(Part 3) Breaking on FR - "House of Cards" WASHINGTON POST Whitewash on Peter Paul and Hillary Story

WASHINGTON COMPOST ^ | 10-9-05 | April Witt

[doug from upland]

EXCERPT FROM --- HOUSE OF CARDS

House Of Cards
What do Cher, a Hollywood con man, a political rising star and an audacious felon have in common? Together they gave Bill and Hillary Clinton a night they'll never forget -- no matter how hard they may try

By April Witt Sunday, October 9, 2005; Page W10

The caller lied easily. He'd had practice. It was Raymond Reggie, a New Orleans businessman and Democratic activist who happened to be Sen. Edward Kennedy's brother-in-law. He also happened to be in a lot of trouble.

[Southack]

I'm talking about politics, not prosecution.

[doug from upland]

The last time I remember a Clinton involved in a lawsuit, someone had to pay 900K (part of which had to be paid by his wife) and someone was impeached.

[doug from upland]

Thanks for the quick response from Congressman Billybob -- Hillary Knew, David Knew, Only the Post Reporter Was in the Dark

[doug from upland]

Peter Paul is not one of them. As a young international attorney in Miami, he represented several South American governments and was a pro-Reagan commie fighter. That is why he was involved in the CUBAN COFFEE CAPER THAT RIPPED OFF FIDEL CASTRO.

It is a usually a good business move to bring former presidents onboard your company when they leave the White House. Unfortunately, Peter didn't pay enough attention to what the Clintons had done --- he was busy building a business. He knows how much he screwed up and has paid a very heavy price for that bad decision.

[Brad’s Gramma]

JUST $5 A MONTH
STAMPS OUT FREEPATHONS

JUST $5 A MONTH
STAMPS OUT FREEPATHONS

[Southack]

"Unfortunately, Peter didn't pay enough attention to what the Clintons had done --- he was busy building a business. He knows how much he screwed up and has paid a very heavy price for that bad decision."

It's a thin excuse. I built up a software firm, a leasing company, a dot com firm, and ran a ranch in that same time period...and you'd be hard-pressed to say that I don't know about what the Clinton's have done...so I'm not entirely sympathetic to the "too busy" excuse.

But even if his excuse is valid...even if Peter Paul is legit...it all falls into the technically yet "unproven" category of Hillary's shenanigans. ...an area that runs the risk of actually aiding Hillary should she beat those particular charges in the court of public opinion.

That's why it is so important for us to concentrate solely upon what she has admitted to doing...which is her felony violation of the Open Meetings Act with Ira Magaziner.

She can't beat her admitted crime history...UNLESS we get distracted by chasing her with new charges (e.g. Peter Paul fundraising).

So I see no upside to going there. Hammer her on the one thing that she can't fight: her Health Care Task Force crime.

[ovrtaxt]

Hey, do you have a link to your interview on Tony Snow yesterday? I had to get out of the car and I missed it.

[doug from upland]

DFU RESPONSE: No. 3

FROM LETTER TO APRIL WITT:

Specifically I would like to reiterate what the record shows after your paper broke the story of my felony convictions from the late 1970's: 1) Hillary's spokesman Howard Wolfson, speaking to WP reporter Lloyd Grove on Hillary's behalf, acknowledged in the Washington Post story dated August 17, 2000 that Hillary knew the cost of the gala was "$1 million plus, but it was an in-kind contribution" ; 2) Wolfson's statements, as quoted in the Post articles of August 15 and August 17, were clearly intended to deceive the public regarding my true overall involvement with Hillary's campaign (producing 2 previous fundraisers in June, 2000) and in producing and underwriting the August 12 gala. These public statements were followed two days later by effusively complimentary thank you letters from BOTH the Senator and President for the same actions she had just publicly denied; 3) after Wolfson's profound efforts on August 16, 2000, to ensure the Post reported Hillary's immediate return of a $2000 check the Post discovered I had contributed in June, 2000,

HOWARD WOLFSON STORY

Here is a portion of Lloyd Grove's story a few days after the concert that appeared in the WASHPOST --

Hillary Returns Bucks to Ex-Felon

Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's press secretary misspoke--and convicted felon Peter Paul apparently misremembered--when they told us this week that Paul produced Saturday's star-glutted million-dollar fundraiser but didn't personally give money to Clinton's campaign.

"I stand corrected," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Wednesday after we located Federal Election Commission records showing that the fifty-something Paul donated $2,000 to Clinton's Senate campaign on June 30. "He had previously given, but not associated with this event, and today we returned the check," Wolfson said.

Paul was paid "a nominal fee" for his producing services, he said, and Wolfson said Stan Lee donated $100,000 to cover some expenses for the event. As for the rest of the estimated $1 million-plus cost, "it was an in-kind contribution . . . and not a check," Wolfson said.
-end excerpt-

FReepers, you are going to love this. Because Wolfson's quote was only "it was an in-kind contribution . . . and not a check," Witt did not include that information in the article. Unbelievably, she couldn't be sure that Wolfson, Hillary's official mouthpiece, actually acknowledged that Peter had spent over a million bucks because that part of the story wasn't in quotes. Wolfson would not return her calls. Did Witt make a call to the author, Lloyd Grove, who is now with the NY DAILY NEWS? No, she didn't bother.

Three days ago, I called Grove at the NY DAILY NEWS. It took a single call to reach him. He had no specific recollection of the genesis of the quote, but it was his policy to note it if Wolfson had a problem with the million dollar reference. There is no such note. And he would have certainly later noted if Wolfson objected after the story had appeared. There was no such objection from Wolfson.

Witt should have included the information in the story, but she chose not to do her job.

[doug from upland]

For goodness sakes, prior to the final fraudulent FEC filing of July 31, 2001, Peter sued Hillary and several others. David Kendall accepted service. Peter included the information necessary for them to make an accurate return and demanded that they do so. She cannot say that she didn't know. She had the freaking documents. This is not Peter's word against hers.

[doug from upland]

There is no link, and it was just a brief call, not an interview.

[ovrtaxt]

Oh, he teased it like you were going to be on for a while. Good to get the message out anyway.

[longfellow]

Yes but he didn't step down and neither will Hitlary.

[doug from upland]

It is difficult for Hillary to claim she didn't know. Peter included documents in his civil lawsuit, accepted by David Kendall on her behalf. It is part of the legal record.

This time, in the civil trial, we will hear testimony from both Peter and Aaron Tonken, whom the prosecutors did not call in the Rosen trial. We will also hear from Rosen. i watched him lie his *ss off in that L.A. courtroom. You can't get away with the lies forever, although sometimes it may seem like it.

[longfellow]

klintons are slime not teflon.

[Southack]

"For goodness sakes, prior to the final fraudulent FEC filing of July 31, 2001, Peter sued Hillary and several others. David Kendall accepted service. Peter included the information necessary for them to make an accurate return and demanded that they do so. She cannot say that she didn't know. She had the freaking documents. This is not Peter's word against hers."

While I understand your point, so long as we are dealing with a Corrupt News Media, her denials and the professional spin make charges against her tough to stick.

BUT...

Not even the paid liars can spin her admission of her felony Open Meetings Act violation with Ira Magaziner.

So we should do 3 things re: Hillary:

1. Push all other scandals to the back burner
2. Lock onto her Ira Magaziner crime
3. Hammer home her anti-Red-States ideology

Naturally, she wants the opposite of the above...which is to say, she **wants** us chasing her non-proven scandals, avoiding her Ira Magaziner behavior, and omitting her ideology from current debates.

[doug from upland]

I appreciate that evaluation, but I submit that Hillary doesn't have be convicted. She just has to be sufficiently bloodied to keep her out of the White House. The RATS who will oppose her in the primaries need some ammunition. We are trying to be of service to them.

Hillary is going to be under oath early next year in discovery. It should be a fun ride.

[doug from upland]

I appreciate your position, but her attorney's acceptance of copies of checks and invoices prior to the final amended filing is going to make it difficult for her to explain why it wasn't reported.

[potlatch]

BTTT

[Torie]

I read the article. It was a gossip genre piece, about some colorful con men, and much ado about nothing. It was a total waste of time.

[AD from SpringBay]

bump