Hitlary The Fraud - Part 6 of a 7 Part Series

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/sheppard/03202006.htm

Robbing Peter to Pay Hillary Part II

The Media Cover-Up of the Largest Campaign Finance Fraud in US History

The Fraudulent Senator: Part 6 of a 7 Part Series

Media/Noel Sheppard

March 20, 2006

Part I of this report exposed America's media for complicity in covering up

the largest campaign finance fraud in history, while assisting Hillary

Clinton become the junior senator from New York.

As Hillary went from First Lady to an elected representative in 2001, the

press blackout of the fraudulent activities surrounding the Hollywood

fundraising gala in her behalf stayed largely intact. Most of the exceptions

came in the form of smears and attacks upon the man who financed this gala,

Peter F. Paul.

What follows is an examination of how the media continued with its cover-up

after Hillary was sworn in so as not to hinder her chances of becoming the

Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nominee.

Media Blackout Turns Yellow

According to LexisNexis, there was no further reporting about Peter Paul's

involvement with the Hillary Clinton senatorial campaign until March 19,

2001. The Industry Standard at that time did what appeared to be a "hit"

piece concerning the bankruptcy filing of Stan Lee Media, Inc. This

1861-word article entitled "The Trials of a Comic Book Hero" chronicled the

ups and downs of this once high-flying company, and laid most of the blame

for its demise on Paul:

"Paul, who co-founded Stan Lee Media but never held an official job or title

there, was cut off from the company in early January. He left behind an

enterprise in turmoil. The Securities and Exchange Commission had launched

an informal inquiry, and an internal investigation led to the termination of

Paul and another executive suspected of involvement in stock manipulation

and embezzlement. By then, court documents say, Paul had made plans to flee

to Brazil, where he is thought to be today."

Paul and his legal team struck back. On March 22, PR Newswire reported:

"The law offices of Freund & Brackey LLP, lawyers for Stan Lee Media, Inc.

co-founder Peter Paul, delivered a demand for a retraction and apology for

libeling Mr. Paul in a March [19], 2001, article published by The Industry

Standard. The magazine erroneously reported that Mr. Paul had been

convicted 'for the sale of heroin' and for 'defrauding shareholders of a

coffee company' in connection with a political action against Fidel Castro

more than twenty-three years ago.

"In preparation for further action against The Industry Standard, a

respected multimedia business journal, attorney Jonathan Freund addressed a

demand letter to the Editor and Publisher of the magazine, advising of the

apparent wanton and willful disregard of the truth in the allegations made

by The Standard's reporters in the article entitled 'The Trials of a Comic

Book Hero.'"

Paul's contentions were right. On March 29, PR Newswire reported the

following:

"In its first official response to Stan Lee Media Co-Founder Peter Paul's

demand for a retraction and apology for libelous statements contained in the

Industry Standard's March 9, 2001 edition, Jonathan Weber, Editor in Chief

of The Standard, wrote Paul's attorney Jonathan Freund a letter faxed on

March 27, 2001 stating in part: '... we intend to publish corrections and an

apology in the next issue of the magazine and to correct the archived

version of the story, which was removed temporarily from our site last week.'

These corrections relating to incidents that allegedly occurred twenty three

years ago will address the libelous 'statements that Mr. Paul was convicted

of the 'sale of heroin' ... that he was 'disbarred' rather than suspended

from the practice of law.'"

Curiously, the rest of the media were mum regarding this matter, and

appeared content to keep any reference to Hillary's largest campaign

contributor out of the print and airwaves until the announcement that Paul

had been indicted for a variety of charges related to the demise of Stan Lee

Media including stock manipulation. Yet, the coverage of this indictment,

along with its ramifications, was nothing less than atrocious.

New York's Newsday published a 592-word article on this subject on June 13,

but placed it on page A29. As the headline "Comic Book Co-Founder Indicted

in Stock Case" gave no indication of a connection to Hillary or her 2000

campaign, it is safe to assume few people paid much attention. Yet, the

article did contain some pertinent information:

"Paul's attorney, Larry Klayman of the Washington-based Judicial Watch, has

persistently accused both Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President

Bill Clinton, of corruption. Klayman declined to comment yesterday on

whether his client was guilty of the stock charges, but said that $2 million

allegedly lost by investors was donated by Paul to Hillary Clinton's

campaign last year.

"Klayman said he had documentation of his allegations but declined to

provide any.

With that out of the way, the article moved into the classic Clinton defense

mode that has been so commonplace in media reports about this couple since

the early '90's:

"A spokeswoman for former President Clinton, Julia Payne, said, 'We never

respond to Mr. Klayman's outrageous allegations about the Clintons.' A

spokeswoman for Hillary Rodham Clinton, Karen Dunn, responded similarly.

Isn't that special? It must be nice to be able to get away with never

responding to allegations. Yet, that wasn't the most outrageous statement in

this article:

"'Several sources familiar with the indictments said federal agents were

probing Paul's allegations. They stressed, however, that there was no

evidence that either of the Clintons knew of the alleged massive campaign

contributions from Paul or failed to properly report them."

No evidence? Well, how about doing a little research and identifying that

just ten months earlier, Hillary's spokesman told The Washington Post the

gala fundraiser Paul threw for the Clintons cost more than $1 million? Might

that be evidence enough?

Of course, since it appears Newsday didn't do such an investigation, it

couldn't have known how absurd the next couple of paragraphs were:

"According to Common Cause, a Washington, D.C.-based election watchdog

group, Stan Lee Media Inc. was the top soft money contributor to Clinton's

Senate campaign. Common Cause said the firm donated $468,564 in 1999 and

2000.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign reports show that Paul gave $2,000 to

NYSenate 2000, the campaign's soft money arm, on June 30. The reports show

NYSenate 2000 refunded the donation to Paul on Aug. 16, but do not indicate

why."

Putting this into proper perspective, Tom DeLay is accused of illegally

funneling $190,000 of corporate contributions to the Republican National

Committee to impact Texas statewide elections in 2002, and has been indicted

as a result. There have been thousands of media reports on this matter since

well before the indictments were handed down in September 2005, and said

indictments were front-page news along with the lead story by every

broadcast network news program on the day they occurred.

Yet, allegations of similar campaign finance abuse by Sen. Clinton four

years earlier, with sums of money potentially ten times greater than DeLay

is alleged to have manipulated, were buried on page A29. And, this is a New

York paper hiding a story about a New York senator!

Sadly, the other New York papers didn't do any better. Although the Daily

News at least put the senator's name in the headline - "STOX SCAM SUSPECT

SAYS HE GAVE HIL 2M" - the 297-word article, with content roughly similar to

Newsday's, was buried on page 6. Yet, maybe most astounding, according to

LexisNexis, The New York Times thoroughly ignored this story.

So did the Washington Post, which is surprising given that it had originally

broken elements of this story ten months earlier. This is especially odd

given that, for the first time, allegations were being made concerning

fraudulent campaign finance activity surrounding this gala. As the Post was

first to articulate reporting discrepancies involving this fundraising

event, it is nothing less than shocking that nobody at the Post followed up

on these new revelations.

Par for the course, with the exception of the Los Angeles Times' 522-word

June 13, 2001 article of similar content to Newsday's, the rest of the print

and all of the television media continued to totally ignore this story.

Compare this to the attention the DeLay case was given even prior to his

indictments, and the focus on Abramoff even though no indictments have been

issued against any recipients of his funds. Then, consider the fact that no

member of Congress is believed to have received from Abramoff anywhere near

the dollars Hillary took from Paul, and the disparity in press coverage

becomes all the more preposterous.

Media Mum Regarding Lawsuit Filed Against the Clintons

A week later, on June 20, 2001, Judicial Watch held a press conference at

the Beverly Hills Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. The subject: A lawsuit

being filed by Judicial Watch against the Clintons on behalf of Paul.

According to LexisNexis, aside from U.S. Newswire which announced the press

conference the day before it occurred, few media outlets gave this much

attention.

On June 22, 2001 Salon reporter Anthony York downplayed the lawsuit by

smearing the plaintiff and his attorney: "Enter Larry Klayman, chairman of

Judicial Watch, the conservative group that made a name for itself waging

war on the Clinton White House," and; "Paul, who has a past record including

convictions for cocaine possession and a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme

involving the Cuban government."

Compare that to the job Paul Bond of the Hollywood Reporter did the same day

with his 658-word article entitled "Paul Suit Says Clintons Lied." This

represented by far the first decent accounting of this issue to date.

Unfortunately, this was not a national publication:

"The complicated saga laid out in a filing with the Los Angeles Superior

Court late Tuesday is a response to Paul's federal grand jury indictment

last week. Authorities contend that Paul bilked investors of $25 million in

a scheme that drove up the price of Stan Lee Media shares, allowing Paul to

sell them for huge profits before the company went bankrupt.

"But Paul, contacted in South America, said his troubles with U.S. federal

authorities are related directly to the Aug. 12 Hollywood tribute dinner, as

well as donations he says he made to the Clintons totaling about $1.9

million, which the Clintons have denied receiving. In fact, Hillary

Clinton's Senate campaign said in August that it returned to Paul a $2,000

donation.

"According to the suit, as a result of the Clintons' failure to report

properly all of Paul's contributions, he 'has been placed at substantial

risk of prosecution for violation of campaign fund-raising laws.'"

By contrast, a 284-word article published the same day by Agence France

Presse entitled "Fugitive US financier cites Clinton in lawsuit" appeared

more interested in smearing Paul over his convictions than detailing the

complaints of his suit. So did a 487-word Washington Post article on this

subject placed on page A6 a few days later. Susan Schmidt's headline read

"Fugitive Felon Says Clinton Aid Wasn't Logged." Any serious attention to

this issue was downplayed by focusing on Paul's previous convictions, and

quoting Democrat officials who dismissed the complaint:

"Paul, who was convicted of fraud and drug charges two decades ago, was

indicted anew on stock fraud charges in New York earlier this month. In an

unsuccessful effort to stave off those charges, he presented his allegations

about the Clinton campaign to four U.S. attorney's offices, all of which

declined to investigate. Paul is now in Brazil, and prosecutors are seeking

his return.

"The claims were dismissed by officials at the Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee, which reported to the Federal Election Commission on the

funds raised at the event. The committee reported an in-kind contribution of

$ 500,000 from Stan Lee Media, an Internet company with which Paul was

affiliated. 'I believe the staff working on the event got that figure from

Mr. Paul,' said DSCC spokeswoman Torah Ravitz."

As compared to the vigilance this paper employed when it went after the

Watergate conspirators in the '70s, the word of a Democratic campaign

spokeswoman was enough to close the door on this story, for the Post didn't

publish another article on this matter for two and a half years. In

addition, nobody at the Post did a simple check of its own previous articles

on this subject to identify that Hillary's spokesman had told the Post ten

months earlier that the gala cost over $1 million. Nice job of investigative

reporting, folks.

Besides a small mention of this in the Village Voice's national news roundup

on June 26, according to LexisNexis, no other media outlet felt that a

lawsuit being filed against a former president and a sitting senator by that

senator's largest campaign contributor was at all newsworthy. Imagine that.

If Someone Points at a Naked Emperor, Will Anybody Look?

On June 28, 2001, a nationally recognized journalist was finally willing to

report the more gory details involved in this affair. Unfortunately, it was

conservative columnist Robert Novak, and, since this was an op-ed entitled

"Is Clinton-era corruption getting a pass?; Feds don't seem interested in $

1.9 million gift to ex-first lady," it was placed on page 35 of the Chicago

Sun-Times. However, the piece boldly went where no other media

representative dared:

"On March 30 in Newark, N.J., lawyers from the conservative Judicial Watch

organization met representatives of four U.S. attorneys with an offer in

behalf of an unusual client. Peter Paul, a colorful Hollywood entrepreneur

under Justice Department investigation for stock manipulation, would give

information to prosecutors if he could return briefly from Sao Paulo,

Brazil, without fear of arrest. Included was his claimed contribution,

unreported to federal authorities, of nearly $ 2 million to Sen. Hillary

Clinton's 2000 campaign.

"Two months of silence was broken June 12 when Alan Vinegrad, acting U.S.

attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn), brought a

securities fraud indictment against Paul. No interest was shown in the

proffer. The Clinton administration pattern appears to be continuing in the

Bush administration. Donors, not recipients, of specious political

contributions are prosecuted."

Novak continued: "Nevertheless, a lawsuit filed by Paul in Los Angeles June

19 against Bill and Hillary Clinton paints a picture all too familiar in

American political fund-raising generally and by the Clintons particularly."

And:

"'Generally, we don't comment on Judicial Watch activities,' Clinton

spokesman Jim Kennedy told me. The Clinton FEC filing shows a $500,000

'in-kind' contribution by SLM, but actually, the company gave nothing.

Paul's canceled checks substantiate his $ 1.9 million unreported

contribution."

Novak had finally stood up and addressed the emperor's peculiar attire. Yet,

nobody else in the media appeared at all interested until ABC News' "20/20"

on July 13, 2001. In his piece, Brian Ross cleverly exposed a number of

inconsistencies in the media's previous reporting on this matter. First, it

would have been impossible for the Clintons and their staffs to have not

known about Paul's past:

ROSS: (VO) Like a number of the big-money people who court politicians in

both parties, Peter Paul comes with a lot of baggage. In the 1980's Paul

served almost four years in prison on fraud and drug charges. A criminal

record, the Secret Service would, according to standard procedure, have

easily discovered and reported to the White House staff.

Mr. PAUL: They knew that--that these were federal convictions. Anytime that

the Secret Service runs your Social Security number, those are the first

things that come up.

Hillary and her staff maintained that she barely knew Paul. Not so according

to Ross, who used home videos of Hillary interacting with Paul to

demonstrate the absurdity of such assertions:

ROSS: (VO) Senator Clinton and her staff now act as if she barely knew Peter

Paul. But his home videos tell a different story, starting with a private

lunch Paul co-hosted for Mrs. Clinton at the Beverly Hills restaurant Spago.

Senator Hillary Clinton: (From home video) Tell me, tell me, I'm so excited.

ROSS: (VO) Dionne Warwick sang for the small group. Ironically enough,

"That's what friends are for." Numerous stars were there, but Paul and his

wife Andrea were the ones seated right next to Mrs. Clinton. In fact, Paul's

home videos picked up Mrs. Clinton saying she had stopped using e-mail

messages because of all the investigations she had been through.

Senator CLINTON: (From home video) As much as I've been investigated and all

of that, you know, why would I--I don't even want--why would I ever want to

do e-mail?

Mr. PAUL: (From home video) No, no.

Senator CLINTON: (From home video) Can you imagine?

As for the disparity in the contribution amount reported to the FEC:

ROSS: (VO) Paul says he put up $30,000 to be the co-host of the lunch. And

in total, he estimates, he has canceled checks and other documents showing

more than $1.5 million in direct and so-called "in-kind" contributions to

support the Hillary campaign last year. Yet only about $500,000 of that

appears in the federal election records filed for her campaign, attributed

to the various companies Paul's connected with. Democratic officials say

they simply reported what Paul told them, which Paul says is not true.

Ross even added a new twist to this story, that the Clinton campaign had

illegally received contributions from a Japanese citizen:

ROSS: (VO) And seated right behind the Clintons, was a Japanese businessman

by the name on Tendo Oto (ph), an associate of Paul's who gave Paul $27,000

to attend the fundraiser. Citizens of foreign countries are prohibited from

giving money to federal campaigns.

(OC) You told Mrs. Clinton's staff you had $27,000 from a Japanese citizen?

Mr. PAUL: Right.

ROSS: (VO) A picture that night shows Oto being escorted into the concert by

Paul and the Clinton staff. Oto told 20/20 he was unaware that the $27,000

sent to Paul could be considered an illegal contribution.

(OC) Did anybody ever tell you, 'You must return that'? You can't take money

from a...

Mr. PAUL: No one ever told me anything about the money. And ultimately they

promised to invite Mr. Oto to the last state dinner at the White House.

The piece also confirmed what Paul had said concerning the first Washington

Post reports in August 2000:

ROSS: (VO) But Paul says the Clinton staff told him to go along with the

story and he did.

Mr. PAUL: Well, I had no choice. I mean, if you just paid $2 million to have

a relationship with some people, you're not going to turn around and call

them liars in the Washington Post.

The segment neared a conclusion with Sen. Clinton refusing to answer any

questions from Ross concerning this matter:

ROSS: (OC) Senator, Brian Ross from ABC's 20/20.

Senator CLINTON: Hello, nice to see you.

ROSS: (VO) Last week in New York, Senator Clinton would not even say if she

recalled meeting Peter Paul. She said she didn't want to talk about his

allegations because his lawsuit is being brought by the top man of the group

called Judicial Watch, which has brought numerous lawsuits before against

the Clintons and members of their administration.

Senator CLINTON: And I'm just not going to comment on it. It's not anything

that I'm going to have anything to say about. It will just work its way out

as all of his frivolous lawsuits do.

ROSS: Do you recall Mr. Paul?

Senator CLINTON: Thank you.

ROSS: Do you recall working with him at all?

It must be nice to be so powerful that you don't have to answer questions

directed at you from the media. Regardless, three days after this report, on

July 16, 2001, Judicial Watch and Peter Paul held a press conference at the

National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to announce the filing of a

complaint against the Clinton campaign with the FEC. The conference included

videotapes of Paul with the Clintons, and featured Paul via telephone from

Sao Paolo, Brazil.

Wes Vernon of NewsMax reported the next day:

"The videos at the news conference showed Hillary Clinton in animated

friendly conversation with Peter Paul and his wife, Andrea. Photos included

a scene with Paul seated next to Chelsea, Bill and Hillary Clinton, watching

the star-studded entertainment last August in Los Angeles just before the

Democratic National Convention."

According to LexisNexis, there were precious few media outlets that reported

anything concerning the "20/20" segment or this press conference. On July

13, 2001, U.S. Newswire did a short piece on both issues. New York's Newsday

did a 455-word article on July 14 placed on page 8 concerning the "20/20"

segment. The Seattle Times did a brief mention of the lawsuit in a national

news roundup on page A4 on July 17. And, on the same day, Knight

Ridder/Tribune did a fair job presenting the facts of the lawsuit in a

476-word article.

Likely due to the involvement of Philadelphia native Ed Rendell, the

Philadelphia Inquirer did a 903-word article on this subject on July 18

entitled "Fugitive seeking $1.5 million he gave for Hillary Clinton

fund-raiser." Despite this headline, reporter Peter Nicholas did a fairly

good job of presenting some of the allegations made in the suit: "In a civil

suit, Peter F. Paul, 52, alleges he spoke to Rendell, then chairman of the

Democratic National Committee, about getting a presidential pardon during a

conversation in which Rendell was soliciting a contribution for the National

Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Paul also contends Rendell told him

that by contributing money to the DNC he could get access to President

Clinton and thus pitch a proposal to honor a business partner."

Despite the increasing amount of print coverage, America's major newspapers

and magazines were still boycotting this story, as were the television

media. CBS via its MarketWatch website finally broke the ice on August 4,

2001 to announce that Paul had been arrested in Brazil to face extradition

hearings. I guess to CBS, this only became a story when the antagonist was

incarcerated, for it sure wasn't interested in any of the facts leading up

to this point.

Yet, true to form, nobody else at the time reported that Hillary Clinton's

largest campaign contributor had been arrested in Brazil.

On September 2, 2001, The Dallas Morning News interviewed Larry Klayman,

Paul's legal representative at that time from Judicial Watch, and this

subject was briefly addressed. Then, on October 21, the Miami Herald's

business section did a large, 1757-word piece about Paul, his legal issues,

and his past.

As 2001 drew to a close, the Associated Press came out of hibernation on

December 12 to publish its first report on this subject. As one would

imagine, it wasn't very good news for Paul: "A campaign donor who sued

former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton for not abiding

to an alleged agreement lost the first round of a legal dispute. Superior

Court Judge Aurelio Munoz dismissed the civil lawsuit Tuesday because Peter

Paul has been indicted in a criminal case."

For sixteen months, the AP hadn't published one article concerning this

whole sordid affair; the Clintons win a court decision, and the wire service

is all over it.

Yet, the bulk of the media were still in blackout mode. Although Hillary

represented citizens served by the New York Times, the Old Gray Lady had

still not published one word regarding this issue, and not one of the

reports filed by any media had yet made it to the front page. Beyond this,

"the most trusted name in news" had still not mentioned anything about this

matter since it began in August 2000. Not one word.