person who kept a hawk-like focus on the cost of even her husband's campaigns. How much more involved and fixated she must have been on a major financial decision that affected her own election effort.
The federal indictment of the key financial officer in Hillary's campaign — an event The New York Times did not see fit to put on the front page — shows that Sen. Clinton has not escaped from the culture of scandal that dogged her husband's presidency.
The question of who understated the cost of the Hollywood event now joins the pantheon of questions that have haunted the senator's past — Who hid the billing records? Who ordered the travel office firings? Who helped Hillary to make a killing in the commodities market? Did the first lady know her brother was paid to secure a pardon for a major drug trafficker? Did Hillary represent the Madison Bank in a fraudulent real-estate deal? Who ordered the removal of the FBI files?
Hillary's ethical obtuseness is truly Nixonian. Usually campaign-finance filing errors are so mundane that they draw light fines from the Federal Elections Commission. That her campaign committed so important a breach of the finance laws that govern elections that her finance chairman is under a federal indictment is truly extraordinary.
If young David Rosen wants to take the fall for Hillary and join the likes of Web Hubbell and Susan McDougal, who chose to languish in prison rather than tell the truth, that is his decision. But don't ask us to believe something the average 8-year-old knows can't be true: that a gain to the campaign of $280,000 was beneath Hillary's notice.
The hittees are not tracking traffic to the Site are they? :>(
Wake up, Doug. You've spoken to them before --- EDWARD COX. Say it again --- EDWARD COX.
Joseph Farah
Peter Paul and Hillary
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Maybe you missed it last week, but there was a significant development in the ongoing campaign to bring Bill and Hillary Clinton to justice.
Peter Franklin Paul was arrested in Brazil and is set for a rapid extradition to the United States to face stock fraud charges.
Stock fraud charges? What does this have to do with Bill and Hillary Clinton?
The case of Peter Paul may well tell us, once and for all, if there is indeed a chance for equal justice for all in America – or whether we have one standard of justice for the politically influential and another for everyone else.
Because, while the Justice Department seems eminently interested in prosecuting Peter Paul on charges of manipulating the stock price of a media company, so far, it has appeared less than motivated to investigate his own well-documented accusations that he made more than $2 million worth of in-kind contributions to benefit Hillary Clinton's successful New York Senate campaign – contributions that were never reported by the senator.
Further, it is clear from Peter Paul's lawsuit, filed in California Superior Court, that Peter Paul made his contributions with the understanding that he would get some very tangible benefits for doing so. Specifically, he alleges, he was promised:
the president's support for a Kennedy Center Honor for a business partner;
the president's support for a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his business partner;
a reception at the White House for his business partner;
an official visit to his business office by the president;
a stay in the Lincoln bedroom;
a weekend at Camp David;
an invitation to the president's last official State Dinner at the White House;
the president's participation in the global broadcast of the Hollywood Christmas Parade, which his company produced;
In other words, Peter Paul wasn't contributing money to the Clintons' favorite cause du jour out of the goodness of his heart or because of his concern for the well-being of the republic. This was a quid pro quo. He was seeking a political payoff. In layman's terms, if not precise legal terms, he was seeking to bribe the president – as so many others, from my friend Johnny Chung to James Riady, did during Clinton's reign of cash-register governance.
You can read the Peter Paul lawsuit for yourself on the website of Judicial Watch, which is representing Peter Paul.
You should do so. It's a real eye-opener – especially for those of you who think you've seen the depths of political corruption and can no longer be shocked.
When you learn about this case, you will no doubt ask yourself how this could happen in America. How could someone like Peter Paul be ignored by the Justice Department when he's got the smoking-gun documents to nail Bill and Hillary?
And that is really the key question. Here's the answer: The Bush administration doesn't want to get involved in dredging the depths of Clinton administration corruption. Period. End of story. Politically, the president apparently believes, there is no gain in doing so.
Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft are making political decisions instead of judgments made on the basis of their constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the land. They are fearful that actions against Bill and Hillary Clinton will be viewed through the prism of political vengeance. They fear such actions will come back to haunt them in the next election cycle and, perhaps, even sooner in the form of accountability for their own transgressions.
Our government, therefore, has become a mutual protection racket. I won't squeal on you if you won't squeal on me. And that's why America is only capable of offering political choices like "Tweedle-Dee" and "Tweedle-Dum."
The Peter Paul case may be our last chance to break this cycle. What can we do about it? The first step in solving a problem is always knowledge. You have to recognize the problem and see it clearly before it can be addressed.
I'm not going to tell you to write letters to Bush and Ashcroft. I'm not going to tell you to write to your congressional representatives. I am going to urge you to support Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch in their courageous and single-minded pursuit of justice in this matter.
Remember the ole saying, "What comes around goes around?" When you hurt others the way they have, it will come back at them 10 fold. Hang in there.
I think far more damaging to Hillary is her involvement in the sale of Bill's pardons.
Please speak for yourself, I did not find it boring in the least. But then, I maybe I am not the average reader. It is imperative that Hillary Clinton be exposed for the corrupt criminal she is, and always has been. I for one, am not going to just wring my hands.
By JOE STEPHENS Staff Writer[c]
Kansas City Star
Date: 07/10/96 22:18
A former vice chairman of Bob Dole's presidential campaign agreed Wednesday to pay a record $6 million in fines for using workers to funnel illegal political contributions to Dole's campaign and other political committees.
Boston businessman Simon Fireman and his company, Aqua-Leisure Industries, will plead guilty to felony charges under a plea bargain reached with federal prosecutors. The fine will be 10 times larger than the previous record in a campaign-finance case.
Prosecutors also will recommend that the 70-year-old New England millionaire spend 6 months in prison.
"This was a repeated effort to thwart the basic principles of our campaign-finance system," said Joe Savage, the lead prosecutor.
Fireman resigned as a national vice chairman of finance for Dole last month after The Kansas City Star reported that employees at Aqua-Leisure had been repaid for their contributions to Dole. The scheme camouflaged the true source of the money - - Fireman -- and circumvented federal laws that limit contributions from individuals to $1,000.
On Wednesday federal prosecutors in Boston filed 74 felony charges against Fireman, his pool-toy manufacturing company and Fireman's executive assistant, Carol Nichols.
Current Election Fraud - Dole caught Cheating
Election Fraud History - Not the first time Dole Cheats They charge that last year Fireman and Nichols used a Hong Kong company to channel $69,000 to their relatives and co-workers, who in turn sent individual donations to Dole's campaign. The scheme transformed Fireman's small company of 35 employees into perhaps the largest single identifiable source of contributions to Dole's campaign.
Fireman and Nichols used a similar scheme to filter $24,000 to the Republican National Committee in 1992, $21,000 to George Bush's 1992 re-election campaign and $6,000 to Joe Kennedy II's 1993 congressional campaign.
In all, the illegal contributions totaled $120,000. Prosecutors called it one of the largest campaign money-laundering operations in U.S. history.
Fireman gave to the Dole camp in hopes of buying a high government post, said Savage, an assistant U.S. attorney in Boston.
"He was not restricting himself to an ambassadorship, but an ambassadorship was one of the options," Savage said. "There is no evidence he communicated his desire to the Dole campaign."
Dole and Jo-Anne Coe, his campaign finance director, apparently knew nothing about the money laundering, Savage said. But public watchdog groups noted that the scheme was similar to one engineered in the late 1980s by Dave Owen, who was the top fund-raiser for Dole's 1988 presidential bid.
Nelson Warfield, Dole's press secretary, said in a written statement that the campaign would transfer the illegally collected donations to the U.S. Treasury.
The plea bargain, Warfield said, "not only brought swift justice, but also underscores that the Dole campaign, which fully cooperated with the investigation, was not involved in Mr. Fireman's pattern of improper contributions to both Republicans and Democrats....
"While we clearly would have liked to have avoided this incident, we are proud of how this matter has been handled."
Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart called on Dole to provide details about his personal relationship to Fireman.
"Bob Dole also needs to tell us what steps he's taking to make sure criminal behavior no longer happens in his campaign," Lockhart said. "There's a serious issue of criminal activity within the Dole for President campaign."
The plea bargain requires Fireman to plead guilty to 11 out of 74 felony counts and personally pay a fine of $1 million. The deal allows prosecutors to recommend to a judge that Fireman be sentenced to 6 months in prison.
Aqua-Leisure agreed to plead guilty to 70 felony counts and pay a fine of $5 million. Nichols plans to plead guilty to one felony charge and pay a fine of $7,500. She could be jailed for up to five years, although prosecutors agreed to recommend a less er period of home confinement.
"I am stunned at the breadth of that agreement," said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington watchdog group.
"An agreement of this size should send a chilling effect down anybody's spine."
If a federal judge approves the plea, as expected, it would mark the most severe penalty ever in a campaign-finance case, experts said.
The largest previous fine apparently came earlier this year in California, when Hyundai Motor America agreed to pay $600,000. It admitted using employees to funnel illegal contributions to U.S. Rep. Jay Kim of California.
Fireman still faces investigation by the Federal Election Commission, which can levy its own fines. The largest commission penalty to date was $550,000, against Prudential Securities Inc. No criminal charges were brought.
The plea agreement also was notable for its speed, coming just 10 weeks after The Star revealed the payments. Most investigations into campaign-finance violations stretch out for years.
Fireman's response
Aqua-Leisure workers gave sighs of relief when told of the deal. Many feared that Fireman, who has a history of filing lawsuits against adversaries, might emerge from the investigation unscathed and then seek revenge for their testimony before a Boston grand jury.
Wednesday morning Fireman met with his workers and distributed a personal memo at his plant headquarters in the outskirts of Boston.
A source close to Aqua-Leisure who attended the meeting said Fireman assured workers the fine would have no significant effect on the company.
Fireman declined to answer questions Wednesday. But in a written statement, he said he was "eager to move forward."
"I have accepted this agreement," Fireman said, "to end the pain and suffering of my wife, other family members, my dear friends and Aqua-Leisure and its employees.
"In addition, I cannot further endure being used as a political tool."
His attorney, Thomas Dwyer Jr., called it "a hypertechnical case" with an oversized fine. He said Fireman would ask to serve any resulting sentence at home.
Savage, the prosecutor, responded with sarcasm: "The only thing hypertechnical here is the length Mr. Fireman went to hide the contributions. It's hard to get it more secret than this."
Fireman, he said, erected an elaborate scheme to disguise the source of the money.
In 1985, Fireman used his employees to set up a front company in Hong Kong named Rickwood Ltd. The company established a secret trust at a U.S. bank and then used wire transfers from Rickwood to fill it with millions of dollars.
Fireman's employees in Boston withdrew the cash in small amounts to evade laws requiring that large cash transactions be reported to federal officials. Nichols then distributed the cash to Aqua-Leisure's employees, its sales representatives and their families. They in turn wrote personal checks to the political campaigns.
The formal charges against Fireman include conspiracy to violate federal law, contributing in the name of another, contributing more than $1,000 to a campaign, contributing more than $25,000 in a single year and giving on behalf of a corporation.
Fireman's scheme became public in April after The Star conducted a computer-aided study of tens of thousands of individual campaign records. The study identified an unusual pattern of giving among Aqua-Leisure employees and their families.
The Star found that persons linked to the Avon, Mass., company sent 55 checks to the Dole campaign between February and September of last year. At least 14 Aqua-Leisure workers contributed, as did 11 of their family members.
Each gift was for $1,000 -- the legal maximum. And the gifts came not only from company executives, but also from secretaries, a bookkeeper, a receptionist and a warehouse manager.
Long known in politics
Fireman, tall with a mane of white hair, has been well-known in Republican politics for more than a decade. Acquaintances said he spoke openly about his desire to become a foreign ambassador, although on Wednesday his attorney denied it.
In the 1960s, Fireman inherited New England's oldest ship chandlery, Marine Hardware and Supply. A decade later he founded Aqua-Leisure and developed it into a nationwide distributor of inflatable pool toys and physical fitness equipment.
Today the privately held company has annual sales of $9 million and distributes a large share of the world market in swimming goggles and flippers.
Fireman used his financial success to catapult into politics, lavishing contributions on state and federal candidates. In return, he reaped prestigious appointments.
In the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter named Fireman to the U.S. Domestic Trade Advisory Council. When Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for president, however, Reagan adviser Lyn Nofziger persuaded Fireman to redirect his contributions to the Republican Party.
Reagan designated Fireman vice chairman of his inaugural committee. And in 1983, Reagan appointed him to the U.S. Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations. That led to a stint as a director of the federal Export-Import Bank.
In 1992, Fireman served as a national vice chairman of finance for President George Bush's re-election campaign. He was host of a $5,000-a-person fund-raiser, and then-Vice President Dan Quayle attended a fund-raising reception at Fireman's summer home .
Today the 70-year-old divides his time among oceanfront homes in Boston, Cape Cod, Palm Beach, Fla., and Hong Kong. He has made a name in those cities for both his philanthropy and his fits of anger.
He made headlines last year in Boston by giving $2 million to area hospitals. But about the same time a Boston newspaper reported he had been banned from Siro's, a swank waterfront bistro.
Fireman often booked restaurant reservations there under the name "Mr. Fireman from Reebok," the article said, in reference to his better-known nephew, Reebok International Ltd. Chairman Paul Fireman. The ruse was exposed on his final visit, when Simon Fireman reportedly insulted restaurant workers.
"He was saying, `Do you know who I am? I'm a very prominent man. I own Reebok,' " the restaurant owner said at the time. "He pushed my husband into another table and started yelling, `I can buy and sell you!' and he's still yelling at my employees, calling them incompetent and even ugly."
As he was escorted off the premises, Fireman reportedly threw $20 bills at waiters and waitresses to make amends.
Fireman's legendary temper also was evident in April, when The Star telephoned him in an attempt to arrange an interview. Fireman responded with insults and curses but did not answer questions.
"You are not now working with some jerk on the local level," Fireman shouted. "You are a liar, and I have nothing more to say to you."
Then he hung up.
So this is what is going on to my understanding. Please correct if I am wrong. (I am not being sarcastic, I really hate Hillary just as much as the next person and would love to see her brought down.)
* Someone used over the legal amount to do a fundraiser which Hillary apparently benefited from, then she lied and said she didn't know about it.
Is that the baisic idea here?
The real number is that Peter Paul spent about $1.9 million on her campaign. She allowed 3 fraudelent FEC filings to be made by her treasurer Andrew Grossman that did not reflect his in-kind contribution. It is the biggest campaign finance fraud ever, and she absolutely knew. If she reported accurately, it would have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars of hard money away from her NY campaign against Lazio in the closing weeks.
bttt
Tonken and Pellicano should get together and co-author a book on the seamy side of Clintonista politicos and Hollyweird hustlers using each other. Revelations about Hillary's role from early on and her "hands on" attention to all the sleazy details would be most useful before the 2008 election!!
They are both in jail. Tonken has alread written KING OF CONS. In it he talks about being in a van with Hillary and telling her chapter and verse about what was being spent on her. Pellicano had Hillary as a client and will probably not write about her.
I could not point to one thing that exposed Hillary as corrupt. If anything, the author portrayed the Clinton's as naive victims. (which as we all know, they are anything but)
The MSM will never exposed naught on Bill and Hill.
Thanks for the explanation.
Jeez, let it go, will you?
Doug From Upland has worked for a long time on this story. It may go somewhere and it may not but your fascination with Hillary's unopen meetings is yours alone. It's an issue that died long ago, like my anger over what they did to Billy Dale.
Stop hijacking this thread with an idea that is interesting to no one but you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.