Hitlary The Fraud - Part 4 of a 7 Part Series

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/dicintio/03162006.htm

Hillary Clinton & Event 39:

Legal House of Cards or Little Crooked House?

The Fraudulent Senator: Part 4 of a 7 Part Series

Government/A.J. DiCintio

March 16, 2006

When former K Street mogul Jack Abramoff struck a deal with the Department

of Justice, he unwittingly supplemented a famous piece of Watergate advice

with the following corollary: "To follow the money, trail the lobbyist."

Unfortunately, investigative reporters of the elite media have so

overreacted to this useful counsel that they periodically succumb to wild

fits that send them chasing a photo of a lobbyist sipping eggnog with bigwig

holiday revelers, an act that only a gotcha-obsessed mind interprets as the

most awful of Washington's lobbyist shenanigans.

Despite these momentary lapses of purpose (attributable to Pack Mentality

Disorder), investigative reporters are to be respected for their dogged

dedication to work that is essential to the nation's well being. With that

fact in mind, you would think they'd go gaga over a scandal involving big

money; a lavish, celebrity-studded Hollywood gala/political fundraising

event; a settlement regarding alleged violations of Federal election law;

and a civil lawsuit, all involving Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the

presumptive front-runner for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination and

recipient (among numerous other awards) of the 2004 German Media Prize

honoring her as "a model politician for millions of women around the world."

Yes, you would think such a story would motivate investigative reporters to

get hot on Mrs. Clinton's trail. But you would think wrong; for the truth is

that except for a 2001 ABC 20/20 piece by Brian Ross (which Peter F. Paul,

the plaintiff in the aforementioned lawsuit, criticizes for serious

omissions) and April Witt's "House of Cards," published in the Washington

Post, October, 2005, (which omits important topics that reflect negatively

on Mrs. Clinton), the major media have been nearly as silent about the

scandal as Mrs. Clinton has.

But in a time when money has corrupted politics so much that politicians

were moved to "reform" political campaigns by restricting the free speech of

ordinary citizens, it is essential that the public be informed about a

scandal that involves not only the most prominent face of the Democratic

Party but also the most prolific fundraiser among all politicians. (Doubters

of Mrs. Clinton's mania for money should know that in 2005, she collected

more than $21 million, triple the amount raised by a Senator as well

connected as Virginia's George Allen.)

To fulfill its purpose of helping the public understand the legal aspects

surrounding Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, et al. and the Hollywood

gala/fundraiser named "Event 39," this piece will divide them into two broad

categories: those that pertain to Federal Election law and those that

pertain to Mr. Peter F. Paul's civil suit. Although the two categories are

inextricably intertwined, separating them will help readers to understand

each more easily and to "follow the money" in the broadest sense of that

term.

Then, readers can decide for themselves whether this latest of Mrs. Clinton's

scandals is best characterized by "house of cards" or "little crooked

house," an image derived by taking a moral rather than a geometric lesson

from the appropriate Mother Goose rhyme.

Mrs. Clinton, Event 39, and The Federal Election Commission

The saga of Event 39 began only weeks before August 12, 2000, the day a

mansion in Brentwood, California, hosted the lavish Hollywood Gala produced

by Mr. Peter Paul so that soon to be ex-President Bill Clinton could be

properly honored by Hollywood celebrities and Mrs. Clinton could have her

Senate campaign appropriately enriched by their cash. How Mr. Paul was able

to assemble and present such a star and money studded event in just four

weeks is a question for another place and time, including conferences where

leaders of all kinds pay big money to learn how to get things done.

However, there is a question about Mr. Paul that is absolutely essential to

the topic at hand: How did he come to produce an event to which he himself

contributed a huge amount of money and which brought him into intimate

contact with the Clintons, their friends, and their staffs. Surely, Mr. Paul

must have been either a long-time friend of the Clintons or a well known

heavy-hitter among Democratic contributors.

The fact is that neither was the case. So, why did Mr. Paul suddenly throw

his talents and his cash into political waters? And how as a political

neophyte did he manage to begin his new venture not in state or local ponds

but in a glittering pool populated by the President, his wife, and numerous

other Democratic VIP's?

Following is an abbreviated version of Mr. Paul's account of that why and

how, an account that the public can examine in full in the text of PAUL v.

CLINTON at http://www.hillcap.org.

According to Mr. Paul, then Democratic Party Chairman Ed Rendell approached

him in the spring of 2000 about hosting two June fundraisers for Mrs.

Clinton's Senate campaign, a request that Mr. Paul both agreed to and

honored. Mr. Paul goes on to say that after he hosted the events, he was

approached by Clinton friend Jim Levin, who asked him to pay for a big

fundraiser to be held before the Democratic Convention in August.

By the time of the Levin contact, Mr. Paul had been considering how he might

entice a post-Presidential Bill Clinton to work as a rainmaker for Stan Lee

Media, the animation company he had co-founded with Stan Lee, the writer who

created the modern "superhero" genre at Marvel Comics. Therefore, says Mr.

Paul, he proposed a deal to Mr. Levin whereby he would produce and make a

substantial contribution to the fundraiser (which became Campaign Event 39

or The Gala) if Mr. Clinton would agree to work for his company. According

to Mr. Paul, Mr. Clinton agreed through Mr. Levin; and according to Federal

documents, Mr. Paul began writing a lot of checks.

It was after he settled the details of the Gala with Mrs. Clinton's campaign

that Mr. Paul spent those four frantic weeks and a boatload of his own money

to produce a political tribute the likes of which Hollywood had never seen.

And when it came off in grand fashion, he must have believed he had

succeeded fully regarding the "why" of his mission; for he says that during

the many hours he sat with Mr. Clinton during the Gala, Mr. Clinton agreed

with the offer (whose details are revealed later in this piece) as he did

again the following day at the home of Barbra Streisand, where Mrs. Clinton

also reacted positively to it.

There, in brief, we have Mr. Paul's account of how and why an entrepreneur

possessed of promotional skills, experience in big time fund raising, and a

pipeline to Hollywood stars came to produce a mega-fundraiser deserving of

the title "Hollywood Gala Farewell Tribute" (a name Mr. Paul himself

proposed). His account also explains how he came to know the Clintons as

much more than an ordinary campaign contributor and to interact with their

friends and staff, including David Rosen, Mrs. Clinton's national finance

director, and Aaron Tonken, a young man Mr. Paul regarded as a Hollywood con

artist but whom Democrats as important as Bill and Hillary Clinton and Ed

Rendell celebrated as a grand impresario of Democratic Party fundraising.

We return now to Event 39 with this question: Did the Clintons place their

trust in the right person? That question was answered in part with a

resounding "yes" when Mr. Paul, who according to FBI affidavits put up more

than $1.2 million of his own money to produce the Gala, saw to it that it

came off lavishly and successfully with eight international headliners

feting President Clinton with such heartfelt sincerity that the soon to be

ex-President was moved to tears

Mrs. Clinton, however, wasn't interested solely in the part of the Gala that

paid homage to her husband. But any wrinkling of her brow was unwarranted;

for she also was "honored" handsomely when Mr. Paul's effectiveness in

raising money for her campaign coffers equaled that which he achieved when

he secured celebs such as Diana Ross and Cher to serenade and gush over

Hollywood's all-time favorite President.

Indeed, nothing attests to Mr. Paul's excellent work more than a U.S.

Department of Justice document stating that 1200 glitterati attended the

concert portion of the gala ($1,000 per ticket) while 350 very special

luminaries attended the sit-down dinner ($25,000 per couple). According to

the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project (HILLCAP), that glowing group

raised $1 million in hard money for Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign. But the

salient point is not this gross amount; it is how much the campaign should

have netted after it accounted for costs and contributions under rules laid

out by Federal law.

In this regard, HILLCAP asserts that by underreporting the cost of the gala,

"the Clinton campaign avoided paying at least $800,000 in hard money -- not

including the fair market value of the performances -- during the crucial

final weeks before the election." HILLCAP further asserts that "If Paul's

contribution had been reported fully as required by law, it could have

bankrupted the campaign."

We know how much Mrs. Clinton adores money; but with respect to any cravings

she may have had for "filthy lucre" achieved through a huge underreporting

of costs, an underreporting which is now undeniable, she ought to have mused

Hamlet-like "Ay, there's the rub." Mrs. Clinton, however, pondered no rub;

for she not once but three times filed statements with the FEC understating

the Gala's cost by more than $700,000.

Aware that his contributions had not been properly reported, Mr. Paul, on

July 16, 2001, wrote to Senator Clinton demanding she return his money and

also filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. Mr. Paul's

letter to the Senator carries particular significance because it asserts

that that the cost of Event 39 had been understated; it asserts that by not

reporting his contributions, Mrs. Clinton made them illegal; and it cites

that portion of the "Code of Federal Regulations" that requires "illegal

contributions [be returned] within 30 days of determining the illegality."

Mrs. Clinton neither returned Mr. Paul's contribution nor amended her FEC

filing. The FEC, however, did not react to Mr. Paul's charges so casually

and initiated an investigation of Event 39, resulting in an indictment and

prosecution of Mr. Rosen on charges of making false statements regarding the

more than $1.2 million contributed by Mr. Paul, thereby validating Mr. Paul's

assertions about how much money he had contributed to the Gala.

Specifically, the indictment against Mr. Rosen charged him with four counts

of filing false reports with the FEC, each of the four counts carrying a

maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines.

It is important to note that these charges were brought only after

involvement by a number of Federal agencies. For example, the Metropolitan

News-Enterprise, a Los Angeles newspaper that features articles about law

and the courts, points out that an important part of the case brought by the

Department of Justice was based upon FBI documents that said the FBI "had

evidence the former first lady's campaign deliberately understated its

fund-raising costs so it would have more money to spend on her campaign."

According to the newspaper, one of the charges against Mr. Rosen alleged

that he "obtained and delivered a fraudulent invoice stating the cost of a

concert associated with the gala was $200,000" when he knew that "the actual

cost of the concert was more than $600,000." As we shall see later, Mr. Paul

alleges that Mrs. Clinton herself knew the actual cost of the concert. But

the greater point here reaches beyond the cost of the concert alone; for

only a true-believing Clinton sycophant would accept the fact that among all

the sophisticated people associated with the campaign, only Mr. Rosen "knew"

the true cost of producing an affair as lavish as Event 39.

Mrs. Clinton, however, did not perceive the danger in which Mr. Rosen found

himself motivation enough to admit to the Gala's true cost, asking the FEC,

the Department of Justice, and the American people to trust her that the

Gala had been brought off at the paltry sum she filed in her FEC reports.

Indeed, Metropolitan News-Enterprise quotes David Kendall, Mrs. Clinton's

lawyer on campaign finance matters, as responding to its inquiry about the

indictment as follows: "The Senate Campaign Committee has fully cooperated

with the investigation. Mr. Rosen worked hard for the campaign, and we trust

that when all the facts are in, he will be cleared."

As we shall see later, Mrs. Clinton's campaign had not "fully cooperated" to

the FEC's satisfaction regarding "all the facts." But when her campaign

would finally stipulate to the facts, another of her campaign officials

would be implicated in the underreporting, with baseball loving

Hillary-come-lately to all things New York refusing to "step up to the

plate" and live up to the courage and honesty implicit in President Truman's

dictum that "the buck stops here."

In May 2005, a jury found Mr. Rosen not guilty of the charges. Regarding the

verdict, Paul Chavez of the Associated Press quotes the jury foreman as

saying that Rosen lacked the "means or clout" to carry out the actions the

government alleged and that his role "was as a fundraiser." Mr. Chavez

quotes another juror as offering the explanation that "he [Rosen] got in

over his head."

If Rosen "got in over his head" in that alluring pool, someone must have

pushed him. After all, Mrs. Clinton and other sophisticates around her

surely knew that an event as grand and lavish as Event 39 didn't come cheap.

Hadn't it been widely reported, for example, that the Brad Pitt Jennifer

Aniston wedding, which accommodated a mere 200 guests at a Malibu mansion

only two weeks before Event 39, cost $1 million?

And what of Mr. Paul, who had consistently asserted that more than $1.2

million of his own money went into paying for the Gala and who had pointed

out in his July, 2001, letter to Mrs. Clinton that the concert alone had

cost approximately $875,000, a fee that Mr. Paul alleges Mrs. Clinton helped

to negotiate. (That act alone would prove that Mrs. Clinton knew that Event

39 cost more than what she told the FEC.)

Inside the Beltway, the FEC may or may not have been aware of the

implications of the Pitt Aniston wedding. But aware of the facts alleged by

Mr. Paul and substantiated by its agents as well as agents of the Department

of Justice, the agency continued to believe that something was rotten in the

state of Event 39. The FEC, therefore, kept its investigation open,

announcing in 2005 that it had found "probable cause to believe that New

York Senate 2000 and Andrew Grossman, in his official capacity as treasurer"

violated Federal election law and the Commission's regulations.

With respect to this finding, the Commission and the Respondents, in

December of 2005, entered into a Conciliation Agreement that requires

Respondents to pay a civil penalty of $35,000 and amend New York Senate 2000's

disclosure report to reflect $721,895 of unreported in-kind contributions.

(Of course, there is nothing the FEC can do regarding the benefits that the

underreporting may have produced with respect to Mrs. Clinton's successful

campaign.)

Contemplating the Conciliation Agreement, we should recall attorney David

Kendall's words at the time of Mr. Rosen's indictment that Mrs. Clinton's

campaign "has fully cooperated with the investigation." We then need to ask

ourselves whether "the buck never stops with me" Hillary Clinton was willing

to allow Mr. Rosen to go to jail as the only person who "knew" about the

underreporting. Finally, we must ask ourselves what it says about Mrs.

Clinton that even with her campaign's assent to the Agreement, she asks the

nation to believe that the underreporting of more than $700,000 -- given her

sophistication and that of her associates, the star-studded lavishness of

the Gala, and the crucial implications of the underreporting to the

financial condition of her Senate campaign -- represents nothing more than a

slip in transposing numbers or other mere "accounting error."

Wise counsel suggests that Mrs. Clinton hold off on such a sigh for at least

three reasons other than the new allegation: (1) According to Mr. Paul, the

Department of Justice has not signed off on its interest in Event 39 (2) Mr.

Paul's civil suit is still pending (3) The Court of Public Opinion has yet

to consider the full implications of the Event 39 scandal.

If it proceeds as scheduled, the civil suit will bring to light new

information of importance both to the public and to the Department of

Justice. However, the American people can begin to make judgments about the

scandal based upon information already available. With respect to these

judgments, Ms. Witt is entirely correct to say that the central question is

"Who knew?"

Regarding that question, a Federal jury decided that Mr. Rosen didn't know.

In contrast, the FEC's finding of probable cause that Mrs. Clinton's

campaign violated Federal election law asserts that Mr. Grossman knew. But

how can it be possible that only Mr. Grossman knew? Who else must have

known? Once again Ms. Witt is right on target when she asks, "Did the

Clintons know that all that love Hollywood-style had come with such a big

price tag?"

The specific question for the public is, of course, "Did Hillary Clinton

know?" This question interests Dick Morris, a political consultant who began

working intimately with Bill Clinton in 1978 and served as White House

Political Consultant from 1994 to1996.

Writing in the New York Post (January 15, 2006), Morris arrives at his

conclusion methodically, first characterizing Mrs. Clinton's management

style: "I've worked with Hillary: She's a master of detail." He also

considers motive: "Had Hillary reported accurately the cost of the event,

she would have had almost $1 million less in hard money than she got by

understating it. This extra hard money was pivotal to her ability to finance

her 2000 Senate campaign." (Here, Mr. Morris, who knows a thing or two about

money and political campaigns, reflects HILLCAP's line of thinking.)

Having brought method, expertise, and a blue-collar common sense to

analyzing the problem, Mr. Morris arrives at his conclusion: "A decision to

underreport the costs of an event like the Hollywood extravaganza by almost

three-quarters of a million dollars could not possibly have been made

without her [Mrs. Clinton's] knowledge and approval - probably, at her

direction."

Actually, most Americans would analyze questions surrounding Mrs. Clinton's

involvement in the Event 39 scandal as Mr. Morris does, refusing to limit

themselves to strictures that fill lawbooks or to be distracted by ad

hominem attacks slung by politicians and their shills, instead, arriving at

their conclusions by considering both factual and circumstantial evidence,

always in the light of the realities of human nature.

With respect to Event 39, nothing exemplifies the wisdom of ordinary

Americans better than exchanges posted on the Washington Post's website on

October 10, 2005, in which Ms. Witt responds to questions from the public

regarding her article. The summaries below, taken from the full texts at

washingtonpost.com "Live Discussions," represent essential reading for all

who would presume to say they are informed about Event 39.

Los Angeles, CA: The writer asks why Ms. Witt did not quote the "Howard

Wolfson" article from the Washington Post, August 17, 2000, which supports

the notion that the campaign knew the Gala's true cost but attributed it to

in-kind contributions (a meaningless distinction for FEC purposes). The

writer also asks why Ms. Witt does not discuss the implications of the

faulty report that the campaign submitted to the FEC "two months later."

April Witt: Ms. Witt responds that the Post article only implies that Howard

Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, admitted that the campaign knew that the

Gala cost $1 million, explaining that she didn't write about Wolfson's

statement because it (the article) doesn't place the $1 million sum "inside

direct quotes." Then, Ms. Witt makes the following important comment: "I

found no record in the Post database that anyone from the campaign demanded

a correcton [sic] on that $1 million dollar-figure at the time. So that

certainly raised questions for me about why the figures ultimately reported

to the Federal Election Commission were so much lower."

Los Angeles, CA: The writer asks how it can be believable that Mr. Paul

"gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary's campaign . . .spent three hours

sitting next to hillary [sic] and Bill at the concert, then three more hours

sitting next to Bill over dinner" and yet "would NOT tell them what he did

for them." The writer also asks why Mr. Rosen was the only person indicted

and tried.

April Witt: To the first query, Ms. Witt responds as follows: "Peter Paul

has been quite clear in saying consistently that he made the contributions

in order to curry favor with Bill Clinton in hopes of doing business with

him after the president left office. So why on earth would he want to keep

those contributions secret? I can't think of a logical explanation. The jury

didn't get one." To the second question, she responds, "I don't know what

Hillary knew and I'm not in the business of making guesses. But you are not

the only person to ask why all blame fell to Rosen."

New York, NY: The writer asks why Ms. Witt didn't interview the Clintons for

her story, opines that Ms. Witt "treated [the Clintons] like innocent

bystanders," and asks about Mrs. Clinton's role in "cultivating Peter Paul

and inducing him to give her money."

April Witt: Ms. Witt responds by stating that she had access only to the

Clintons' lawyer. She then goes on as follows: "Certainly Hillary played a

role in cultivating Peter Paul. There are many photographs, as well as video

footage, of her speaking with Peter Paul in a very chummy matter. He's said

consistently that he wouldn't have given any money just because Rosen asked.

It required encouragement from the Clintons, he says."

Chicago, IL: The writer points out that even after "Hillary Clinton [was]

served with a civil complaint, an FEC complaint and a demand letter all

supplying facts and checks substantiating Paul's claims," her campaign filed

a "third fraudulent FEC report." The writer then asks "how can you say you

dont [sic] know what Hillary knew about at least the last FEC report that

could not be blamed on Rosen?"

April Witt: Ms. Witt responds as follows: "You are certainly correct about

the timeline as I recall it. Far be it from me to try to channel Sen.

Clinton, but she might well argue that she didn't take everything Paul

alleged in his civil suit as gospel. She's fighting the suit vigorously,

after all. Unfortunately for her, the FBI subsequently confirmed Paul's

allegation that the gala cost more than previously reported to the FEC."

As the American people sit on the Court of Public Opinion, nothing better

takes them to the point at which they can form their opinions about Mrs.

Clinton's involvement in the scandal surrounding Event 39 than the

perceptive insights of their fellow citizens reported above.

As Americans sit on the Court of Public Opinion, nothing better takes them

to the point at which they can form their opinions about Mrs. Clinton's

involvement in the scandal surrounding Event 39 than the perceptive insights

of their fellow citizens reported above.

And readers should do just that regarding Hillary Clinton, the "model

politician" who in August of 2000, upon learning of Mr. Paul's felony

conviction twenty years prior, denied taking money from Mr. Paul only to

return his $2,000 contribution when the truth came out.

The "model politician" who vowed never to take any further contributions

from Mr. Paul, only to hit him up for $100,000 in the form of a "stock

transfer" nine days later.

The "model politician" who publicly distanced herself from Mr. Paul only to

join with her husband in continuing a close relationship with him, even

inviting him aboard Air Force One, where, according to Mr. Paul, the

President convinced him to contribute the aforementioned marketable

securities, a contribution which as a matter of demonstrable fact Mr. Paul

did make.

And, finally, the "model politician" who developed a case of Clintonian

Amnesia about the whole Event 39 Affair, including the more than $1.2

million contributed by Mr. Paul and the false reports submitted to the FEC.

Peter F. Paul v. William Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, et al.

As a preface to this section, it is appropriate to comment about Mr. Paul's

felony convictions. Indeed, some readers will ask why this information was

not introduced at the outset of Part One. The answer to that question is

simple: Mr. Paul's convictions have nothing to do with the facts surrounding

his activities in producing and contributing to Event 39, with the

underreporting of Event 39's cost by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, or with any

Federal actions brought as a result of that underreporting.

With respect to the civil suit, whether in a court of law or in the Court of

Public Opinion, people may rightly take Mr. Paul's past into account as they

assess the truthfulness of statements he alleges he made and others made.

However, no reasonable person would argue that his past bad acts require us

to disbelieve everything he alleges; for accepting the principle behind such

an argument not only contradicts reason, it also would bring an end to all

courtroom testimony by felons who have agreed to plea bargains. Will any

person, for example, argue that the information Mr. Jack Abramoff is

providing to the Department of Justice ought to be disbelieved on its face?

It should be clear, then, that those who directly assert or imply that Mr.

Paul's past in any way has something to do with the relationship between

Federal election law and Event 39 are the worst kind of political shills.

But what of those who do the same regarding his civil suit while ignoring

hard as well as circumstantial evidence? We can be certain they are the kind

of people who dismiss as mere "peccadilloes" Bill Clinton's lies and

contemptible behavior, especially toward women, and accept as God's truth

the literally hundreds of can't recalls, can't remembers, and can't

recollects Bill and Hillary Clinton have uttered ad nauseam for years on

end.

For those who are interested in evaluating the suit with respect to civil

law, from its implications regarding Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the

underreporting of Event 39's costs and Mr. Clinton's involvement with Mr.

Paul and Event 39 to its general implications regarding the Clintons, a

brief summary follows. Those who wish to read the entire text may do so at

http://www.hillcap.org.

With respect to Mr. Clinton and his friend James Levin, the suit alleges

fraud and deceit regarding "the business relationship and employment

agreement negotiated by Plaintiff and Defendant William Jefferson Clinton,

by and through his agent, Defendant

James Levin, in mid-July 2000 and commencing after Defendant William

Jefferson Clinton left The White House in January 2001" and seeks awards for

compensatory and punitive damages as well as for a number of costs.

In layman's terms, Mr. Paul alleges that he would never have expended "in

excess of $1.9 million" on the gala if it were not for promises Mr. Clinton

made to work with him and his companies after he left office, promises which

Mr. Paul alleges Mr. Clinton "had no intention" of keeping. For those

interested in knowing the terms of the deal Mr. Paul alleges he negotiated

with Mr. Clinton, they are as follows: Mr. Clinton would receive $10 million

in stock and $5 million in cash in return for promotional work lasting a few

years.

With respect to Hillary Clinton, her Senate Committee, and David Rosen, the

suit makes two fundamental allegations (1) civil conspiracy in that the

parties "tacitly and/or expressly" agreed to the fraud and deceit attributed

to Mr. Clinton (2) fraud and deceit in that the parties falsely represented

that they would report Mr. Paul's contributions made to Mrs. Clinton through

the Gala to Federal election authorities in a manner that was consistent

with Mr. Paul's "donative intent" and "applicable laws and regulations."

In total, Mr. Paul's lawsuit lists seventeen causes of action, all of which

bear upon the scandal surrounding Event 39 or reveal the powerful influence

Mrs. Clinton's campaign had with the White House. With respect to that

influence, how does one otherwise explain film and photos showing Mr. Tendo

Oto, Mr. Paul's Japanese business partner, sitting immediately behind

President Clinton at the Hollywood Gala or attending a reception at the

White House? Is it legal for a campaign to accept contribution from a

foreign national? Is it correct protocol to place a person without security

clearance in such proximity to the President?

Of course, these details about Mr. Oto represent only a few of the myriad

facts that Mr. Paul is prepared to offer at trial: a huge pile of documents,

financial data, video, photos, and testimony that will greatly increase in

size when it is augmented by information obtained through pre-trail

depositions.

Analyzing the "Case of Mr. Tendo Oto" as it pertains to Event 39 is,

nevertheless, extremely important because it reminds us that a jury in a

lawsuit draws its conclusions based upon hard and circumstantial evidence,

bringing a large dose of common sense to bear upon both. Nothing better

exemplifies this truth than the civil verdict rendered against O.J. Simpson

and numerous other defendants who have previously been found not guilty in a

criminal trial.

That fact explains why Mrs. Clinton has labored so mightily to have Mr. Paul's

suit dismissed. But even if she were to succeed, the feeling of political

security she would achieve will be fleeting; for Mr. Paul can and ought to

appeal his case to the Court of Public Opinion, rightly the highest court in

the nation and one about whose members Lincoln observed, "You can fool some

of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but

you can not fool all of the people all of the time."