Replies

AIM Report: The Scandal that Could Sink Hillary
By JT Thompson | The Hillary Project

By Paul M. Rodriguez

AIM: Recent polls among American readers (and viewers) of the press continue to show a reluctance to trust the once vaunted U.S. mainstream media. And the recent brouhaha at the New York Times over the Judith Miller fiasco only further muddies the public’s trust, not only on how reporters and editors report but also on what they choose to publish (or broadcast).

For example, there have been whole forests cut down to provide enough paper for stories about Rep. Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican indicted recently on allegations of money laundering through state political action committees that helped the GOP secure a majority of U.S. congressional seats from the Lone Star state.

DeLay Vs. Hillary

The coverage has been relentless, not only of late but so too going back a number of years as a result of DeLay’s hard-charging tactics on Capitol Hill and run-ins with the House ethics committee, formally called the Committee on Standards.

DeLay, much like some predecessors from both political parties, makes for an easy target of erstwhile newsmen in search of good copy. And with so many high-profile lawmakers, even opposition party members don’t need to do much to bring about negative coverage.

Media Targets

But a question needs asking: What are the standards used by the press to determine who gets caught in the cross-hairs? And does this standard get applied evenly or does it (like so many in the public believe) vary from target to target?

Consider the contrasting coverage of DeLay with that of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Virtually every detail of alleged DeLay transgressions gets reported and in very great detail. But scant coverage has been given to equally serious allegations against the junior senator from New York.

There have been no front-page stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald or any other so-called major daily with respect to serious allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton and her Senate election campaign committee.

While tens of thousands of inches (and scores of hours on broadcast and cable TV) have been used up to discuss allegations that DeLay “laundered” about $190,000 from corporate donors in Texas through the Republican National Committee and then back to GOP candidates in Texas races, there’s been virtually nothing mentioned about accusations that Hillary Clinton and senior Democrats “laundered” nearly $2 million of improper or illegal gift-giving during the summer of 2000 when she began her run for the Senate.

Whether one is for or against Hillary or Tom DeLay is irrelevant when it comes to a simple truth that generally is taught in journalism schools, or even at home. Apply a single standard and stick with it. But in the cases of Clinton and DeLay that’s far from daily practice.

For example, one would have thought that it’d be big news that the California Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that both Hillary Clinton and her husband could be sued in a civil case filed by Peter Franklin Paul involving serious allegations of wrongdoing. But virtually nothing has been mentioned.

Double-Standard

Then there’s the example of press outlets initially hammering some congressional Republicans for not properly filling out their annual disclosure statements both with congressional authorities and the Federal Election Commission, or FEC. Though the press began to expand coverage, e.g., that Democrats also fail to always fill out forms correctly, there’s been no mention of Clinton to speak of involving an ethics complaint filed in the Senate and one still pending at the FEC.

There’s also been virtually no mention of serious allegations of wrongdoing contained in FBI 302 statements unsealed during a recent trial of David Rosen, Hillary Clinton’s former national campaign finance director. Nor of prosecutor memos to a federal judge in a separate case involving Paul in which FBI allegations of improper campaign fundraising schemes were detailed.

As Tim Russert might say, let’s go to the tape:

Peter Paul organized, hosted and funded a handful of high-society events during the spring and summer of 2000 for both Hillary and Bill Clinton. In all, he spent about $1.7 million and arranged for hundreds of thousands of dollars of other in-kind contributions for both the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton. Such expenses are supposed to be reported to the FEC in a timely manner. But they were not.

Mystery Money

The funds that Paul tapped into were, according to federal prosecutors, ill-gotten gains from margined accounts of Stan Lee Media stocks that Paul obtained as a founder of the now-defunct Internet media company co-founded with legendary comic book creator Stan Lee.

Paul was indicted as part of an investigation into why the Stan Lee Media company collapsed, allegedly as a direct result of Paul’s manipulation of stock shares he and others caused to be inflated. In all, according to prosecutors, Paul et al were responsible for a loss to banks, trading companies and SLM to the tune of $25 million.

The press in early spring and summer of 2001 reported some on the criminal aspects following unsealing of indictments and an attempt by Paul to cast light on his allegations that 1) he was innocent and 2) that the Clintons and DNC were hiding illegally obtained campaign funds, both direct and indirect.

Spotty Coverage

In the intervening four years there has been some news coverage of the continuing saga of Peter Paul’s criminal case and civil complaints he’s filed in California and at the FEC. For example, the Los Angeles Times and Vanity Fair magazine, along with Insight Magazine and some East Coast papers have given some coverage. And some of it has been quite good if not spotty.

Perhaps one reason is Paul himself, a two-time convicted felon with some outlandish claims and currently a confessed securities violator on one count from the original indictments handed up in New York and California. (Paul is awaiting sentencing while being held on home detention.)

But as outlandish as much of Paul’s claims appear to be, there is ample evidence mustered up by federal prosecutors and agents that document the central charges of the former Hollywood mogul.

That is, that he provided tons of money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, that despite a public distancing by Hillary Clinton in late summer 2000 after Paul’s criminal background was revealed in a gossip item, she and Bill Clinton continued to privately stay in touch with him and even orchestrated a tour of Air Force One for him and then-California Governor Grey Davis, and that Democrat bigwigs kept in touch for political donations.

Yet for all such documentation of wrongdoing, scant press attention has been paid to the allegations involving Hillary Clinton.

One has to ask why, if only because of the avalanche of coverage of DeLay of late and reports on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s alleged ethics and securities violations over insider stock sale deals.

Post Whitewash

Even a recent Washington Post Magazine cover story of roughly 8,000 words sidestepped the hard news at the center of its feature story on Hillary Clinton’s former national finance director, a fellow named David Rosen. Rumor of the impending article had both Democrats and Republicans in Washington buzzing whether Hillary Clinton would get slammed or, at least, have her troubles with Peter Paul exposed in depth in a mainstream press outlet.

When it was finally published, however, it hit like a dud among both camps, one relieved that Hillary wasn’t pilloried and one throwing up its hands for the same reason.

As Peter Paul himself said in a brief interview, “if this had been an exposÃƒÂƒÃ‚Â© on Tom DeLay you could bet the farm that it would have skewered the guy and thrown up all sorts of mud and exposed allegations of wrongdoing going back years.”

Black-Out

Yet none of that was contained in the Washington Post Magazine article despite ample evidence that could have been explored involving the junior senator from New York and, if political bets are accurate, the next presidential contender for the Democratic Party.

There was no mention of serious allegations of wrongdoing by her campaign in 2000 that was detailed in sworn affidavits from FBI agents and statements by prosecutors to federal judges, both in the Paul case and during the recent criminal trial of Rosen, who ultimately was acquitted by a jury that didn’t believe the story woven by prosecutors that he violated FEC rules by not reporting the true costs of those Paul-backed fundraisers way back in 2000.

The Hillary Connection

The press covered Rosen’s trial in some detail but certainly not with the same gusto as say, the DeLay travails of late. For example, despite the attempt of prosecutors in Rosen’s trial to distance Hillary Clinton from the alleged wrongdoing, the press failed to ask some fundamental questions, especially after Rosen’s acquittal.

For example: If Hillary Clinton didn’t violate any laws and didn’t conspire to hide the true costs of her political events then who did besides Rosen? How could it be possible that Hillary Clinton herself didn’t know anything was wrong with those fundraising events and FEC forms given the fact that she’s been fighting Peter Paul in civil courts for the last couple of years, has been dealing through surrogates with the FEC and, obviously, was aware of charges of campaign violations at the center of Rosen’s trial.

But the impression from stories that have run on the Paul and Rosen cases paints a picture of a powerful U.S. senator who had no idea anything was amiss in her campaign or had any responsibility or oversight of finances for her Senate race. Believable?

It’s as though a May 30, 2002, affidavit in support of a search warrant of a storage locker once rented by Peter Paul, by FBI special Agent Smith, didn’t exist.

The Affidavit

Outlining a then-ongoing secret probe of Clinton’s campaign with regard to “allegations of violations of the federal campaign finance statutes, and of false statements to federal government agencies,” Agent Smith said this: “In particular, on August 12, 2000, while the Democratic national Convention was underway in Los Angeles, [Peter] Paul was responsible for hosting a fundraising event known as ‘THE HOLLYWOOD GALA SALUTE TO PRESIDENT WIL-LIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON’ (”the event”). The event was a fundraiser for the benefit of New York Senate 2000, the campaign organization that supported the United States Senate Campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“The event’s costs exceeded $1 million, but the required forms filed by New York Senate 2000 with the Federal Election Commission (”FEC”) months after the event incorrectly disclosed that the cost of the event was only $523,000. It appears that the true cost of the event was deliberately understated in order to increase the amount of funds available to New York Senate 2000 for federal campaign activities.”

This is one of the central claims Peter Paul has made for years but generally dismissed by the mainstream press even though memorialized in complaints in California courts and at the FEC, and even in a detailed and lengthy memo hand-delivered to Hillary Clinton prior to Paul’s own indictments back in 2001.

Despite such direct connections to Clinton involving “documented” allegations of wrongdoing, few press outlets have followed, or followed up, such explosive charges involving a sitting U.S. senator. Or if they have, press reports simply report that Hillary Clinton denies any knowledge or wrongdoing. End of story.

The Media Pack

Yet for Tom DeLay there appears to be no end of those stories, stories that even his own detractors have said appear to be thin stuff based on what’s known so far in the state prosecutor’s case against the Texas Republican. No doubt DeLay and his supporters feel the press has been unkind to the former House majority leader but, frankly, the role of the press is to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and run to death every hint of evidence.

The result of not applying the same standard to far more serious charges of wrongdoing involving Hillary Clinton and various DNC operatives only makes starkly clear the differing standards at play, differing standards that the public believes the press applies when the mood suits it despite the claims of being fair, balanced and ethical.

If the California civil courts, which have overruled numerous attempts by Hillary Clinton’s legal team (including her personal attorney David Kendal), think there’s merit to Peter Paul’s pursuit of claims that he was hoodwinked into giving nearly $2 million under false premises of future support for his now-failed company, shouldn’t the press be digging into the background of the charges?

And where are the stories post David Rosen’s acquittal concerning who at Hillary Clinton’s campaign broke the law if not the former finance chairman? In reporting on the collapse of Enron, WorldCom and other financial debacles, such was the standard in exploring who, what, when, where and how was involved in each scandal.

Where are the stories about numerous leads contained in the Rosen trial transcripts and at the FEC that, to date has not brought any civil action against Hillary Clinton or her campaign?

Possible Leads

Ample leads to unsavory characters associated with the various Clinton fundraisers are well documented in the handful of stories the L.A. Times, Vanity Fair and Insight Magazine published, including a nifty scheme Rosen authorized on behalf of Hillary Clinton to divert money to a state-controlled political action committee in New York that later supported her Senate run.

Such end arounds in political fundraising have been going on for years but seldom brought to public light despite the good attempts by groups such as Common Cause.

When Tom DeLay does it, however, it’s page-one news—but not so when Hillary Clinton does it?

No doubt many skeptics will suggest that allegations against Hillary Clinton are politically driven or that the country is tired of Clinton-related scandals. Maybe so. But it’s not the job of the press to pick and choose which stories it pursues once the standard has been established about what types of stories should be reported. And such standards have been set down as recently as the DeLay mess.

Political scandals à la the Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and long ago former House Speaker Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski (just to name a few) should be the stuff of good investigative reporting regardless of which party is in power and regardless of who’s ox is gored.

Whether Hillary Clinton did anything wrong criminally or civilly has yet to be determined either in courts of law or before regulatory authorities. But as so often is the case, such decisions are not made unless the press is relentless in its job of exploring, exposing and reporting allegations of wrongdoing.

The Jury Is Out

One beneficial unintended consequence of such zeal on the part of the press is that it provides the public with as clear a picture of whether a politician is guilty of wrongdoing, or not. In the case of Hillary Clinton, the junior senator from New York may be riding a wave of popularity and stardom few could muster—but should be tapped or cleared once and for all of any scandal.

The failure by the press to pursue the allegations raised by Peter Paul in his civil suit, for which depositions already are underway, is a crime unto itself.

Media Cover-Ups

Ditto for the failure of the press to link up Paul’s allegations with the documentation and testimony presented in the Rosen case, where evidence appears undisputed that Hillary Clinton and her 2000 Senate campaign machine violated the law and perhaps broke some criminal statutes as well.

Sadly, the public may not ever get the chance to find out unless the press does its job and reports with equal treatment the case(s) against Hillary Clinton as fully as it seems determined to report on the case(s) against Tom DeLay. Given that Hillary Clinton appears headed to a presidential run, the public deserves to know before the heat of a White House battle what’s been going on.

That’s one reason the public so distrusts the press, bias aside. Too much gets dumped on them during political contests that smacks of political manipulations. Maybe if the press were to do its job evenly throughout each year then the public might feel better about an industry now seen as having an agenda. And, it seems, it’s not the public’s interest.

What You Can Do

Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Tim Russert and Robert McCormick of NBC News, and Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Paul M. Rodriguez, the former managing editor of Insight Magazine, is a media and public policy consultant in Washington, D.C.

Source: http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/aim_report_the_scandal_that_could_sink_hillary_november_b/

Hillary! Uncensored- The Documentary

In an extraordinary development in the war of attrition being waged through Paul v Clinton et al to expose Hillary Clinton’s contempt for the Rule of Law and the Constitution, a rough cut of the trailer for Hillary! Uncensored- The Documentary has become the number one most watched video on Google for the last 3 days straight! More than 50,000 views a day and a total of 362,000 views in the last 30 days!

The documentary has been invited to debut at the metropolitan Club- the oldest Republican Club in New York, on October 30.

New Media Journal.USHillary and The Mother of All Cover Ups

October 13, 2007

After six years of sleepwalking through the biggest maze of corruption, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power ever witnessed by a jaded government “insider,” the clouds parted and a thunderous realization struck this observer’s consciousness. What has been glaring on the face of the public record – mirrored in a kaleidoscope of witnesses, investigations, and evidence – suddenly revealed itself in a “Where is Waldo” epiphany.

The Justice Department, in tandem with a federal judge appointed by the Clintons, as well as defense counsel directed by Clinton alter egos, used the Clinti-Vellian indictment and prosecution of Hillary’s low-level campaign functionary – with the high falutin’ title of “National Finance Director” – to “immunize” the Clintons from legal and public accountability for egregious violations of the law that were orchestrated in plain view of Democrat political leaders, an A-list of Hollywood luminaries, and the American media.

In short, the prosecutors at the Department of Justice’s Office of Public Integrity got away with indicting Hillary Clinton’s finance director, David Rosen, in a sealed indictment in 2003, for concealing from Hillary’s Senate campaign the $1.1 million cost of Hillary’s largest fundraiser (Event 39)? The government charged Rosen with sole criminal culpability for causing Hillary’s Committee Treasurer to file three false FEC reports between October, 2000 and July, 2001, that hid the origin and expense of more than $700,000 of the cost of Event 39 donated by Peter Paul.

Yet all interested political observers of the 2000 campaign were apprised that Hillary and her Senate Campaign Committee knew the very same information the DOJ charged Rosen with hiding from them, and they knew it long before they filed the first “criminal” false FEC report Rosen was indicted for. The world was apprised of Hillary and her committee’s knowledge of David Rosen’s “secret” information regarding the true $1.1 million, plus cost of Event 39, when Hillary’s personal and campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson confirmed to Washington Post gossip columnist Lloyd Grove on August 17, 2000, that:

“As for the rest of the estimated $1 million-plus cost, “it was an in-kind contribution…and not a check,” Wolfson said.

No one, including donor Peter Paul, ever publicly challenged the clearly ersatz indictment based on that “quote” because of the success of the Clinton spin-meisters in diverting attention from the real issues surrounding the FEC frauds directed by Hillary, with Bill as her agent.

Was the Rosen trial fixed by the Clintons to hide in plain view, and thereby avoid, their own accountability for serial felony violations of federal laws that generated Hillary’s largest contributions of money and endorsements to ensure her victory over Rick Lazio in 2000, and continue the obstruction through false reports in 2006 that assured Hillary’s re-election?

The possibility of collusion directed by Hillary and/or her agents to cover up her illegal role in the matter comes strictly from the public record of the facts surrounding the investigation, indictment, and prosecution of David Rosen. Judge Matz – before any evidence was presented or any opening remarks were made – blatantly ignored the Judicial Canons of Ethics by making prejudicial statements related to a case at bar, and tainting the jury with false statements he knew or should have known were false. The fact that Judge Matz’ unethical conduct was not immediately challenged by the prosecutor raises the distinct possibility that more than malfeasance or incompetent lawyering may have been afoot.

Judge Matz began the trial by stating unequivocally to the media: “This isn’t a trial about Senator Clinton.” “Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or principal.” “She’s not in the loop in any direct way, and that’s something the jury will be told.” These statements were factually false in that Senator Clinton had a tremendous stake in the trial – as both a party and a principal – because of the ramifications of exposing her personal illegal actions and conspiring not only with Rosen but with President Clinton to illegally solicit and then hide Peter Paul’s contributions – the largest of her campaign.

The video evidence that the US Attorney from NY withheld from the FEC, FBI, and Inspector General investigations clearly shows that Hillary was not only personally “in the loop” – directly and through her White House employee Kelly Craighead – but, contrary to the Judge’s assertions, the video clearly shows Hillary admitting to acting as a talent coordinator for the fundraiser and illegally soliciting excessive “in kind” contributions of the professional performing services of Cher, which Hillary then used to generate more than $1 million in hard money donations to her campaign through “ticket sales” based in large part on Cher’s performance.

While the government prosecutors ensured that Rosen alone took the heat for Hillary, they also hid the truth about Peter Paul’s donations and expenditures and thereby caused false reports by Hillary’s campaign to the FEC. Judge Matz ensured Rosen would never be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the jury because of the Judge’s own declarations to the jury. Immediately after telling the Jury that Hillary was not involved in any way in the matter, the Judge proceeded to declare publicly and to the jury that Peter Paul was “a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual. He’s a con artist. The fact that he is already established.” The Judge did this knowing that the government’s case was based largely, according to The New York Times, on Paul’s allegations and that Rosen’s defense was that Paul conned him by hiding the true information about his $1.1 million plus contributions from Rosen.

“The federal government’s criminal case is largely built around the claims of Peter Paul…who turned on the Clintons after producing a lavish Hollywood fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in 2000… the defense is expected to argue that Mr. Rosen had no way of knowing that the figures he reported were wrong because he had relied on information provided by Mr. Paul and others who arranged the event [”Political Drama Abounds in Trial Involving Mrs. Clinton’s Hollywood Fund-Raiser by Raymond Hernandez, New York Times, May 9, 2005.]

Instead of objecting to the Judge’s prejudicial actions on the spot – and calling for Judge Matz to recuse himself or declare a mistrial – the prosecutor proceeded to tell the jury that the Judge was correct in his assertion that Hillary Clinton had no role in the case (even though the Justice Department was withholding videotaped evidence to the contrary) and that Hillary was a victim herself, implying that she was victimized not only by the defendant by also by Paul.

The most glaring problem with the case, brought exclusively against Rosen, was to divert attention from the role of Hillary and her agents in illegally soliciting and coordinating more than $1.2 million in contributions from Peter Paul, and then lying about it to the voters and the FEC to win two Senate elections. Hillary admitted in a taped conversation with Paul that regular briefings were given to her by Kelly Craighead, the designated White House staff liaison with Paul. But most compelling about the government’s contrived and illegal indictment of Rosen for allegedly hiding from Hillary’s campaign the true donation/expenditure of $1.2 million from Paul was the campaign’s own public statements after the Gala.

Not only did the DOJ prosecutors know from the Washington Post that Hillary and her campaign were officially on record as knowing that Event 39 cost more than three times what they reported to the FEC and IRS from October, 2000, through January, 2006, but they knew from evidence presented and subpoenaed from the donor, Peter Paul himself, and those who worked for him, that many agents of Hillary were fully aware that the reports made to the FEC hid most of Paul’s $1.2 million plus expenditures.

The career DOJ prosecutor who made opening and closing remarks to the Rosen Jury, Peter Zeidenberg, also performed that function in the false statement trial of Lewis Scooter Libby. Zeidenberg’s statements to the Rosen jury were carefully crafted to assure Rosen’s acquittal for causing the false reports made by Hillary Clinton and her campaign to the FEC about serious violations of the federal election law. Interestingly, Mr Zeidenberg’s statements to the Libby jury were carefully crafted to assure that Libby was convicted of making false statements to the FBI in connection with conduct with the media that was adjudged to be perfectly legal. Zeidenberg never objected to the Clinton-appointed judge unethically destroying all credibility of his principal witness, Peter Paul, to the jury, thereby assuring he could never call Paul to the stand, but he never called for a mistrial because of the judge’s prejudicial statements that effectively proved Rosen’s defense of being conned by Paul was reasonable.

Then, when Mr. Zeidenberg began to explain the case to the jury starting with how the events unfolded, his statements to the jury on the origin of Event 39 conflicted with the testimony of his own witnesses. By misstating that Rosen and Paul alone concocted the fundraiser after Paul went to Rosen to volunteer his funding and production contributions, the prosecutor again immunized Hillary’s liability for a felony violation of the federal election law based on the testimony of Clinton agent Jim Levin and others who recalled that Event 39 was the brainchild of Hillary’s agents Craighead and Levin, in Chicago on June 23, 2000, after a Hillary attended fundraiser. Then Hillary’s agents, Kelly Craighead and Jim Levine, solicited Paul to produce and pay for the Gala. The prosecutor’s actions all seemed surgical in their efforts to excise Hillary and Bill Clinton’s illegalities from being revealed while laying the blame on a functionary who could never be convicted.

With the recent release in April, 2007, by the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY, of a smoking gun video of an illegal fundraising phone call from Hillary Clinton to Peter Paul in July, 2000 – a tape that was withheld from the DOJ, the FEC and the Rosen Grand Jury – investigations into Hillary’s largest fundraising event have taken on new life. Peter Paul’s attorneys are preparing a request to the new Attorney General to open a new investigation of the role Hillary, and the US Attorney she supervises as Senator from NY, played in obstructing all investigations that improperly exonerated Hillary Clinton for lack of any evidence linking her personally to the matter.

It’s all in the public record. All the public needs to do is read it. And weep that Hillary Clinton’s power to subvert our constitutional processes has become so great that she can preempt every investigative branch of our government to avoid being held accountable.

Saturday ~ October 10, 2007 by Peter Paul Posted in Hillary Clinton| No Comments

Did Hillary Fix the Rosen Trial to Hide Her Culpability in Campaign Frauds?

After six years of sleep-walking through the biggest maze of corruption, obstruction of justice and abuse of power ever witnessed by a jaded government “insider”, the clouds parted and a clap of thunderous realization struck this observers consciousness. What has been glaring on the face of the public record , mirrored in a kaleidoscope of witnesses, investigations and evidence , suddenly revealed itself in a Where is Waldo epiphany.

The Justice Department (DOJ), in tandem with a federal judge appointed by the Clintons and defense counsel directed by Clinton alter egos, used the Clinti-Vellian indictment and prosecution of Hillary’s low level campaign functionary with the high faluting title of “National Finance Director” to “immunize” the Clintons from legal and public accountability for egregious violations of the law orchestrated in plain view of democrat political leaders, A-List Hollywood and the American media.

The Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity prosecutors got away with indicting Hillary Clinton’s finance director, David Rosen, in a sealed indictment in 2003, for hiding from Hillary’s Senate campaign the $1.1 million cost of Hillary’s largest fundraiser (Event 39)? The government charged Rosen with the sole criminal culpability for causing Hillary’s Committee Treasurer to file three false FEC reports between October, 2000 and July, 2001 that hid the origin and expense of more than $700,000 of the cost of Event 39 donated by Peter Paul. Yet all interested political observers of the 2000 campaign were apprised that Hillary and her Senate Campaign Committee knew the very same information the DOJ charged Rosen with hiding from them, and they knew it long before they filed the first “criminal” false FEC report Rosen was indicted for uniquely causing. The world was apprised of Hillary and her committee’s knowledge of David Rosen’s “secret” information regarding the true $1.1 million plus cost of Event 39 when Hillary’s personal and campaign spokesman Howard Wiolfson confirmed to Washington Post gossip columnist Lloyd Grove on August 17, 2000, that:

“As for the rest of the estimated $1 million-plus cost, “it was an in-kind contribution . . . and not a check,” Wolfson said.

No one, including donor Peter Paul, ever publicly challenged the clearly ersatz indictment based on that “quote” because of the success of the Clinton “spokespieces” in diverting attention from the real issues surrounding the FEC frauds directed by Hillary with Bill as her agent.

Somehow the Clintons managed to execute an elaborate charade to hide Hillary and Bill’s illegalities in inducing and coercing Peter Paul to donate more than $1.2 million for Hillary’s Senate campaign, and then misreporting those contributions in false FEC and IRS reports? It involved the apparent complicity of a Los Angeles federal Judge A. Howard Matz they appointed and the Chief of the DOJ Office of Public Integrity (Noel Hillman) who directed his lead prosecutor, Peter Zeidenberg, to act in concert with the Judge to produce the greatest legal rope-a-dope on record? Was the Rosen trial fixed by the Clintons to hide in plain view, and thereby avoid, their own accountability for serial felony violations of federal laws that generated Hillary’s largest contributions of money and endorsements to ensure her victory over Rick Lazio in 2000, and continue the obstruction through false reports in 2006 that assured Hillary’s re-election.

The possibility of a collusion directed by Hillary and/or her agents to cover-up her illegal role in the matter comes strictly from the public record of the facts surrounding the investigation, indictment and prosecution at trial of David Rosen. Judge A.Howard Matz (appointed by co-presidents Bill and Hillary Clinton to the federal bench in 1998) blatantly ignored the Judicial Canons of Ethics, before any evidence was presented or any opening remarks were made, in tainting the jury with false public statements he knew or should have known were false. The fact that Judge Matz’ unethical conduct was not immediately challenged by the prosecutor raises the spector that more than misfeasance or incompetent lawyering may have been afoot.

First of all, Judge Matz began the trial by stating to the media unequivocally that “This isn’t a trial about Senator Clinton.” “Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or principal.” “She’s not in the loop in any direct way, and that’s something the jury will be told. ” Judge Matz’s statements violated the Judicial Canon of Ethics in making prejudicial public statements relating to a case at bar, and were factually false in that Senator Clinton had a tremendous stake in the trial- as both a party and a principal because of the ramifications of exposing her personal illegal actions, conspiring not only with Rosen, but with President Clinton as well, to illegally solicit and then hide Peter Paul’s contributions- the largest of her campaign.

The video evidence that the US Attorney from NY withheld from the FEC, FBI and Inspector General investigations clearly shows that Hillary was not only personally “in the loop” directly and through her White House employee Kelly Craighead, contrary to the Judge’s assertions, but the video clearly shows Hillary admitting to acting as a talent coordinator for the fundraiser, soliciting illegally excessive in kind contributions of the professional performing services of Cher, which Hillary used to generate more than $1 million in hard money donations to her campaign through “ticket sales” based in larges part on Cher’s performance.

While the government prosecutors ensured that Rosen alone took the heat from their ersatz indictment for victimizing Hillary Clinton’s campaign by hiding the truth about Peter Paul’s donations and expenditures and thereby causing false reports by Hillary’s campaign to the FEC, Judge Matz ensured Rosen would never be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the jury because of the Judge’s own declarations to the jury. Immediately after telling the Jury that Hillary was not involved in any way in the matter, the Judge proceeded to declare publicly and to the jury that Peter Paul was “a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual. He’s a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established.” The Judge did this knowing that the government’s case was based largely, according to the New York Times, on Paul’s allegations and that Rosen’s defense was that Paul conned him by hiding the true information about his $1.1 million plus contributions from Rosen.

“The federal government’s criminal case is largely built around the claims of Peter Paul. .. who turned on the Clintons after producing a lavish Hollywood fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in 2000… the defense is expected to argue that Mr. Rosen had no way of knowing that the figures he reported were wrong because he had relied on information provided by Mr. Paul and others who arranged the event. ” Political Drama Abounds in Trial Involving Mrs. Clinton’s Hollywood Fund-Raiser - by Raymond Hernandez, New York Times, May 9, 2005

Instead of objecting to the Judge’s prejudicial actions on the spot- and calling for the judge to recuse himself or declare a mistrial, the prosecutor proceeded to tell the jury that the Judge was correct in his assertion that Hillary Clinton had no role in the case (even though the Justice Department was withholding video taped evidence to the contrary) and that Hillary was a victim herself, implying that she was victimized not only by the defendant by also by Paul.

The most glaring problem with the case, brought exclusively against Rosen was to divert attention from the role of Hillary and her agents in illegally soliciting and coordinating more than $1.2 million in contributions from Peter Paul, and then lying about it to the voters and the FEC to win two Senate elections. Hillary admitted in a taped conversation with Paul regular briefings were given to her by the designated White House staff liaison with Paul, Kelly Craighead. But most compelling about the government’s contrived and illegal indictment of Rosen for allegedly hiding from Hillary’s campaign the true donation/expenditure of $1.2 million from Paul, was the campaign’s own public statements after the Gala.

Not only did the DOJ prosecutors know from the Washington Post that Hillary and her campaign were officially on record as knowing that Event 39 cost more than three times what they reported to the FEC and IRS from October, 2000 through January, 2006, but they knew from evidence presented and subpoenaed from the donor, Peter Paul, himself, and those who worked for him, that many agents of Hillary were fully aware that the reports made to the FEC hid most of Paul’s $1.2 million plus expenditures.

The career DOJ prosecutor who made opening and closing remarks to the Rosen Jury, Peter Zeidenberg, also performed that function in the false statement trial of Lewis Scooter Libby. Zeidenberg’s statements to the Rosen jury were carefully crafted to assure Rosen’s acquittal for causing the false reports made by Hillary Clinton and her campaign to the FEC about serious violations of the federal election law. Interestingly, Mr Zeidenberg’s statements to the Libby jury were carefully crafted to assure that Libby was convicted of making false statements to the FBI in connection with conduct with the media that was adjudged to be a perfectly legal.Zeidenberg never objected to the Clinton appointed judge unethically destroying all credibility of his principal witness, Peter Paul, to the jury, thereby assuring he could never call Paul to the stand, but he never called for a mistrial because of the judge’s prejudicial statements that effectively proved Rosen’s defense of being conned by Paul was reasonable.

Then, when Mr. Zeidenberg began to explain the case to the jury starting with how the events unfolded, his statements to the jury on the origin of Event 39 conflicted with the testimony of his own witnesses. By misstating that Rosen and Paul alone concocted the fundraiser after Paul went to Rosen to volunteer his funding and production contributions, the prosecutor again immunized Hillary’s liability for a felony violation of the federal election law based on the testimony of Clinton agen Jim Levin and others who recalled that Event 39 was the brainchild of Hillary’s agents Craighead and Levin in Chicago on June 23, 2000, after a Hillary attended fundraiser. than Hillary’s agents Kelly Craighead and Jim Levine who then solicited Paul to produce and pay for it. The prosecutor’s actions all seemed surgical in their efforts to excise Hillary and Bill Clinton’s illegalities from being revealed while laying the blame on a functionary who could never be convicted.

With the recent release in April, 2007 by the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY of a smoking gun video of an illegal fundraising phone call from Hillary Clinton to Peter Paul in July, 2000 (a tape that was withheld from the DOJ, the FEC and the Rosen Grand Jury investigations into Hillary’s largest fund raising event) , Peter Paul’s attorneys are preparing a request to the new Attorney General to open a new investigation of the role Hillary, and the US Attorney she supervises as Senator from NY,played in obstructing all investigations that improperly exonerated Hillary Clinton for lack of any evidence linking her personally to the matter.

The Jury was first deceived by the Judge when he stated Mrs. Clinton played no role in the Gala, which was at the heart of the case against Rosen. This judicial deception supported the government’s first objective, to deflect Hillary’s accountability by blaming her underling for hiding information he exclusively had from Hillary and her campaign about Paul’s contributions.

Then Judge Matz ensured that after Rosen took the heat during the trial for unilaterally victimizing Hillary Clinton in hiding the truth about the false information reported by her campaign to the FEC about Paul, Rosen would never be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the jury by virtue of the Judge’s own declarations to the jury. After telling the Jury, before any evidence was presented, that Hillary was not involved in any way in the matter, the Judge proceeded to declare publicly to them that Peter Paul was “a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual. He’s a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established.” The Judge did this knowing that Paul was a principal witness against Rosen, and that Rosen’s defense was based on discrediting Paul.

Since Rosen’s entire defense was based on the argument that Rosen was a dupe and victim of Mr Paul, who hid all information on what he was spending for Mrs Clinton, when the judge began the trial with the unprecedented and highly prejudicial statement about Paul being a con man, he effectively told the Jury that the Defense’s case was credible and therefore as a matter of law they could never legally conclude there was not reasonable doubt to allow them to find David Rosen guilty!

Normally, a judge’s actions that violate the integrity of a prosecution in this overt and unmitigated way would be challenged by the prosecutor- because the judge has rendered the entire trial moot before it began. But here the Prosecutor himself joined in assuring the jury that Hillary was in fact a victim in the case, and there would be no evidence of her involvement in any way. Rather than stopping the sham proceeding from being conducted by a judge who violated his oath of office to conduct trials fairly and objectively, the prosecutor proceeded to carefully lay out evidence that would protect Hillary so that she could point to her personal exoneration in the trial as definitive evidence of her lack of any culpability for the largest campaign finance fraud on record and thereby avoid accountability in the FEC and Senate Ethics Committee investigations launched by Peter Paul’s allegations.

Its all in the public record - all the public needs to do is read it and weep- that Hillary Clinton’s power to subvert our constitutional processes has become so great, she can preempt every branch of government’s ability to hold her accountable to the Rule of Law in plain view for all to see and fear.

Sunday ~ September 09, 2007 by Peter Paul

Source: http://www.peterfpaul.com/