- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

New Senate complaint prepared against Hillary

Posted By Art Moore On 06/20/2006 @ 1:00 am In Front Page | Comments Disabled

border=0/>
Peter Paul and Sen. Hillary Clinton (Courtesy Hillcap.org)

Accusing government watchdog Judicial Watch of incompetence after the Senate Ethics Committee rejected the group’s complaint against Sen. Hillary Clinton, business mogul Peter Franklin Paul says his new counsel is working with him to file his own complaint, accusing the New York Democrat of direct personal involvement in her campaign’s intentional misreporting of his multi-million-dollar contributions.

The chairman of the Senate panel, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, and the vice chairman, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, replied to Judicial Watch in a letter stating, “The committee has concluded that this matter lacks substantial merit.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said Clinton’s “friends in the Senate decided to give her a free pass in the run-up to 2006 and 2008 elections.”

“They first tried to ignore the issue, and then failed to undertake any serious investigation of the matter,” Fitton said.

In January, responding to a complaint by Paul, the FEC issued a $35,000 fine to a joint fund-raising committee that included Clinton’s campaign, New York Senate 2000, for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions from Paul.

In May 2005, Clinton’s former top fundraising aide, David Rosen, was acquitted for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement. Paul points out the trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Sen. Clinton’s campaign, and his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the FEC.

Paul contends the Senate letter responding to Judicial Watch’s complaint ignored the duty of the Senate to make its own inquiry into Sen. Clinton’s actions, which he detailed in a declaration in his pending business fraud suit against Hillary and Bill Clinton, producer Gary Smith and others set for trial March 27, 2007.

Paul said the panel’s letter was based on “superficial conclusions” from the Rosen trial and the FEC conciliation agreement.

The Senate panel’s dismissal, he said, “was a clear effort to hide Hillary’s role in directing the frauds and obstruction of justice that elected her and then protected her from indictment.”

“The Senate Select Committee has a duty to inquire and investigate in matters where the conduct of a senator diminishes or demeans the Senate – and that standard is quite different than the standard used by the FEC and the Justice Department,” Paul argued.

The Senate panel ignored the fact, Paul said, that Sen. Clinton did not deny the allegations in his civil-suit declaration but, instead, only swore she had no recollection of certain conversations.

“Her failure to deny the overt acts, alone, requires that the Senate Ethics Committee review what the FEC had no jurisdiction or interest in,” Paul asserts.

He said his civil suit against the Clintons provides sworn allegations and “corroboration of misconduct the senator has never denied or refuted.”

Paul also contends the committee ignored the following:

  • David Smith, FBI investigator in the Rosen case, testified Hillary never reported two fund-raising events Paul hosted and paid for in addition to the Hollywood gala, a lunch and a tea in June 2000.

  • No reference was made to an illegal foreign contribution and attendance at the Hollywood fund-raiser by a Japanese citizen tied to the business deal Paul says former President Clinton sabotaged.

  • No reference was made to a report filed with the FEC that states Paul’s business partner Stan Lee, of Marvel Comics fame, personally contributed $225,000 even though Lee denied it under oath.

“The committee at a minimum should question me as the only first hand witness to her personal conduct – and they never did,” Paul said.

Paul says Judicial Watch filed the complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee without his permission, basing it on information they acquired as his legal counsel from 2001-2005.

In an e-mail to Fitton, Paul said he found it “morally and ethically repulsive” that the legal group continues to “make deceptive and misleading statements regarding Judicial Watch’s victories.”

Paul claims Judicial Watch unethically abandoned him in March 2005, jeopardizing his civil case against the Clintons.

Fitton insisted, in an interview with WND, Paul made it “impossible” for them to cooperate, and suggested Paul was free to file his own complaint, arguing the material used to support it consisted of public documents.

Paul contended that as his former lawyers, the Judicial Watch team was in a unique position, unable to separate their knowledge and interest in the case from their legal relationship and had a “fiduciary responsibility not to interfere with his claims against Senator Clinton with shoddy pleadings.”

“Even though they made those documents public, they obtained that information from me as their law client,” Paul said. “Their interference in my claims has damaged me by allowing the Senate Ethics Committee to more easily shirk their responsibilities in addressing my claims”

Fitton dismisses Paul’s arguments, saying his “credibility is zero when it comes to matter of ethics.”

“We won’t be lectured on ethics by someone who has multiple felonies for fraud,” Fitton said.

Paul argues “these are the people who spent four years vetting my credibility and asserting it. Now I’m not credible because they don’t like what I’m saying?”

When his new representive, the U.S. Justice Foundation files his own complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee, Paul asserts, “people will be able to compare and see what a bona fide complaint is.”

Paul charges Fitton’s response is the same defense Clinton attorney David Kendall used to dismiss complaints against Sen. Clinton, saying “Peter Paul is a man with an impressive record of felony convictions.”

[Paul has pleaded guilty to a 10(b)5 violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission for not publicly disclosing control of Merrill Lynch margin accounts that held stocks in his company, Stan Lee Media. He has maintained that everything he did was under the aegis of Merrill Lynch management, compliance officers and corporate securities counsel. Under the Carter administration, he was convicted for cocaine possession and an attempt to confiscate more than $8 million from Fidel Castro in a black market coffee transaction the Cuban dictator was using to defraud the Soviet Union. He ascribes that to politics, arguing he subsequently was embraced by Ronald Reagan and his kitchen cabinet, which "realized the problems I had were more related to being gung ho about removing Castro." While still on parole, he said, he worked directly with Chief Justice Warren Burger and visited President Reagan in the White House.]

“It doesn’t matter how you characterize my past, the facts speak for themselves,” Paul said. “Judicial Watch has violated legal and ethical requirements in connection with their four-year representation of me.”

Paul charges Judicial Watch raised millions of dollars specifically for his case that never were used for that purpose or refunded to donors.

Fitton says Paul is lying, maintaining Judicial Watch spent more than $1 million on his case in one year alone and that all of the money came from the group’s general funds.

Paul responded: “The problem with Tom Fitton is he has the same interest in twisting the facts and truth as his nemesis Hillary Clinton, and both need to be held accountable for their actions.”

Paul – who says Sen. Clinton made false statements in two Washington Post articles to hide his million-dollar-plus contributions in 2000 – sued Bill Clinton for reneging on a $17 million deal in which he promised to promote Paul’s public company in exchange for massive contributions to his wife’s Senate campaign.

Last month, the United States Justice Foundation filed an appeal with the Appeals Court of California to challenge a trial court decision in April granting Sen. Clinton First Amendment immunity as a defendant in the landmark civil suit upheld by the California Supreme Court.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a judge in Los Angeles dismissed Sen. Clinton as a defendant in the civil lawsuit, but she will be deposed as a material witness in preparation for the March 2007 trial.

Paul, claiming Sen. Clinton pulled off the biggest campaign-finance fraud in history, separately is preparing to file a second complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging the Democratic senator with submitting a false report – for a fourth time – that hides and misattributes his personal multi-million dollar contributions to the three Hollywood fund-raisers he hosted on her behalf.

For the civil suit, Bill and Hillary Clinton head a list of potential witnesses that includes celebrities such as Muhammad Ali, Brad Pitt, Barbra Streisand, James Brolin, Cher, Whoopi Goldberg, George Hamilton, Olivia Newton John, John Travolta, Diana Ross, Shirley McLaine, Michael Bolton, Toni Braxton, Paul Anka and Larry King.

Also on the list are former Vice President Al Gore, the Clinton’s daughter Chelsea Clinton, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, former California Gov. Gray Davis, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terrence McAuliffe, CBS News reporter Mike Wallace and ABC News reporter Brian Ross.

Paul has compiled his charges, with documentation, on a website.

The Clintons’ longtime attorney David Kendall has told WorldNetDaily he would not comment on the case. He stopped commenting to the media last December when the senator’s campaign was fined for filing false reports. Kendall had maintained consistently since 2001 that New York Senate 2000 had filed “proper reports” and that Paul was not credible.

In her declaration, Sen. Clinton admitted spending time with Paul on several occasions prior to the gala and during the event but refused to deny any of Paul’s numerous sworn allegations outright. Instead, she declared that if there were any discussion of her husband’s employment with Paul, she would have remembered it.

Paul stated in his declaration to the court, “Mrs. Clinton personally assured me she would specifically discuss with her husband, the President, my interest in making a post-White House business proposal to him. She told me her understanding that such a proposal would include my offer of substantial support for her Senate campaign as a good-faith advance on the business arrangement he would be agreeing to.”


Will 2000 fund-raiser scam bite Hillary?

Get FREE copy of ‘The Truth About Hillary’


Previous stories:


Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2006/06/36686/

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.