Posted on 10/10/2005 8:03:29 AM PDT by doug from upland
What do Cher, a Hollywood con man, a political rising star and an audacious felon have in common? Together they gave Bill and Hillary Clinton a night they’ll never forget — no matter how hard they may try.
April Witt, whose article about political influence peddling and the Clintons appeared in yesterday's Washington Post Magazine, will be online to field questions and comments.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
QUESTION
Why didn't you quote Lloyd Grove's story in your own WASHINGTON POST from 2000. Howard Wolfson acknowledged Paul spent over a million dollars, but he thought it was no big deal because it was "in-kind" and not a check. I spoke on the phone with Lloyd Grove. You could have done that very easily. Grove confirmed that, even if the POST did not have quotes around the "million dollars," Wolfson never objected. Lloyd would have noted that. Lloyd also told me that Wolfson never objected after the story. The failure to mention this in the story is journalistic malpractice.
(Note: this and the previous question are being copied on freerepublic.com. You are not going to be able to hide and say these were not asked of you.)
Why did you not talk about the civil suit filed in early July of 2000, prior to the final amended report? David Kendall accepted service for Hillary. Paul provided info necessary to make accurate FEC filings. Andrew Grossman and Hillary refused to correct the record and filed a third fraudulent FEC report.
I just submitted the following question to the Washington Post editors. The odds that this question will be asked are about the same as pigs flying, in formation, over the Washington Monument. (The comments with the question were also submitted to the Post.)
You have been accused on Newsbusters.org for writing an incompetent article by failing to note that Hillary Clinton, David Rosen, and other officials of her 2000 Senate Campaign knew about the $716,000 FEC fraud, before filing the final FEC Report.
Have you read this article?
How do you respond to it?
[If the editors of the Post do not allow this question, or one like it, to get through the filter, they are cowards. If the question is asked and Ms. Witt says she hasn't read the article, she is a liar.]
John Armor, author of "Hillary Knew, David Knew...."
It took only a few minues to do a Lexis-Nexis search and find the Peter Paul case in Miami regarding the CUBAN COFFEE CAPER. Why did you just accept the Clinton apologists explanation about the vetting process that allowed Paul to be in such close contact to the president without doing your own research?
Why did you not mention the illegal contribution of Japanese businessman Tendo Oto? Big as life, he was sitting right there behind Hillary at the fundraising concert. It was illegal for him to give the 27K they never reported, and it was illegal for him to attend the fundraiser. You had 8,000 words and that wasn't important?
Nice. Navy blue.
Shortly after Lloyd Grove's WASHINGTON POST story that caused the Clintons to suddenly run away from Peter Paul, David Rosen sent another request to Paul on official Hillary campaign stationery. Amazingly, after they public dissed Paul, they asked for another 100 grand. Why didn't you mention the meeting on Air Force One a month after that in which President Clinton assured Paul that he was still coming aboard Stan Lee Media. We have the photo. Those in attendance included Bill Clinton, Peter Paul, Aaron Tonken, Jim Levin, Gray Davis, and others. Did you follow the money trail? The funds were sent to the Working Families Party in NY for the benefit of Hillary. That part of the story didn't matter? Please level with us --- was it you or the editor who refused to include damagin information about Hillary?
I read the article in the Post Sunday Magazine yesterday. What a fluff piece!! Bad enough that the Post buries this in the Sunday magazine section rather than run it as an investigative piece on the front page, but it would appear Witt did little or no real research and certainly never held anyone's feet to the fire. I would bet she never even interviewed Bill or Hillary.
But, the article does let Hillary say in future campaigns that this is all yesterday's news -- been reported before -- nobody is interested in it, etc.
In 8,000 words, why didn't you mention Andrew Grossman. As campaign treasurer he filed the reports. He has an affirmative duty to gather the correct information. He can't just throw up his hands and say, "Duh, I know a great deal of money was spent, but I guess I'll just report 401 grand." He has a big problem. If you would have talked to an attorney dealing with FEC law, you would have discovered that the candidate doesn't have a problem ---- UNLESS THE CANDIDATE KNEW AND PARTICIPATED IN THE COVERUP.
Congratulations, you have now been added in the documentary film that chronicles this campaign finance fraud. Just like Dan Rather and the phony National Guard story, you will become the poster child for how the WASHINGTON POST covers for the Clintons. Would you like to go on camera and give your side of the story?
How can it be old news when Bill, Hillary, and several others are headed for depositions early in 2006 and trial later that year? Some of the Hollywood elite are on the witness list. Old news?
Despite David Kendall's spinning, why didn't you mention that the California Supreme Court has told Bill Clinton to prepare for discovery in Peter Paul's civil trial?
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.