 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
 Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 6:55 am Post subject: TAKING ADVANTAGE AND RUINING LIVES-CLINTON STYLE |
 |
|
HOW TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR POWER AND INFLUENCE-- CLINTON STYLE
from HillCap.org
Peter Paul's extensive evidence shows clearly that Hillary Clinton knew of the actions taken by her finance director, and that she orchestrated those actions and others in violation of federal campaign statutes and regulations.
THE CIVIL SUIT
THE OFFER
42. Plaintiff prepared the written offer and delivered it to Levin. Under the terms of the offer, President Clinton would work with Plaintiff and his companies, Stan Lee Media, Inc. and Mondo English, Inc., for one year, commencing when the President left office, in consideration for the following: (1) $10 million worth of stock in Stan Lee Media, Inc.; (2) $5 million in cash; (3) a $1 million contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library; and (4) Plaintiff’s underwriting of up to $525,000 in expenses for the Hollywood Tribute, serving as executive producer of the event, and securing world class talent for the event, as had been discussed during the July 11, 2000 telephone conference call.
48. The Hollywood Tribute was to include a reception, a $25,000 per couple gala dinner and a $1,000 per person concert. Plaintiff was to supply and pay for performances by world class artists, including Cher, Diana Ross, Paul Anka, Michael Bolton, Toni Braxton, Melissa Ethridge, Patti Labelle, and Mark McGrath and Sugar Ray, among others. Muhammad Ali, John Travolta, Kelly Preston, Whoopi
Goldberg, Red Buttons, Ted Danson, Jimmy Smits, Mary Steenbergen, Dylan McDermot and Gregory Peck also agreed to participate. The event was to be held at the Brentwood estate of businessman Ken Roberts.
49. Plaintiff originally approached Jeff Salmon of Dick Clark Productions about producing the Hollywood Tribute. However, the Clintons, by and through Rosen, requested that Plaintiff retain Gary Smith, a CBS producer and friend of the Clintons, to produce the concert portion of the event. Smith and his production company, Smith-Hemion Productions, had produced President Clinton’s first Inaugural
Ball and were producing the August 2000 DNC Convention, as well as a gala fundraiser for Vice President Gore to be held after his presidential nomination. At Rosen’s request, Plaintiff agreed to negotiate with Smith.
52. Based on Smith’s promises and representations, and Mrs. Clinton’s personal intervention, Plaintiff agreed to use Smith’s services and began to make payments to Smith. To this end, Smith used his “lend out” production company, Black Ink Productions, Inc., to produce the concert. In May 2001, Smith admitted to Mike Wallace of CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he agreed to lower his fee after speaking with Mrs.
Clinton on or about July 11, 2000, at Plaintiff’s request.
THE EXTORTION BEGINS
58. As the Hollywood Tribute drew near, Smith demanded Plaintiff pay him an additional $75,000, through Smith-Hemion Productions, Inc., as a “personal production fee” for the concert portion of the event. Smith threatened to quit if he was not paid the additional fee.
59. Plaintiff went to Rosen to request advice and assistance in dealing with Smith’s threat and demand for an additional fee. Plaintiff protested the additional fee to Rosen and asked him to have Mrs. Clinton intervene. In a meeting in Plaintiff’s office, Rosen told Plaintiff he would speak to Mrs. Clinton about the matter. Rosen later informed Plaintiff that Mrs. Clinton would not intervene and advised Plaintiff to pay Smith the additional fee, as the event was only a few days away and Smith was vital to its success. Trusting the advice of Rosen, who had worked on projects like the Hollywood Tribute previously and who had been involved in Smith’s selection, Plaintiff paid the additional $75,000, as advised by Rosen. At the time, Plaintiff reasonably believed Smith’s demand for the additional fee was nothing more than a misunderstanding.
60. However, Plaintiff was becoming concerned about the increasing cost of the event, which was exceeding $1.25 million. Gershman had failed to put up any of the $525,000 that Rosen and Tonken had promised, and, consequently, Plaintiff was underwriting the event entirely by himself.
62. A few days before the Hollywood Tribute, Plaintiff told Rosen, Levin, and Tonken that he could not contribute any more monies towards the event. Plaintiff also reminded Rosen, Levin and Tonken that he had paid far more for the event than he originally anticipated and that the additional commitment he had made to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign -- in the form of a pledge of $150,000 in Stan Lee Media, Inc. stock -- was not due until September 2000, when the stock became transferrable.
63. In response, Rosen, Levin, and Tonken threatened Plaintiff that if he did not continue to underwrite and serve as executive producer of the event, he would lose the considerable funds he had already put forward, damage his reputation and business interests irreparably, and never be able to work with the President after he left office.
64. During this same meeting, Plaintiff asked Rosen to have Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign put up approximately $200,000 to help cover the cost of printing and postage for the Hollywood Tribute. Rosen refused. He also threatened to cancel the event and blame Plaintiff for the substantial embarrassment that the President and Mrs. Clinton would suffer as a result, if Plaintiff did not continue to
underwrite and serve as executive producer of the event.
THE EVENT
71. President Clinton also introduced Plaintiff to his daughter, Chelsea Clinton, at the Hollywood Tribute. Chelsea Clinton sat between Plaintiff and the President during the two and one half hour concert, and Plaintiff and Chelsea Clinton discussed how Plaintiff had underwritten and served as executive producer for the event. Plaintiff and Chelsea Clinton also discussed Plaintiff’s plans to work with President Clinton after the President left office, and Plaintiff suggested in front of the President that Chelsea Clinton could work for him too.
72. Other witnesses at the Hollywood Tribute with whom Plaintiff had discussed his underwriting of the event and his plans to work with President Clinton after the President left office include Michael Jackson, Larry King, Shirley MacLaine, John Travolta, Kelly Preston, Cher, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Whoppi Goldberg, Patrick Swayze, and George Hamilton, among others. Many of these same persons attended the event as Plaintiff’s personal guests.
74. In total, Plaintiff spent approximately $1.9 million on the Hollywood Tribute, not including the fair market value of his own services in acting as executive producer of the event and the fair market value, estimated at an additional $1 million, of the services rendered by eight ( world class artists who performed at the concert portion of the event. The event yielded Mrs. Clinton almost $1.5 million in “hard money” contributions for her U.S. Senate campaign, in addition to invaluable Hollywood endorsements and nationwide publicity.
75. The following day, August 13, 2000, Plaintiff and his wife attended a brunch at the home of Barbara Streisand and James Brolin to recognize persons who had agreed to contribute $1 million to President Clinton’s presidential library. The President, Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea Clinton also were in attendance. During the brunch, Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea Clinton introduced Plaintiff’s wife to Streisand as the person who, along with her husband, had underwritten the Hollywood Tribute the night before. President Clinton introduced Plaintiff’s wife to Brolin in an identical manner.
76. Also during the brunch, Chelsea Clinton related to Plaintiff and other guests that she had been up late playing “Scrabble” with her mother and father after the Hollywood Tribute, and that they had discussed Plaintiff’s generous gift of the event to them the night before. Chelsea Clinton stated that her father considered the event one of the highlights of his presidency and was enthusiastic about working with Plaintiff after leaving The White House.
77. Oto joined Paul and his wife at the brunch as well, again in recognition of his role in financing the multi-million dollar employment package for President Clinton after the President left office in January 2001, including their $1 million contribution to the presidential library. At Plaintiff’s request, Levin arranged for Oto to have his picture taken with President Clinton during the brunch. Levin later personally delivered the photos to Oto in Japan, although without telling Plaintiff.
78. That same night, Mrs. Clinton telephoned Plaintiff at his home to thank him again for underwriting and serving as executive producer of the Hollywood Tribute. During the conversation, Mrs. Clinton expressed how important the event was to her campaign.
THE BETRAYAL BEGINS
79. On August 15, 2000, The Washington Post reported that Plaintiff had served three years in prison after felony convictions in the 1970s. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton and her U.S. Senate campaign, Howard Wolfson, was quoted as denying that Plaintiff had given or raised any money for the campaign. Wolfson also was quoted as stating, on behalf of Mrs. Clinton and her U.S. Senate campaign, that the
campaign would not be accepting any contributions from Plaintiff. The quotes attributed to Mrs. Clinton and her U.S. Senate campaign, by and through her spokesman, were clearly false.
80. On August 17, 2000, The Washington Post published another report in which Mrs. Clinton acknowledged, by and through her spokesman, Wolfson, that Plaintiff had, in fact, contributed money to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. However, Mrs. Clinton and her U.S. Senate campaign, by and through her spokesman, Wolfson, falsely represented that Plaintiff had made only a single contribution of $2,000 on or about June 30, 2000. Wolfson stated that Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign had returned the $2,000 contribution. In the report, Wolfson also admitted that the Hollywood Tribute had cost in excess of $1 million and was an “in kind” contribution to the campaign.
81. Levin, who was in Los Angeles at the time, met Plaintiff in his office shortly after the articles were published. Levin represented to Plaintiff that, despite the statements made by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in The Washington Post, his plans for working with President Clinton after the President left office in January 2001 were still on track. Levin explained, however, that Plaintiff might not be able to meet or spend much time with the President at The White House until after the November 7, 2000 elections.
82. When Plaintiff asked Levin why Mrs. Clinton’s campaign had denied that Plaintiff had underwritten and served as executive producer of the Hollywood Tribute, Levin represented to Plaintiff that the denial was simply a media strategy chosen by Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign and that Plaintiff should go along with the campaign’s media strategy by remaining silent about his role in the event.
THE COVER UP BEGINS
87. Also in August 2000, Rosen repeatedly contacted Plaintiff about the transfer of the $150,000 in Stan Lee Media, Inc. stock Plaintiff had pledged to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign in June 2000. Because Plaintiff already had exceeded by far the commitments he made to underwrite, serve as executive producer of, and secure talent for the Hollywood Tribute, Plaintiff was hesitant to make this additional, substantial contribution. In a telephone call in mid- to late August 2000, Rosen threatened Plaintiff that his plans to work with President Clinton after he left office “won’t work out” unless the stock was transferred.
88. As a compromise, Plaintiff and Rosen agreed that Plaintiff would transfer $55,000 worth of stock in Stan Lee Media, Inc. to the brokerage account of what Rosen characterized as women’s rights organization in New York. Plaintiff and Rosen agreed that Plaintiff would transfer the stock on behalf of Mrs. Clinton and that the transfer would satisfy the June 2000 commitment. Rosen forwarded brokerage account information, via facsimile, on or about August 24, 2000, and the stock was transferred in mid- to late September 2000. At that time, however, Plaintiff was not aware that the entity to which the stock was transferred, The Working Families Party, was a political party, not a women’s rights organization.
106. In late February 2001, after Plaintiff had made numerous calls to Rosen over the course of several months to find out how his contributions were going to be reported to the Federal Election Commission, Plaintiff was shocked to discover, by reviewing Senator Clinton’s campaign filings via the Federal Election Commission’s Internet website, that except for the $2,000 contribution refunded in August 2000, none of his contributions to Senator Clinton and her U.S. Senate campaign had been reported. Nor has Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign refunded any of these contributions to Plaintiff.
107. The only report to the Federal Election Commission of any possible involvement by Plaintiff in the Hollywood Tribute is a January 31, 2001 report of a $366,564.69 contribution allegedly received by New York Senate 2000 from Stan Lee Media, Inc. This report is false, because Plaintiff, not Stan Lee Media, Inc., underwrote and provided services and world class talent for the Hollywood Tribute and because Plaintiff made these contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, not to New York Senate 2000.
108. At no point during this time period was Plaintiff advised by anyone, nor did Plaintiff understand, that any of his contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign might run afoul of federal campaign finance laws. In fact, Plaintiff accurately believed it was the obligation of Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign to determine the legality of his contributions and to allocate and report them in an appropriate, lawful manner.
109. By the end of February 2001, after President Clinton left office, but failed to contact Plaintiff about their agreement to work together, and after Senator Clinton’s campaign failed to accurately report Plaintiff’s contributions to the Federal Election Commission, Plaintiff’s suspicions of fraud by each Defendant were confirmed.
110. On June 19, 2001, Plaintiff filed suit against President Clinton, Senator Clinton, Senator Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign, New York Senate 2000, Rosen and Tonken in order to recover the monies he expended for the Hollywood Tribute, among other damages. That action, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, was captioned Peter F. Paul v. William Jefferson Clinton, et al., Case No. BC
252654 (Los Angeles Co. Sup. Ct.).
111. On July 16, 2001, Plaintiff wrote to Senator Clinton demanding that she and her U.S. Senate campaign return his contributions. Plaintiff also filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on or about that same date.
112. Senator Clinton failed to respond to Plaintiff’s July 16, 2001 demand for a refund, and, on or about August 10, 2001, the Federal Election Commission notified Plaintiff that it was investigating him for potential federal campaign finance violations.
113. On or about December 10, 2001, the Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the President and Mrs. Clinton, among others, on the purported grounds that Plaintiff was a fugitive from federal criminal charges arising from his alleged use and control of Stan Lee Media, Inc. stock, among other matters, even though Plaintiff was in the custody of the Brazilian federal police at the time and was awaiting extradition to the United States.
114. On or about September 12, 2003, Plaintiff was placed in the custody of U.S. officials and extradited to the United States. As a result, his claims are now undeniably ripe for review.
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FreeFall
LCDR
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 421
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Hill Billy's are so corrupt, it isn't funny! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The FBI is working a plea bargain with Paul.
Their BIGGER FISH is Hillary. I bet Bill wishes he had given Paul
that pardon he was seeking. On his last day office, Clinton was so
rushed to pardon everyone who could testify against him, that he overlooked Peter Paul.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/5/155435.shtml
| Quote: | Feds Probe for Clinton Campaign Violations
NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2004
WASHINGTON – The Republican-run Justice Department is setting its sights on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign in pursuit of possible fund-raising violations. In targeting a rising star in the Democratic Party, prosecutors are trying to gain the cooperation of an indicted businessman who raised the allegations, interviews and documents indicate.
The FBI has told a U.S. magistrate in Los Angeles it has evidence the former first lady's campaign deliberately understated its fund-raising costs so it would have more money to spend on elections, and prosecutors allege one of her fund-raisers helped because he wanted a pardon from her husband.
Noel Hillman, the Justice Department's top public corruption attorney and a career official, has met three times, most recently in May, with lawyers for Peter Paul to discuss a plea deal. Justice wants to interview Paul to see whether he can substantiate his allegations that Clinton's campaign engaged in wrongdoing, the defense lawyers said[/b.
Paul is a three-time convicted felon who hosted a Hollywood fund-raising event for Mrs. Clinton in 2000 and is facing charges of stock fraud in New York. He alleges he underwrote most of the costs for the event. Prosecutors contend he did so in an effort to try to win a pardon from then-President Bill Clinton.
Lawyers for Mrs. Clinton and the former chief fund-raiser for New York Senate 2000, David Rosen, say their clients have done nothing wrong. "New York Senate 2000 properly reported all donations in 2000," said David Kendall, Clinton's attorney.
The investigation, which has dragged on for more than three years, could cast a shadow on a top Democratic Party star's career.
[b]Possible Candidate for President
Sen. Clinton is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2008 if Sen. John Kerry loses this year. But she first faces a re-election battle in 2006, possibly against former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani or New York Gov. George Pataki.
Most allegations of campaign finance irregularities are handled administratively through the Federal Elections Commissions, although the Justice Department has investigated such matters in the past.
During the Democrat Clinton administration, when Attorney General Janet Reno ran the Justice Department, a department campaign finance task force charged more than two dozen individuals and two corporations with fund-raising abuses that occurred in the 1996 election cycle. Many of the abuses involved Democrat fund raising.
Documents obtained by The Associated Press show an FBI agent told the Los Angeles magistrate two years ago that the government believes Mrs. Clinton's campaign understated its costs for the Paul fund-raiser.
"The event's costs exceeded $1 million, but the required forms filed by New York Senate 2000 ... months after the event incorrectly disclosed that the cost of the event was only $523,000," said the 2002 FBI affidavit, which was unsealed in the summer. "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."
The document also said a $366,000 donation to the gala was incorrectly listed as coming from the company Paul co-founded, Stan Lee Media, when it really came from Paul personally.
Hillman, chief of the Public Integrity unit, has met with Paul's lawyers three times - last Oct. 30, Feb. 11 and May 25 - to discuss a possible arrangement but no deal has been reached, said Paul attorney Robert Sticht of Los Angeles. Paul's defense team comprise Sticht and lawyers for Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group.
'Anxious'
"Hillman was anxious to get moving," Sticht said in an interview. Sticht said the public corruption prosecutor also told him, "If you think all of the evidence came from your client, let me assure you that it's not true."
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said he had no comment on the investigation.
The negotiations could help determine whether charges are brought against people involved with Mrs. Clinton's successful campaign for the Senate four years ago.
Rosen, the campaign's finance director, is a subject of the criminal investigation, said legal sources who could not be quoted by name because it is a grand jury matter. A subject is a person with relevant information, who later could face potential charges
"From my review of all the facts, I am convinced that Mr. Rosen has done nothing improper. To the contrary, he has done everything right," said Paul Mark Sandler, Rosen's attorney.
Paul alleged to the FBI that hundreds of thousands of dollars contributed to Clinton's campaign went unreported, much of the money payments for the private Hollywood fund-raising event he hosted on Aug. 12, 2000, FBI documents show.
An FBI document written in 2001, based on an interview with Paul that year, said Rosen worked in Paul's office for one month putting together the Hollywood party. According to Paul, Rosen watched him write checks totaling about $1.5 million to pay for the gala.
"Paul stated that none of the campaign reports list the names of the companies used by him to pay for the party," an FBI document said.
Another 2001 FBI document based on an interview with Paul said, "Paul advised that David Rosen sat in on every planning meeting [for] this event and met every supplier."
The indictment against Paul does not mention campaign contributions, but a prosecution memo by Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine Youssef last July does make a link. Youssef, a prosecutor in New York, describes in the memo some evidence the government may produce at a trial.
She said that in August 2000, Paul borrowed approximately $225,000 from business partner Stan Lee, telling Lee he needed the money for a party for Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In the summer of 2000, the memo said, Paul sought to bribe Bill Clinton in an attempt to win a pardon for his three felony convictions. Part of the alleged bribe was Paul's financing the bulk of fund-raising events for Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Youssef wrote. |
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tanya
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 570
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Balloon Artist
PO3
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you're a "Friend of Bill", Avoid airplanes and don't let your prescription for anti-depressants lapse. You may live longer.
_________________
What about John Kerry's four months in Vietnam qualify him to be president?
Al Gore was there for five. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barbie2004
Commander
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 338
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | WHAT NICHOLS DIDN'T EXPECT WAS A COMPLETE MEDIA BLACKOUT OF THE FACTS HE HAD PRESENTED.
LARRY NICHOLS: Back in 1990, after all the damage they had done to me, I did something that most people wouldn't do in Arkansas: I sued Bill Clinton. Now it's very important to note that in that lawsuit I brought out the names of five women. On October the 19th the only press conference I've ever held in my life was on the Capitol steps of Arkansas.
Every news organization in Arkansas, newspaper, TV, radio, were there on the steps. I read the names of the five women. I read and talked about ADFA. No one had ever made such a cold, callous statement against Bill Clinton where he named the women.
When I got through with the press conference I went through the center door and I walked, with the camera crews with me, and I walked all the way to the end, to the Governor's office and I left the press release right on the Governor's secretary's desk. Not one bit of the press release made it into the local TV or the local newspapers anywhere. It didn't show up anywhere. The reason I tell you that is because in those days he had the circle of power complete in Arkansas. |
Sorry to sound like such a broken record, but I have said it before and I have to say it again.
The only way to control the media, that is owned by different companies, is to control people who report the news.
Guess who controls the REPORTERS & NEWSCASTERS & MSM?? Guess who has the organizational and communication structure to bark out marching orders??
The AFL-CIO!
The AFL-CIO is the federation that controls all of the unions that control:
The Media
Hollywood
Academia & Colleges
By laws that were written while the democrats controlled everything, "legally" if the union says you don't work, you don't work.
Bye, bye job! Bye, bye acting! Bye, bye fame! Bye, bye money!! Bye, bye career!!!
How much influence do you think that has with reporters, anchors, editors, actors, professors, etc. all those that we call "liberal" and wonder why??
The labor unions have always backed the democrat party!!
Why has that been the case?
Because the democrat party wrote the laws that says: if the union says you don't work, you don't work.
It began in 1937 with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA is the baby to the labor unions. More so than any other New Deal legislation.
It gave the unions influence, forced memberships, and most importantly--the cash cow--forced dues!
See this for more detail: http://www.libertyviewjournal.blogspot.com/
scroll down to second post and read.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tanya
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 570
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clinton Judge Blasts Hillary's Accuser
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/11/120020.shtml
"While outlining instructions he intends to give the jury, Judge Matz, who was appointed by President Clinton, called Paul "a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual."
"He's a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established," the Clinton appointee added, in quotes picked up by the New York Sun.
When it came to Mrs. Clinton, however, Judge Matz was more forgiving.
"This isn't a trial about Senator Clinton," he insisted. "Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or a principal."
~snip~
"Matz was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by President Clinton in March 1998 on the recommendation of California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who argued at the time that Matz had "a deep commitment to justice." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | When it came to Mrs. Clinton, however, Judge Matz was more forgiving. "This isn't a trial about Senator Clinton," he insisted. "Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or a principal. Though both Paul and another key witness, celebrity fund-raiser Aaron Tonken, both say they told the former first lady about the campaign cash Rosen allegedly hid from federal regulators, Judge Matz insisted, "She's not in the loop in any direct way, and that's something the jury will be told." |
The JUDGE WILL TELL the jury what they are supposed to think before any evidence is presented because he already KNOWS for sure that she’s not involved? Is it customary judge behavior to know the outcome of a trial before it proceeds? Will he not allow any evidence to be brought in that might implicate hillary? Will he not allow any questioning regarding hillary? I just don’t know what it means for the trial with him “insisting” up front that she is not involved…. Isn’t he showing a prejudice of some sort that would allow replacing him with another judge?? I don’t follow enough trials to know if this judge is acting like a normal judge – I don’t know what the rules are – but it sounds like he is way out of bounds with these statements….
---------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tanya
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 570
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Beatrice1000 I don't know how it works but it seems that they could ask him to recuse himself. I found this and I don't know if it would apply to this case.  Maybe someone with legal knowledge will know.
http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/103.html
Canon 3C(1)
Canon 3C(1) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges governs many of the issues related to this type of harassing litigation.2 It provides in relevant part:
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning a proceeding; . . .
(c) the judge knows that [he or she] . . . has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy . . . or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d) the judge . . . :
(i) is a party to the proceeding . . .
(iii) is known . . . to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) is . . . likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
When recusal is not mandated by one of the specifically enumerated categories in Canon 3C(1), the Committee has identified a number of non-exclusive factors to be considered by an assigned judge in determining whether a "judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." These include the nature of the complaint, the applicable law, the possibility of factual issues involving the credibility of the named judge or judges, and any other circumstances that might provide a reasonable ground for questioning the impartiality of the assigned judge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beatrice1000
Resource Specialist
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1179
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tanya, thanks! – looks good to me.
However, if the judge won’t step aside willingly – which it doesn’t look like this one will, then what? At your link there’s talk of immunity and frivolous complaints and dismissals… and decisions of chief judges .. and then this, which I don’t really get but which doesn’t sound good:
| Quote: | | “Given that most misconduct complaints are dismissed by chief judges at the outset, the foregoing advice makes recusal unnecessary in most cases. With respect to complaints that are not dismissed by chief judges, we conclude that no across-the-board rule is appropriate. However, we believe a relevant question in this situation is whether it appears that there is a realistic potential for a sanction of some kind to be ordered against the judge complained against.”----- |
I am quite happy to leave all this to the lawyers… seems rather mucky (doesn’t look like it would be an easy task to remove a judge who doesn’t want to go….)
----------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For Immediate Release
May 9, 2005 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172
JUDICIAL WATCH CALLS ON SENATE TO INVESTIGATE AND DICIPLINE HILLARY CLINTON FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD
JW Files Ethics Complaint Against Clinton with U.S. Senate
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that it has filed an ethics complaint with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics against Hillary Rodham Clinton for her role in a campaign finance scandal that led to the indictment of her Director of Finance, David Rosen. Rosen is expected to go to trial on May 10 for causing false campaign finance reports to be filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and could be forced to serve 20 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines.
Judicial Watch’s ethics complaint relates to a $2 million contribution made to Senator Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign by former Judicial Watch client Peter Paul in the form of a “Hollywood Tribute to William Jefferson Clinton.” Contrary to promises made by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, Mr. Paul’s contribution was never properly reported to the FEC, or in filings lodged with the Secretary of the Senate. The Justice Department has evidence proving Senator Clinton was personally complicit in the scheme, and had full knowledge of the costs associated with the event. Yet, investigative authorities and members of the Senate have thus far failed to hold her to account.
Judicial Watch, working with Peter Paul, cooperated with the Justice Department in its investigation of the campaign finance scandal, which ultimately led to the indictment of Rosen. The FEC has also launched an investigation of Hillary Clinton and her campaign for multiple allegations of wrongdoing.
“Judicial Watch respectfully submits that Senator Clinton should be investigated and disciplined for violating federal campaign finance reporting laws in connection with an August 12, 2000 fundraiser for her U.S. Senate campaign and for engaging in conduct that reflects unfavorably on the Senate as a whole,” Judicial Watch argued in its complaint. “At all relevant times, Senator Clinton and her campaign knew and understood that Mr. Paul was spending well over $1 million, not including substantial amounts of Mr. Paul’s own time and resources on the Hollywood Tribute.”
Judicial Watch is calling for Hillary Clinton to be given at least the same investigative attention as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who was admonished three times in 2004 by the House Ethics Committee.
“Hillary Clinton’s campaign finance scandal is just as serious as the allegations brought against Tom DeLay,” noted JW President Tom Fitton. “And yet, while DeLay has faced an ethics firestorm, Hillary Clinton’s legal and ethical transgressions have been largely ignored. The U.S. Senate must finally enforce its ethics rules.”
To view a copy of the ethics complaint, click here. For the full version which includes all exhibits, click here (note that this is a very large Adobe Acrobat file).
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It wasn't only the Clinton-appointed judge who absolved Hillary in opening remarks,
the FEDERAL PROSECUTOR absolved her too!!!
"SHE WAS A VICTIM" he said.
Those Clintons have a long reach!!
| Quote: | Ex-Aide to Hillary Clinton on Trial
A federal prosecutor says the N.Y. senator had no role in misreporting of campaign donations.
By David Rosenzweig, Times Staff Writer
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had nothing to do with a scheme to conceal hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions that were used to put on a star-studded fundraiser in Los Angeles for her 2000 Senate campaign, a federal prosecutor said Wednesday.
If anything, said Justice Department lawyer Peter Zeidenberg, the New York Democrat was a victim of her campaign finance director's reckless ways.
"You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any way, shape or form," Zeidenberg said in opening remarks in Los Angeles to a U.S. District Court jury selected to hear a criminal case against her former finance director, David Rosen.
"Whatever your feelings about Hillary Clinton — good, bad or indifferent — they should have nothing to do with how you decide this case," he added.
Rosen, 40, a Chicago political consultant, is charged with three counts of making false statements to the Federal Election Commission about the underwriting of an Aug. 12, 2000, fundraiser in Brentwood that coincided with the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles. Along with Hillary and former President Bill Clinton, the guest list included Cher, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston and Diana Ross.
Rosen's defense lawyer is scheduled to make an opening statement this morning. In court documents, the defense has contended that Rosen was duped by two con men who offered to bankroll the event.
Zeidenberg, a prosecutor with the Justice Department's public integrity section, argued that it was Rosen who deliberately caused the Clinton campaign to file reports showing that in-kind contributions toward the event totaled $400,000, although he knew they exceeded $1.1 million.
The funds came from Peter Paul, described by the government lawyer as a "wealthy and eager" West Coast contributor. At the time, Paul was associated with "Spider-Man" creator Stan Lee in developing an Internet-related business.
Paul has said he gave money for the event in hopes of convincing the former president to help promote the Internet venture. Paul also had a criminal past, it was later disclosed, and has since pleaded guilty to bilking investors in that company.
With just weeks to spare before the convention, the prosecutor said, Rosen moved into Paul's Encino offices and oversaw planning for the fundraiser.
"He was involved in every key decision from the design of the menus to who sat next to whom," Zeidenberg said.
But the costs quickly spiraled out of control. Many celebrities invited to attend demanded to be flown in private jets, resulting in transportation costs exceeding $90,000, Zeidenberg said. More than $50,000 was spent on building a stage, $90,000 went for invitations, $50,000 for CDs given away as party favors and $35,000 was earmarked for monogrammed director's chairs that guests took home.
Rosen, himself, lived well, the prosecutor added, chalking up more than $13,000 in bills while staying at posh Los Angeles hotels.
As the costs mounted, Zeidenberg said, Rosen panicked and feared he would be fired, especially since his last fund-raising effort was a flop. His solution, according to the prosecutor, was to understate the underwriting costs.
Zeidenberg said it was important for Rosen to do so because a provision in the federal election law states that the more money a campaign receives in in-kind contributions, the less so-called hard money it can spend directly to defeat an opponent.
He said Rosen told a confidante that if challenged, he would blame Paul and Paul's protege, Aaron Tonken, who also took part in arranging the event. Tonken, a former Hollywood fundraiser, pleaded guilty in December 2003 to two counts of fraud in connection with other charity galas.
After the fundraiser, Paul filed a lawsuit against the Clintons in Los Angeles County Superior Court, accusing them of pulling their support from his Internet enterprise after they learned of his criminal past. Paul's lawsuit was prepared by an attorney for Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that has harshly criticized the Clintons for years.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, attended the Rosen trial Wednesday and said he does not believe the federal prosecutor's argument that Hillary Clinton was unaware of the underreporting of contributions.
"That's not correct. We say she did know," Fitton said. "The prosecutors just don't want to get into a fight with the Hillary Rodham Clinton fans. It's a very political decision." |
www.latimes.com/news
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rparrott21
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 760
Location: Mckinney, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SBD
Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 1022
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from NewsMax.com
Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:41 a.m. EDT
Witness: Hillary Aide Ordered Cover-up
An event planner who worked on a blockbuster Hollywood fundraiser for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton testified Wednesday that her finance chairman, David Rosen, order that the full costs of the event be covered-up.
"I was instructed by David Rosen to take certain expenses off," Gretta Nock told jurors in Rosen's trial. Nock confirmed earlier testimony by Alan Baumrucker, whose company Black Ink Productions put together the concert portion of the event, which featured mega-stars Cher, Diana Ross, Paul Anka, Michael Bolton, Patti LaBelle and Melissa Etheridge.
The Clinton event planner said she asked Baumrucker to supply a bogus invoice for $200,000 to cover-up his real fee - $605,000. Baumrucker testified that he reluctantly complied with Nock's request.
While Nock said she couldn't remember whether Rosen had instructed her to make specific cuts, she said it was clearly understood that "overall figures needed to project a lower cost."
After cooking the expense records, the event planner said she forwarded the bogus numbers to Clinton's campaign headquarters for filing with the FEC.
Though prosecutors say Mrs. Clinton was unaware of Rosen's financial shenanigans, Hollywood mogul Peter Paul, who paid for the gala event, alleges that she was personally involved in an effort to trim concert expenses.
Paul contends that he hired Mrs. Clinton's friend Gary Smith to produce the gala's concert. And Smith used his "lend out" firm Black Ink Productions.
When Smith submitted a fee of $850,000, Paul said he complained directly to the then-first lady, who contacted Smith and persuaded him to cut his bill by $50,000.
SBD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
