|
| |
The strange case of Hillary Clinton vs. Marvel Comics creator Stan Lee and his business partner Peter Paul
updated February 15, 2008
| |
Article Notes:
| |
February 15, 2008 - Added a rebuttal by Douglas Cogan to a recent article speaking about the information contained in the video on this page. |
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
A recently released video shows Hillary Clinton's involvement in potentially the biggest case of election law fraud in United States history, as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton having a part in damaging and ultimately destroying Marvel Comics creator Stan Lee's company and jailing his business partner Peter Paul in an effort to cover up the fraud arising due to a benefit fundraiser held for the Clintons in August 2000.
|
This article summarizes the following video clips which detail Marvel Comics creator Stan Lee and his business partner Peter Paul being exploited by Bill and Hillary Clinton for campaign contributions arising from an August 2000 benefit fundraiser which Bill and Hillary later denied accepting. The Clintons then proceeded to destroy the company Stan Lee created with Peter Paul and jailed Peter Paul after he spoke out about the fraud that the Clintons were engaging in.
The eventual trial concerning the Clinton's involvement in election law fraud was largely covered up by the media, followed by circumstances showing a Clinton appointed judge "fixing" the trail proceedings to exonerate them from any wrongdoing which would have ended Hillary's political career as well as resulting in a lengthy prison sentence for her, even though video evidence exists of her involvement in the crimes.
The following video clip is from the full length hour long video "Hillary!Uncensored." The video clips are summarized below.
|
|
|
|
summary articles
|
|
In 1999, the comic book creator Stan Lee was "fired" by the new purchasers of Marvel Comics, the company with which he created such comic superheroes as Spider Man, The X-Men, The Fantastic Four and The Incredible Hulk. After leaving Marvel Comics he then started his own company Stan Lee Media with the help of his friend Peter Paul using $500,000 that Peter Paul helped put together, and within a year they had a market capita of over $300 Million Dollars.
After Bill Clinton left office, Peter Paul approached Clinton to make him a partner in the company, and became a major contributor to the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. In August 2000 a fund raising event Peter Paul put together for her in Los Angeles raised over a million dollars for then Senate Candidate Hillary Clinton. "My interest in supporting Hillary Clinton was specifically to hire Bill Clinton, and I concocted a big fund raiser for Hillary," he said. "I had accomplished hiring the President of the United States to work with me when he left the White House."
Three days later, The Washington Post published an article detailing Peter Paul having a felony record two decades previously, in which he served a three year prison sentence for cocaine possession and trying to defraud $8.7 Million out of the Cuban Government during his involvement in an interagency rivalry concerning a covert operation against Castro's Cuba. In the article, Clinton's campaign spokesman claimed that Peter Paul did not actually contribute any money to her campaign and vowed that the Clintons would not be accepting any money from him.
Peter Paul recalls, "A few days later on August 18, [ Bill and Hillary ] each sent me hand written letters which professed our undying friendship, and their undying gratitude. The week after that I got some signed photographs from the White House. A full two weeks from the original story in which Hillary vowed never to take money from me, her finance director faxed me a request for $100,000. My reaction to that was 'Why would I send you any more money when you vowed not to take any more money from me?'"
Constitutional Law specialist John Armor: "It appears that it was planned all along that [ Bill and Hillary ] were going to deceive Peter Paul, steal his Japanese Business Partner, and do damage to his company. [ Peter Paul's Business Partner ] Tento Oto had promised to infuse Stan Lee Media with $5 million in November of 2000. Bill Clinton's business partner Jim Levine had flown to Japan, stolen Tento Oto as a business partner, [and] made his own agreement with him. "
"What he had effectively done is convince Oto that instead of working with the President [ and ] me in my company, that he could work directly with the president without me.." said Paul. "So that began to trigger a meltdown of the stock. The company collapsed as a result."
"I had discovered in [the FEC filings] that they had entirely omitted any reference to any of my contributions, " says Paul. "The Clintons took two million dollars from me and hid it."
John Amor: "What we are looking at here is the largest election law fraud in history of the United States."
Peter Paul: ".. I delivered a demand letter to Hillary Clinton, we had filed a civil suit against the Clintons which detailed all the money that I had spent with copies of checks and invoices. And then I discovered that I was being investigated in connection with the misuse of my brokerage accounts. I was suddenly detained by Interpol in Brazil for extradition. They moved me to a remote part of this jail which was called 'The Corridor of Death,' in which sixteen inmates had been emolated, chanting 'Burn the Gringo.' My family was not able to hear from me at all, they didn't know what was going on. The Clintons where able to have the original civil suit thrown out on the basis that I was a fugitive at the time.
John Amor: "Hillary's skill has been in seeing to it that obvious crimes didn't reach the level of being places in front of a jury, because if they ever had, she might have been making cookies in the same place that Martha Stewart did."
Peter Paul: "[ Years later ] the court held that the case should proceed to trail. The Chief of Public Integrity finally indicted David Rosen, the finance director for Hillary Clinton. [ Judge Howard Matz ] who officiated over the Rosen trial was appointed by the Clintons. The Judge stated that Hillary had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that case. "
David Schippers, Chief Investigative Council on the Impeachment of Bill Clinton: "The Judge went out of his way to make every possible effort to make certain that everyone on that jury thought that Hillary Clinton had nothing whatever to do with what Mr. Rosen did. He turned it into a referendum on the credibility of Peter Paul, making a remark that he is a 'con man,' and 'a totally corrupt individual who couldn't be believed or trusted.' The whole idea [ was ] to make sure that Hillary was completely out of [ the issue ], and to make sure that Peter Paul [ was ] totally discredited."
Peter Paul: ".. The Clintons have been effective in thwarting the media from exposing the facts on the public record that would normally end any politicians career and land them in jail."
Peter Paul ( When asked about proof of his allegations ): "Hillary Clinton called me in my office in July of 2000, and I started my video camera to capture a conversation that we had with myself and other people in the office.. "
John Amor: "This five minute video tape which was taken in the office of where a call was received from Hillary Clinton, that had her voice on it quite clearly, shows a number of violations of the law. First of all, it shows that she had personal involvement and personal knowledge of the details of this Gala, where she has had representatives in the criminal court, in the civil case, and before the FEC represent she had no knowledge of this. So that it subordining perjury. That is obstructing justice .. What this tape shows, is that contrary to the idea that some high minded citizens got together and put together this gala, that she was directly, specifically involved in the planning of this. She says on this tape that [ Kelly Craighead, ] her White House Leison, had 'fully briefed her' up to the point of the phone call and furthermore that she would keep her informed after that. So there is the connection of the candidate to this allegedly independent program. .. It is a felony punishable by up to five years in jail for a candidate to be directly involved in this sort of fund raising activity if it exceeds 25 thousand dollars. And the FAC found that it exceeded 1.2 Million Dollars. It's crime on tape, very simple.. "
|
| |
On January 18, 2008, the website "FactCheck.org" published an article called "Crooked Claims about Clinton," which attempted to dispute the cliams made in the widely circulated video about the issue of Bill and Hillary Clinton's involvement in election law fraud relating to an August 2000 Hollywood fundraiser. The Article was then updated on February 8, 2008, to include a link to a PDF formatted rebuttal by Douglas Cogan, the co-producer of the video.
The factcheck.org debunking article may be viewed here, and the original rebuttal in PDF format may be downloaded here.
Even though Douglas Cogan's rebuttal does answer the points made in the debunking article more than adequtely, as well as rasing a number of additional points, the update to the debunking article still makes the claim: "We have received a response from Douglas Cogan, co-producer of the video. We[base ']Äôve reviewed Cogan[base ']Äôs comments carefully and see no reason to change anything we said."
The information in this section outlines Douglas Cogan's point-by-point rebuttal to the factcheck.org debunking article about this issue, with key segments hilighted ..
|
Thanks to Brooks Jackson at FactCheck.org for giving me the opportunity to respond. He told me he
would publish it and post it on the factcheck.org website. He is a man of his word, and I appreciate it.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the intent and tone of the headline and sub-headline, but a reasonable
person could conclude that the analysis didn’t appear to be truly non-partisan. If someone is “checking
facts,” “Errors in Clinton Video” would have seemed somewhat less incendiary, significantly more non-
partisan, and less dismissive of our work. “Four-time convicted felon” could have been more fair if the
defendant also carried a label. Our film acknowledges that Paul has a felony record. But in this case, the
defendant, who has not been given a label, was impeached, lost his law license, committed and suborned
perjury, had his secretary hide evidence under her bed, turned a false affidavit in to the court, was held in
civil contempt by the court, paid the plaintiff $850,000 to settle the case, etc. A key witness in Paul v
Clinton is Hillary Clinton. Independent Counsel Robert Ray determined that she had given “factually
inaccurate” testimony in the Travel Office case. The sub-headline leads people to the inevitable
conclusion that the plaintiff has absolutely no credibility. That he is less credible than the defendant is
certainly open to speculation. Putting the argument of credibility aside, Paul has always asked people to
simply look at the evidence in the case.
* Viveca Novak: We analyzed only the preview, because it is readily available on the Internet and has
drawn such a large audience; we viewed the longer film to make sure we weren't misunderstanding Paul's
charges.
That is a startling, yet important admission, the candor of which I appreciate. It never occurred to me to
analyze only a rough-cut segment and pass judgment on someone’s film as being "crooked claims,"
particularly when we have made the entire film readily available to journalists on youperview.com. We
hope the readers are not going to make a decision, based on the analysis of a segment, that the entire
legal case consists of "crooked claims." The sub-headline made a legal conclusion. There is a pending
legal action whose discovery we have not seen and whose day in court has not yet occurred. Perhaps
we should wait until a court of law makes a determination. I hope people will all read the documentation
that is stored on hillcap.org so an independent conclusion may be reached based on an enormous
volume of work.
* Viveca Novak: (referring to our rough-cut segment) And what it leaves out is often more important than
what it tells us.
That is a fair statement, but it is also true that what is left out of a review is often more important that what
it tells us.
* re: Peter Paul described as the narrator.
The word "narrator" has a specific meaning -one who narrates- as opposed to one who is featured or
interviewed. Many people were featured and interviewed, including Paul, who is clearly not the narrator of
our film. We hired a notable voiceover actor to undertake that function.
I don’t understand the point of comparing or linking HILLARY! UNCENSORED to any other
documentary. This documentary is uniquely based on home videos, the personal experiences of
someone whom the Clintons called a friend, and legal proceedings with a former president as the
defendant. Peter Paul was induced to become Hillary’s largest donor and the largest donor ever to a
Senate campaign. These facts distinguish our work from those others that Novak characterized as
political attack pieces. I hope the readers will understand that the other films have absolutely nothing to
do with our film.
I am described as a “conservative Republican” and a believer in Paul’s case. That is an accurate
description, with the caveat that the first word of the description, conservative, is most assuredly the
operative one. What readers of the review have not been told, however, is that we deliberately hired
liberal Democrat writers and editors because we wanted a balanced piece of work. It should be noted that
those writers and editors don’t want their names used because of fear of retribution by the Clintons, their
surrogates, their private investigators, or their colleagues. I am more than “a believer in Paul’s cause.” For
over 2 1⁄2 years, I have vetted information, read thousands of pages of documents, including the 1000+
pages of the transcript from the David Rosen trial, spoken with witnesses, and attended court
proceedings. I am a believer that no one, Democrat or Republican, should be above the law and that this
story needs to be told.
* Novak: (re: the Cuban Coffee Caper) Paul claims that he was part of a covert government operation
when he was arrested for these crimes.
There is additional useful information regarding Paul’s “claim.”
Below the contemporaneous headline is the sub-headline from the Miami Herald: It was one of the
world’s great cons. And the funny thing is our government knew all about it-but did nothing to stop it. Of
course the government knew about it. A reading of the transcript of legal proceedings at the time will
reveal that, prior to the plan going operational, Paul was in the apartment of Elaine Schoor discussing the
plan in great detail and the money necessary to fund it. Every word was caught on a government wire.
Yes, the government really did know and allowed it to go forward. Operatives wanted to damage the
relationship between Castro and the Soviets by exposing that Castro was cheating his Soviet benefactors
with cheap black market coffee.
* re: the vetters missed the information
The excuse from the Clinton camp should not have been accepted on face value. I can’t comprehend
how it was possible to not know the record of Peter Paul. Paul had been thoroughly vetted by the Secret
Service for years and, in particular with the Clintons, he was vetted for hosting the President at a DNC
dinner with DNC Chair Rendell in Feb, 2000. He was vetted again by DNC Chair Rendell when Paul
hosted, at Rendell's request, the Hollywood Fundraiser for Al Gore June 8, 2000. He was vetted by the
White House and Hillary's campaign when he hosted two fundraisers for Hillary Clinton on June 9, 2000,
where he sat next to Hillary for 3 1/2 hours. He was vetted by the White House and Hillary's lawyers when
he hosted the Gala and when he attended a Clinton library fundraiser on August 13 at Barbara
Streisand’s home with the entire first family. It is ludicrous on its face to believe that all these vets failed to
produce background on Paul, especially since Paul told Hillary ON TAPE about his anti-Castro activities
as a lawyer in Miami and his undercover work on Bert Lance. Felonies are the first things that appear
when they run a Social Security number. When I first began the project, I asked a friend with access to
Lexis-Nexis to do a search for me. In a few hours, I knew about Paul’s record. Attorneys and other
professionals hired for this work are certainly better at it than am I.
It is true that President Clinton did not have a written agreement with Paul. That would, of course, have
been a conflict of interest for a sitting president. Whether no one was witness to the conversations
regarding the business deal is another matter that will be determined during discovery and trial. A key
witness will be Chelsea Clinton. The day after the Gala, Barbra Streisand held a brunch at her Malibu
estate for Clinton Library donors. In front of witnesses, including the biggest donor to the DNC, Haim
Saban, Chelsea stated that the family stayed up late after the Gala playing Scrabble and discussing how
excited they were that dad was going to work for the man who created Spider Man (Stan Lee, co-founder
of Stan Lee Media). In her sworn declaration, under penalty of perjury, Hillary swore: “I have no
recollection whatsoever discussing any arrangement with him whereby he would support my campaign
for the United States Senate in exchange for anything from me or then-President Clinton...” Her denials
will make the testimony of Chelsea quite interesting. Not included in our film was a recent polygraph
examination of Paul performed by an examiner with impeccable credentials and experience. It was
concluded by the examiner that Paul told the truth when asked if he discussed the business arrangement
with the First Lady. There is some additional evidence that may require some connecting of dots, but
those dots are almost touching each other. Paul was disavowed by the Clintons. He was, after all, this
horrible felon from whom they wouldn’t take money. He had only a minor role in the Gala. They wanted
nothing to do with him. So how is Bill Clinton going to explain the September 22, 2000 meeting he held
with Paul on the tarmac of LAX when AF-1 landed in Los Angeles? There are witnesses and
photographic evidence. For what possible purpose would they be holding a meeting? It is very reasonable
to believe Paul that the President met with him to assure him they still had a deal. That assurance
convinced Paul to send additional funds at Hillary's direction to the Working Families Party. That will be
discussed in further detail below when the $100,000 fax request is discussed.
Not uniquely in the Novak piece, because it has been reported throughout the media, is the common
perception that is at the heart of the matter before us. The claim is always made that the Hollywood Gala
was to benefit New York Senate 2000, a joint committee consisting of Hillary Clinton's campaign
committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the New York Democratic Party. Paul
makes a very strong case that such conclusion is contrary to the facts, and it was certainly never the
intent of the donor. From the time her agents (including her husband) first solicited Paul to support the
First Lady’s campaign and then pay for the Gala, as corroborated by Jim Levin's testimony in the Rosen
trial, it was Paul’s intent to do what Bill Clinton asked him to do. Paul directly benefited the candidate’s
Senate campaign, something for which Bill Clinton thanked him in a handwritten letter several days after
the Gala. It was all about an effort to hire a president as a rainmaker for Stan Lee Media. It was a
business deal with political ideology playing no role. As a friend of Ronald Reagan and the Hollywood
conservatives, Paul had no interest whatsoever in benefiting any joint committee, particularly the New
York Democratic Party. What was unfortunately left out of the Novak analysis was reference to Hillary’s
sworn declaration that was submitted to the court on April 7, 2006. Hillary’s own words admit that the
concert was for “my Senate campaign.” She didn’t say anything about a joint fundraiser and actually
admitted what Paul has been contending for seven years. When someone swears a declaration under
penalty of perjury, particularly someone with legal training, it is done with a great deal of care. I do not
know of a mainstream media source that has ever reported that sworn admission.
* Novak: Three days after the fundraiser, we learn in the video, The Washington Post ran a short item
revealing Paul's felony record; Hillary Clinton's spokesperson, Howard Wolfson, first said her campaign
would accept no contributions from him, then two days later corrected himself to say it would return the
single $2,000 check it had received from Paul. As for Paul's production of the gala, Wolfson said it was an
in-kind contribution.
Unfortunately, Novak left out some very important information that appeared in the Lloyd Grove item.
WASHPOST: 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.
Wolfson was speaking on behalf of Hillary personally when responding to the Post’s questions. The
acknowledgement by Hillary’s official spokesman that the event cost a million dollars is significant. We will
have more to say below about Hillary’s knowledge and direct role in this saga. It may lead people to
conclude that HILLARY! UNCENSORED is far from “Crooked Claims About Clinton.” I have searched
through the FEC reports and can find no reference of the “nominal fee” paid for Paul’ producing services.
We will also have more to say about the $100,000 contribution from Stan Lee that never was.
* Re: the Brian Ross 20/20 clip.
We respectfully disagree that the use of the clip is unfair at all. It was
indicative of Hillary’s refusal to ever discuss the name Peter Paul as a donor. Despite FBI evidence
presented in court that Paul personally donated $1.2 million, she has never acknowledged his name in
any media quotes or FEC filings as the largest donor to her campaign or as a donor of anything to her
campaign. When she finally mentioned his name in her sworn declaration, her first comment about Paul
was demonstrably false. There exists video evidence to prove that they met in 1993, not 2000 as she
swears. That is exposed in the full documentary, and the meeting was one she would never forget. No
one would. Paul had his client, Fabio, chase Hillary around the room and pick her up in his famous
romance pose. On video from early 2000, Paul’s camera captured his conversation with Hillary in which
they were laughing about the event and in which Hillary promises to send him the photos of Fabio holding
her. Despite that promise, the photos have never been forthcoming.
* Novak: As for his claim that, around that time, Hillary Clinton's "finance director faxed me a request for
$100,000," that's mostly true, but a bit misleading. The money had been promised by Paul months earlier,
was to be paid in stock, not cash, and was to go to a group called Working Families, which was
supporting Hillary Clinton, not to Clinton's own campaign committee.
Mostly true? We maintain that the statement is entirely true and in no way misleading. We made it clear in
the film that the fax demand on Hillary Clinton for Senate official stationery was made in reference to
enforcing the stock pledge made at Spago on June 9, 2000. In fact, there is more to the story that the
readers need to know. It actually really didn’t matter when the stock pledge had been made. Wolfson
vowed, on Hillary’s behalf, that no contributions would be accepted from Paul. After that vow, they wanted
more money that they vowed to voters they wouldn‘t take. It should also be noted that the stock pledge
was never reported to the FEC as required by law when it was made at DNC Chair Rendell's demand as
the price to host the Spago lunch. Another very important point is being missed. It was not somehow
better that Hillary directed federal funds from a stock pledge to a state party. That is a violation of the law.
And there is no record that $55,000 Paul sent in untraceable securities has ever been declared in any
filings. As additional background, through Rosen’s other fax communications, Hillary was pressuring Paul
to make the contribution on her behalf to the Working Families Party because she had promised them
funding based on Paul‘s earlier pledge to her campaign.
* Novak: The video then takes us into allegations of business fraud by Bill Clinton. Cogan and Paul claim
on camera that the president, through an associate, stole away a Japanese investor who had promised to
put $5 million into Stan Lee Media. The Clinton associate, according to the video, cut a different deal with
the investor that didn't involve Paul's company. Paul offers no evidence on the video to support that,...”
That isn’t entirely true. We presented a screen shot of the letter from Peter Dunne acknowledging Tendo
Oto’s desire to invest in both a Japanese joint venture and US joint venture. Here is a report of the first $5
million for the Japanese venture. Oto promised Paul that he would invest a similar amount in November
for VentureSoft USA in order to participate in the hiring of Clinton and paying the $17 million employment
agreement. The agreement for VentureSoft USA, the new joint venture for Oto and Clinton, through his
agent Levin, was recorded with the Secretary or State in Illinois just six days after Hillary’s election. It is
helpful to read the testimony of Jim Levin in the 1000+ page transcript from the David Rosen criminal trial.
Levin was designated as Bill Clinton’s eyes and ears to evaluate Paul and Stan Lee Media. After they
passed muster, Levin coordinated all of Paul’s expenditures in producing the fundraiser and preparing for
Clinton to work with Paul and his company. Levin signed a non-circ agreement and was given access to
proprietary business information and relationships exclusively because of Clinton's promise to Paul. Paul
expects testimony to reveal that the President confirmed the agreement to Oto in person at the Streisand
brunch on August 13, 2000 and that Clinton secretly sent Levin to Japan to deliver official White house
photos of Oto sitting behind Clinton's desk in the Oval Office. Levin, on Clinton's behalf, finally convinced
Oto to go into business with Levin as Clinton's agent..
* Novak: It's pretty clear that it would have taken a lot more than $5 million from any investor to save Stan
Lee Media.
Clear to whom? Unless Novak had a forensic accountant evaluate the condition of Stan Lee Media, that
appears to be an editorial opinion. Keep in mind that Stan Lee Media went out of business, as did many
dotcoms, because it ran out of cash. Paul has demonstrated and will do so in court that $5 million would
have easily carried the company though a cash crunch in November 2000, during the dotcom meltdown,
until the former president came aboard on January 20, 2001. How many millions of dollars would have
been invested in the company with the announcement that Clinton was on the board? Money may have
well come even sooner if the announcement had been leaked. Around Stan Lee Media, the business
relationship was common knowledge. In discovery, you will learn of two White House employees, one of
whom had a substantial job with the President, and three top Disney officials (led by their No. 3 executive
HR Chief William Wilkinson) who came aboard Stan Lee Media to take over management in January. All
of them came aboard because of their knowledge and understanding that Clinton would be a factor that
would assure adequate capitalization with their management.
* Novak: But the jury acquitted Rosen.
Our film acknowledges that the jury acquitted Rosen. What is left out in this segment of the review,
however, is of critical importance. The Clinton-appointed judge, before a word of testimony was heard,
told the jury that Paul was a thoroughly corrupt individual, a con man, and couldn’t be believed. The
prosecution did not object and agreed that Hillary had nothing to do with the case. The jury was poisoned
by the judge, and Paul was never called to testify. Incredibly, other key witnesses, such as Howard
Wolfson, Aaron Tonken and Kelly Craighead were not called. There was compelling evidence that Rosen
had caused a false invoice to be created, but the prosecution had a mountain that it could never climb. It
was clear that Rosen could not alone hide the cost of the Gala as charged because he did not have
unique information. Wolfson, Tonken, Craighead, and Levin participated in a conference call on July 11,
2000 when the $1.1 million budget was discussed. That is why Wolfson acknowledged the cost of a
million dollars when quoted in the Washington Post. Everyone involved, certainly including Hillary, and all
readers of the Washington Post knew that the event cost over a million dollars.
* Novak: Meanwhile, the FEC, mounting its own enforcement action in connection with the gala triggered
by a complaint by Paul, couldn't find much to go after, either. It reached a conciliation agreement with
New York Senate 2000 and its treasurer, Andrew Grossman, in December 2005. The settlement involved
a payment to the FEC of $35,000 and required New York Senate 2000 to amend its disclosure report to
reflect an additional $721,895 in in-kind contributions, bringing the total to $1.24 million. As to Hillary
Clinton specifically, the agency voted 5-0 on a motion to "[f]ind no reason to believe that Hillary Rodham
Clinton violated any provision of the [Federal Election Campaign] Act or regulations in connection with
this matter and close the file as to her." Two of the votes were from Republicans and three from
Democrats. That's not part of Paul's video, either.
A reasonable interpretation by readers seeing the above statements may allow them to conclude that the
purpose of the analysis was not merely for fact checking, but rather to debunk Paul's entire case under
the guise of such review. Many things are not part of the video. We didn’t make a mini-series. We made a
film of just over an hour. Unfortunately, there are important elements left out of the review. The FEC never
called key witnesses, such as Wolfson. The FEC never called Craighead, who conceived the Gala with
Levin. The FEC has never viewed 5-minute tape of July 17, 2000 because it was withheld by the US
Attorney in NY from 2001-2007. It was finally obtained by Paul’s lawyers after all the investigations were
concluded. Also missing from Novak’s analysis is the fourth amended FEC report of January 30, 2006. In
that report, Paul’s in-kind contribution was still never reported. Instead, it is listed as an $839,000
expense of the campaign rather than an in-kind contribution by Paul through his shell companies.
Perhaps even more incredible is the claim in Clinton’s fourth amended report that Stan Lee donated
$225,000. We provide in the film the video of Lee’s sworn deposition that he gave no money. No money.
Senator Clinton has received demand letters and faxes to her office giving her a link to Lee's deposition
and demanding that she set the record straight. She knows he gave no money, but she refuses to correct
the record and fourth false FEC report. In addition, on tape and under oath, Lee admits to “exchanging”
$100,000 checks, thus hiding the identify of the real donor. People have gone to jail for smaller violations.
Although the FBI and FEC are aware of Lee’s admission under oath, they have done nothing about it.
That the FEC has done nothing to Senator Clinton for her role in this saga should not really be surprising.
* Novak: Let's start by saying the fundraiser itself was perfectly legal, and these kinds of events – albeit
usually with less star power – took place frequently before passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002.
Yes, these kinds of fundraisers were legal, but that certainly doesn’t tell the whole story. The rest of the
story involves the role of the then candidate and her agent, the President of the United States, in
soliciting, coordinating, and then hiding Paul's expenditures. That activity was not legal. Pursuant to court
testimony, it was Levin and Craighead who came up with the idea for a dramatic event to take place for
Hillary just before the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. They conceived the idea after a Chicago
fundraiser for Hillary. The next day, Levin called Paul to solicit him to pay for the event if the President
would agree to work with him. The solicitation and coordination of the million dollar event by Levin as an
agent for the candidate, through Bill Clinton, was a felony. It is critical to understand the role of some of
the players. Levin, Craighead, Tonken, and Bill Clinton were not a part of any joint fundraising committee
that could coordinate soft money donations. They were, in fact, all agents of Hillary Clinton. Craighead
was a White House employee. As agents, their direct solicitation of a donation of over a million dollars
was all hard money and illegal.
* Novak: Now we'll take Armor's charges in turn. First, he says the videotape shows Clinton "had personal
involvement and personal knowledge of the details of this gala," contrary to the representations of her
lawyers. That's false.
Unless Hillary never talks to her official spokesman, pays no attention to her trusted aide and traveling
companion Craighead, and never reads the Washington Post, she knew it cost over a million dollars. On
tape, Hillary says that she got a full report from Kelly. On July 11, 2000 was another conference call
involving Paul. Participating in the call were Levin, Rosen, Craighead, and Wolfson. They discussed the
budget of well over a million dollars. The parties discussed Paul paying $525,000 and philanthropist
Cynthia Gershman paying $525,000. When Hillary admits on tape that Kelly gave her a full report, I
accept her statement that she received a full report.
* Novak: Clinton was certainly aware of the upcoming fundraiser, but all we hear in this phone call is a
politician's routine call scratching under the chin those who are knocking themselves out for her.
Routine call? Hillary told them that Kelly, her agent, who joined in conceiving the event and soliciting Paul
to pay for it, would convey to them what she needed. Hillary offered her further assistance. There was, in
fact, direct involvement by the candidate.
* Novak: Somebody else solicited Cher to appear at the fundraiser. Clinton may have thanked her for
agreeing to perform, but she did not ask her to do so.
Additional background information may prove helpful here. Hillary not only initiated a call to Cher, she
initiated one to Diana Ross. Tonken has stated such, and his sworn testimony is expected to confirm it. Tonken did indeed begin the solicitation of the performances. In the case of those two mega-stars,
however, Tonken did not seal the deal. Unlike the others who performed, Cher and Ross had a
requirement prior to their final agreement. Each of them required a personal phone call from Hillary
herself to discuss it. Tonken set it up; Hillary sealed the deal or they would not have performed. As
Tonken stated on tape, he had never been able to get Cher to do a political fundraiser like this before.
Hillary did a great job as the closer.
* Novak: What Clinton's lawyers have maintained is that "she didn't know about the disclosure issues,"
says Ken Gross, a former FEC enforcement chief who practices campaign finance law and isn't involved
in this case. "There's a big difference between knowing some things about the fundraiser and knowing
what was disclosed on the forms. The former is not legally relevant to whether she's culpable." Although
Clinton does say that her aide gave her "a full report" on the event, there's no evidence the aide shared
with her detailed breakdowns of cost.
There is some very important additional background that was left out of this review. On July 11, 2001,
Hillary’s counsel, David Kendall, accepted service for Hillary in the civil suit. On July 3, 2001, treasurer
Andrew Grossman accepted similar service. Included in the service to both parties were bank statements,
invoices, cancelled checks, and other evidence from Paul that totaled approximately $1.6 million.
Although I will not concede Hillary’s lack of earlier knowledge (go back to her official spokesman
acknowledging to the WASHPOST that is cost a million dollars), I will engage in supposition. Let’s
suppose for a moment that Hillary was kept totally in the dark until July 11, 2001. Let’s suppose that she
was the last to know about the two initial false FEC reports. Having actual receipt of the information from
the donor on July 11, 2001, how could it be that Hillary allowed her treasurer to file a third false report on
July 30, 2001 that only claimed $401,000? How is that possible? A week after Kendall was served, Paul’s
counsel held a press event at the National Press Club that was attended by at least one member of
Hillary’s team. A messenger was dispatched to Hillary's Senate office and delivered a demand letter that
she report Paul’s contributions properly. In addition, Tonken will finally be testifying in Paul v Clinton. In
his book, KING OF CONS, he described how, prior to the Gala, he sat in a van and explained to Hillary
virtually every penny that was being spent on her. According to Tonken: “Whatever protection her staff
had built around her, however much in the dark they had kept her, that was over. Now she knew.”
* Novak: And Cher's performance was not an illegal contribution anyway – nor were those by Diana Ross
and the other stars who studded the gala. Under federal law, anyone can volunteer his or her services to
a campaign, and the value of those services is not counted against federal contribution limits. Lawyers,
graphic artists, entertainers, accountants, chefs and others do it all the time.
That is interesting, but it only tells part of the story. As we discussed, the performances were directly
solicited by Hillary’s agents, who were not part of any joint fundraising committee. The stars didn’t come
forward on their own to donate their services. The other part of the story that is never reported is the
professional services donated by famous photographer, Annie Liebovitz. She generally charges her high
end clients $25,000 for a sitting. In connection with the Gala, she donated her services for four sittings.
Although the campaign only declared $2,000 per sitting, far less than her real market value, it is
interesting that the campaign knew to declare those donated services as an in-kind contribution. Why was
that declared and not the services that were clearly of much higher value?
* Novak: But the fundraiser was never meant to be "independent," a term which has a very specific
meaning in campaign law. It was to benefit the DSCC, the Democratic Party in New York and Hillary
Clinton's campaign committee, and it was perfectly legal for representatives of all three groups, including
Clinton, to be involved in planning it.
Again, the question arises as to the beneficiary of the fundraiser. Paul clearly intended it to be Hillary’s
Senate campaign. He was solicited to pay for Hillary’s campaign. That was the intent of the donor from
the very outset. The intent of the donor has been completely ignored. He was not trying to solidify a
business relationship with the DSCC, the Democratic Party of New York, or the Working Families Party.
Again, remember that Hillary admitted in her sworn declaration that the concert was for “my Senate
campaign.”
* Novak: Later in the video, Armor declares that this was "the largest fraud in election funding history."
That's absurd. The only finding of anything illegal in connection with the fundraiser was the underreporting
of the cost of the event by about $722,000, which resulted in a fine of $35,000. To put this in context, last
year alone the FEC collected 10 fines of $100,000 or more. People sometimes go to prison for campaign
fraud.
Absurd? No matter the amount of the fine, has there been another case where someone has hidden
$720,000? Hidden it after two false reports and a demand by the donor, who provided documentation?
Yes, people do go to prison for campaign fraud. A major point of the film, however, is that some people
appear to be above the law.
* Novak: Paul's lawsuit against the Clintons and others – a version of the same one that was filed and
dismissed in 2001 when Paul was a fugitive – hasn't been faring particularly well in California state court.
I guess we will see how it fares after the status conference on February 21 and the setting of the trial
date. For those who don’t know, a trial date had actually been set in February of 2007. Paul delayed it
while he appealed for Hillary to rejoin her husband as a defendant. It has fared well enough that the
Supreme Court of California has ruled that Bill Clinton will remain as one of the defendants.
* Novak: As to the remaining defendants, including Bill Clinton, what's left of the suit largely has to do with
the alleged wooing of Paul's Japanese business investor into a separate partnership.
What’s left of the suit? That description is an attempt to diminish the importance of the historic civil suit. It
is about tortious interference, a major business fraud, and collapse of a public company. Paul intends to
prove the Clinton role in the demise of Stan Lee Media. What’s left of the suit includes depositions to be
taken from Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Terry McAuliffe, Wolfson, Craighead, Rosen, Gray
Davis, Streisand, Cher, Diana Ross, John Travolta, Larry King, and a host of others.
* Novak; It's possible, though, that Hillary Clinton could be called as a witness.
Possible? As presented in our film, the readers deserve to know the rest of the story and what Judge
Aurelio Munoz said in his courtroom on April 7, 2006. The words I watched him say in his courtroom we
present in the documentary: “I will entertain no motion that prevents Senator Clinton from testifying in this
case....did you hear that, Mr. Kendall?”
* Novak: Many of the individuals and groups helping Paul have long histories of Clinton-bashing or
attacks on other Democrats. David Schippers, for example, who appears on the tape, is the former chief
investigative counsel for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee during the 1998 Clinton
impeachment hearings.
Of all the conclusions in the entire piece, perhaps more than any others, this is the most unfair. Dave
Schippers is a great American. It is a shame that the above description is the only reference to him.
Schippers worked in the Kennedy Justice Department and helped take down the Chicago Mob. He is a
lifelong Democrat. And perhaps most importantly, Novak failed to mention that he twice voted for Bill
Clinton. No one can dispute that such background information about Schippers is important.
* Novak: Another character from that era who is involved in this story is Lucianne Goldberg.
Yes, it was on Goldberg’s site that the link on Google Videos was leaked to her readers. But there was no
conspiracy here. The rough-cut segment on Google Videos was unpublished and for our internal use and
that of journalists. Someone who saw it apparently alerted Goldberg to the URL. She simply put the URL
on her website so others could see it. That was her role, and it was done without any direction from those
involved with our film, including Paul. It wasn’t sinister at all. I find it curious that some kind of
conspiratorial link was created here. As an aside, and since the CLINTON CHRONICLES was mentioned
in Novak‘s analysis, a comment is necessary. Many of you came to know that documentary as the
“Falwell video.” Did you know that Jerry Falwell had absolutely nothing to do with the production or editing
of that documentary? He simply became one of the distributors and generated revenue through
distribution. His name was used in an attempt to discredit the film. I will raise the question here. Was an
association made with the “Clinton basher“ Goldberg an attempt to taint or diminish the work we have
done for HILLARY! UNCENSORED? The readers can make that determination.
* Novak: Paul is now represented by another conservative legal group, the United States Justice
Foundation, after having a falling-out with, and suing, Judicial Watch.
I don’t understand the point, unless it is to diminish his counsel as among the “Clinton haters.” Paul would
welcome representation by any of the top law firms in the country, however, he does not have the millions
of dollars in assets that the Clintons have acquired to pay for such representation. In fact, if enough
money can be raised, one of America’s top litigators, who is no conservative, is prepared to take Paul’s
case and believes it has great merit.
* Novak: According to the Associated Press, the HillCAP Web site is operated by two conservatives who
were instrumental in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth site in 2004, Robert Hahn and Scott Swett.
Again, the only point I can see for the reference is to diminish the credibility of our work and associate
them with the film. Neither Hahn nor Swett is responsible for writing, editing, directing, narrating,
operating a camera, or producing HILLARY! UNCENSORED. They are webmasters who manage the
documents and content on the website. They have done so competently and at a reasonable price.
* Novak: Paul's movie isn't the only one that is lobbing accusations at Hillary Clinton. Citizens United,
another group that long has been involved in efforts against the Clintons, is selling "Hillary: the Movie"
online and was in federal court recently over its attempt to run ads for the film in primary states during
election season.
This film has nothing to do with the analysis of our work. It appears to be inserted once again to taint what
we have produced.
I must admit that I was shocked when I saw this analysis of our work. Thanks again for the courtesy of
allowing me the opportunity to respond and contribute some additional information that may be helpful in
allowing the readers to make their own determination.
February 5, 2008
Douglas Cogan, Co-Producer, HILLARY! UNCENSORED: Banned by the Media
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
