Spencer campaign admits knowing of Hillary's fraud but won't use it as an issue

Spencer campaign office ^ | 10-23-06 | dfu

[doug from upland]

This afternoon I had a brief discussion with a member of John Spencer's staff. Over a considerable period of time, they have been furnished with Hillary campaign finance fraud information.

I won't name the staffer, but he actually acknowledged knowing that Hillary failed to report $721,000, as determined by the conciliatin with her treasurer in Dec. 2005. He also know that Hillary filed her fourth fraudulent FEC report in January.

Unfortunately, he could give no explanation why the Spencer campaign will not talk about the greatest campaign finance fraud in history.

I really am curious. Why would any Republican in New York, other than perhaps an old friend or relative, ever send this guy any money. Go buy something for youself instead of throwing it down the toilet.

[SMM48]

Are you telling me I should worry?

Hey Doug, you might think about hiring someone to taste your food and check under your car before starting it. Opponents of the Clintons have strange things happen to them.

Steve formally from Upland. Now in Phoenix (a red state)

[skimask]

Apparently he does not want to take the "Arkansas Dirt Nap"

[freekitty]

Spineless wonders... But, they will attack her on her looks which don't really matter. What matters is she is a crook and our cowardly congress people won't fight it seems.

How sad.

[doug from upland]

I've done battle with the chief counsel of the Senate Ethics Committee. They will not do anything to her and refuse to hear from the witnesses with the goods.

[combat_boots]

Hi, Doug.......

Why not use the info? A certain database with oodles of illegally gathered information, or, midnight phone calls.

[conservative in nyc]

Unfortunately, I doubt this campaign finance story would have much traction in the media even if Spencer were to try to tell it. It is too arcane and difficult to understand. It's not just about sex or looks or something else that grabs Joe and Jan Sixpack's attention. And most politicians, who have difficulties complying with far too complex campaign finance rules to begin with, are usually reluctant to raise those types of issues against their opponents.

Spencer claims he didn't say Hillary! was ugly when she was younger, by the way. But sadly, he's gotten more media attention over the statement he claims not to have made than over anything he actually has said. And according to the local WCBS-TV news here tonight, coming tomorrow to the Gannette Snoozepaper of New York City's northern suburbs is supposedly a story about how Spencer joked to a columnist that he'll do fine in the debate unless he called Hillary a lesbian or something. Spencer is known to speak his mind and put his foot in his mouth every now and then.

[doug from upland]

Do you have contact info for that local TV affiliate and the newspaper you mentioned?

[mo]

Its called "FBI Files" ....anyone who is anybody, calling out her highness on HER finances will find theirs front page news all over the country, and develope a personal relationship with an IRS agent or two....if not a federal prosecutor.

[conservative in nyc]

The station is WCBS-TV, Channel 2. They mentioned it during the 5 and 6PM news today. The lesbian remark is part of their larger story about Spencer's supposed "Hillary was ugly" comments on their website here:

A columnist for the Journal News, Phil Reisman, said the episode was an example of "John Spencer being John Spencer."

Reisman has covered the former Yonkers mayor for more than a decade, and said Spencer can go beyond his "plain spoken" reputation and into the realm of profane, and politically incorrect.

Reisman said he asked Spencer last Wednesday about preparing for his two debates with Sen. Clinton.

"He was being facetious and said 'as long as I don't call her a lesbian, I'm okay,'" Reisman said.

Spencer said he didn't recall using the word "lesbian" in his discussion with Reisman, but if he died, he apologized.

The Gannette Snoozepaper is The Journal News. Nothing is on their website about it yet, but it should be in a column by Phil Reisman. The Journal News is WCBS-TV's newspaper partner.

[William Tell]

doug from upland said: "Unfortunately, he could give no explanation why the Spencer campaign will not talk about the greatest campaign finance fraud in history."

Wouldn't the media simply report that Spencer was resorting to making claims based on unproven allegations from some "unsavory" character who is being aided by those awful people at FreeRepublic?

[doug from upland]

Unproven alegations? The FEC ruled in Dec. that they underreported by 721K. When they filed a fourth amended report in January, they claimed that Stan Lee donated 225K. We have a tape of Lee's sworn deposition in which he testifies that he gave no money.

[krucader_bravepages_com]

The "unproven" allegations relate to how Hillary obtained the $839,000 that she lied about in the Washington Post since August, 2000 and then finally admitted receiving and hiding in her January 30, 2006 FEC report. (see Documents on www.hillcap.org) That is an admission by her campaign committee that she took more than $720,000 from Peter Paul's personal holding companies, Excelsior and Paraversal, and did not report it in 3 FEC reports after lying about it to the voters in the Washington Post. This is not an arcane finance issue, as Hillary would have the public believe. It is the fundamental right of the voters to know who supports a candidate and how much they contribute. Certainly everyone can understand that a million dollar contributor to a Senator should be disclosed and his relationship explained if he is by far the largest contributor to the Senator's campaign. The opposition should have a chance to scrutinize that information as well. The issue Doug is presenting is about Hillary's reported admissions to the FEC after she lied and covered up the truth in answers she gave to the Washington Post before her election, not Paul's allegations.
The revelation that she has now reported a $225,000 as contributed from Paul's partner, Stan Lee, in spite Lee's sworn testimony -on video tape- that he gave no money to Hillary's campaign- should spark outrage that this conflict between a Senator and American pop icon is not being resolved by ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Its not an allegation of anything. see www.peterfpaul.com and www.hillcap.org

[William Tell]

My point was not that there are no proven facts, but simply the fact that the media can adopt the "mistakes were made" approach and make the claim that many of the facts are the subject of upcoming litigation.

I'm sure that they would point to the unsuccessful prosecution of Rosen, was it?

Here's what a quick search brought up from mediamatters.org:
Though government prosecutors stated affirmatively that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) was not aware of the alleged campaign finance violations that led to the indictment of David Rosen, former finance director for Clinton's 2000 senatorial campaign, conservative pundits aggressively hyped the indictment as a potential scandal that could threaten Clinton's political career. But many of these same pundits have yet to report that a jury cleared Rosen of all charges on May 27:

The liberal media lies by omission every day. Why would Spencer expect anything different? The media would add to the above something along the lines of: "No similar investigation of Spencer's contributors has been performed as of this date, nor is there any indication that indictments are pending."

[doug from upland]

Since the Rosen trial, we have an admission of underreporting by 721K and absolute proof of a fourth fraudulent FEC report. Those are actually facts. Dave Schippers will comment about the actions of the judge and the prosecutor in the Rosen case.

PS Don't pay attention to George Soros' mediamatters.

[doug from upland]

Mediamatters lied. The convervative pundits have written about Rosen's acquittal. We address it in the film.

Mediamatters has not reported that Hillary lied in the 4th FEC report. She knows that Stan Lee is under oath testifying that he gave no money. When will Soros report that?

[William Tell]

doug from upland said: "Mediamatters has not reported that Hillary lied in the 4th FEC report."

Doesn't surprise me. I just picked out the first thing I could find that used Rosen's acquittal as a logical springboard to the idea that there is no "there" there.

Is Hillary scheduled to be deposed yet? A marathon session of Hillary claiming "I don't recall" would address the claims that she is the "smartest woman alive".

Otherwise, of course, it will just be perjury about campaign donations. Everybody does that, don't they?

At this point, I don't expect to find that Hillary is any less slippery than Gotti.

BJ Klinton was caught on tape committing perjury before a grand jury. But it was only perjury about obstructing justice in a sexual harassment suit. I'm not sure that the average person quite understands the conspiracy that was afoot.

Does the average person understand the concept of "in-kind" contributions? Will they be willing to believe that such contributions could be overlooked in the heat of a campaign?

There is also the additional problem of having to believe people who were motivated to donate out of their own self-interest. Peter Paul wasn't motivated by a burning desire to see Hillary in elective office. He was motivated by the desire to have influential people working on his own behalf in the future. This predisposes people to question his statements. He obviously didn't get what he wanted and his disappointment provides a motive to hurt the Clintons. It's little different from the situation of Dick Morris.

I can understand fully a candidate's unwillingness to be the test case for trying to hold Hillary accountable. Others have tried with only limited success.

[doug from upland]

Depositions are on hold until the Appellate Court determines if Hillary is reinstate as a defendant.

Hillary has already filed a totally fraudulent declaration in the case. Here is the first episode of that declaration's total evisceration --- http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZY2b3Db3dGE

We have a truckload of evidence, including home videos.

[phoenix0468]

Uh, maybe because anyone realated to the Clintoons and finance dealings exposure have ended up dead or in prison?

[doug from upland]

Spencer should at least ask a few questions. She claimed in her fourth FEC amended report in January that Stan Lee gave 225K. We have video testimony from Lee that he gave no money. Can't Spencer ask about that? We will share the video with him if he wants to show it.

[ladyinred]

This is why the Clinton's are still around doug. No one wants to touch them.