PDA

View Full Version : Clinton fund raising probed



Jolie Rouge
10-06-2004, 01:38 PM
FUND-RAISING QUESTIONS: The Justice Department is setting its sights on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign in pursuit of suspected fund-raising violations. In targeting a rising star in the Democratic Party, prosecutors are trying to gain the cooperation of the indicted businessman who raised the accusations, interviews and documents indicate.

The Justice Department is setting its sights on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign in pursuit of suspected fund-raising violations. In targeting a rising star in the Democratic Party, prosecutors are trying to gain the cooperation of the indicted businessman who raised the accusations, interviews and documents indicate.

The FBI has told a U.S. magistrate in Los Angeles that it has evidence that the former first lady's campaign deliberately understated its fund-raising costs so it would have more money to spend on elections. And prosecutors say one of her fund-raisers helped because he wanted a pardon from her husband.

Noel Hillman, the Justice Department's top public-corruption lawyer and a career official, has met three times — most recently in May — with attorneys for Peter Paul to discuss a plea deal. Justice wants to interview Mr. Paul to see whether he can substantiate his accusations that Mrs. Clinton's campaign engaged in wrongdoing, the defense attorneys said.

Mr. Paul is a three-time felon who hosted a Hollywood fund-raising event for Mrs. Clinton in 2000 and is facing stock-fraud charges in New York. He says he underwrote most of the costs for the event. Prosecutors contend that he did so in an effort to win a pardon from President Clinton.

Attorneys for Mrs. Clinton and the former chief fund-raiser for New York Senate 2000, David Rosen, say their clients have done nothing wrong. "New York Senate 2000 properly reported all donations in 2000," said David Kendall, Mrs. Clinton's attorney.

The investigation, which has dragged on for more than three years, could cast a shadow over the senator's career. Mrs. Clinton is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2008 if Sen. John Kerry loses this year. But she first faces a re-election battle in 2006 — possibly against former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani or New York Gov. George E. Pataki.

Most accusations of campaign-finance irregularities are handled administratively through the Federal Election Commission, although the Justice Department has investigated such matters in the past. During the Clinton administration, when Attorney General Janet Reno ran the Justice Department, a department campaign-finance task force charged more than two dozen persons and two corporations with fund-raising abuses that occurred in the 1996 election cycle. Many of the abuses involved Democratic fund raising.

Documents show an FBI agent told the Los Angeles magistrate two years ago that the government thinks Mrs. Clinton's campaign understated its costs for the Paul fund-raiser. "The event's costs exceeded $1 million, but the required forms filed by New York Senate 2000 ... months after the event incorrectly disclosed that the cost of the event was only $523,000," said the 2002 FBI affidavit, which was unsealed in the summer. "It appears that the true cost of the event was deliberately understated in order to increase the amount of funds available to New York Senate 2000 for federal campaign activities." The document also said a $366,000 donation to the gala was incorrectly listed as coming from the company that Mr. Paul co-founded, Stan Lee Media, when it really came from Mr. Paul personally.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041006-125533-2869r.htm

Jolie Rouge
01-07-2005, 11:27 PM
Sen. Clinton's Finance Director Indicted
By LARRY MARGASAK

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director has been indicted on charges of causing false campaign finance reports to be filed with the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department said Friday.

The indictment of David Rosen, unsealed in Los Angeles, focuses on his fund-raising for an Aug. 12, 2000, gala for Clinton in Los Angeles. The New York Democrat was still first lady at the time.

While the event allegedly cost more than $1.2 million, the indictment said, Rosen reported contributions of about $400,000, knowing the figure to be false.

The indictment charged that Rosen provided some documents to the an FEC compliance officer but withheld the true costs of the event and provided false documents to substantiate the lower figure.


In one instance, Rosen obtained and delivered a fraudulent invoice stating the cost of a concert associated with the gala was $200,000 when he know that figure was false, according to the indictment. The actual cost of the concert was more than $600,000.


Each of the four counts of making a false statement carries a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines upon conviction.



01/07/05 17:05


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1153&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050107%2F1705697240.htm&sc=1153&photoid=20040621NYR109

Jolie Rouge
02-09-2005, 03:55 PM
Yes, I can see how the UN would see Clinton as an asset for allocatting the Tsunami Funds.... :rolleyes:

Jolie Rouge
05-08-2005, 06:11 PM
Sen. Clinton's Financing in the Spotlight
By PAUL CHAVEZ

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Campaign donations made more than four years ago at a celebrity-studded Hollywood gala have led to a federal criminal trial against a former finance director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could hamper her future campaigns.

The trial set to open Tuesday focuses on a lavish August 2000 political party at a tony Brentwood estate that drew dozens of A-list guests and performers, including Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Cher, Diana Ross and Muhammad Ali.

Clinton hasn't been linked to charges that the cost of the event was vastly underreported, but Republicans will be watching for any ammunition they can use against the Democrat, considered an early front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination.

David Rosen, who was Clinton's finance director during her 2000 U.S. Senate run, faces three counts of filing a false statement. An FBI agent speculated in an affidavit that Rosen was trying to duck federal financing rules so the campaign would have more money to spend on other expenses.


Rosen pleaded not guilty in January. He could face up to 15 years in prison and $750,000 in fines if convicted.


The party, called a ``Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton,'' included both a dinner and a concert. About 350 people accepted invitations to both, which cost $25,000 a couple. About 1,200 people purchased $1,000 tickets just for the concert.


Many people got complimentary tickets and campaign reports never gave a full accounting of the total money taken in. However, organizers reported raising nearly $1.1 million for a joint committee benefiting Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign and the national and state-level Democratic parties.


Rosen, 40, reported the event was underwritten by about $400,000 worth of ``in kind'' contributions - goods and services provided for free or below cost - but Peter F. Paul, a three-time convicted felon who pleaded guilty in March to securities fraud charges, has told prosecutors he gave the campaign at least $1.1 million for the affair.


Paul has filed a lawsuit claiming he bankrolled the gala on a promise that former President Clinton would become a ``goodwill ambassador'' for his Internet media company. He is ready to testify against Rosen, according to his attorney, Joseph Conway.


Another of the event's organizers, the man who corralled the celebrities, said Rosen was a ``decent person'' who faced a devil's choice: risk getting fired by exposing the gala's skyrocketing tab or cover up its true cost. ``David I don't think deserves to go to jail,'' co-organizer Aaron Tonken said in a recent interview from prison, where he is serving 63 months for unrelated charges of defrauding charities of hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Tonken believes the Federal Election Commission should fine Hillary Clinton's campaign. To build its case, the government enlisted Raymond Reggie, a prominent political consultant whose sister is married to U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy. Prosecutors have not named Reggie, but two sources familiar with the case said he is the ``cooperating witness'' identified in court documents.


During a secretly recorded conversation with Reggie in September 2002, prosecutors said Rosen made incriminating statements they will introduce at trial. Reggie pleaded guilty last month in Louisiana to unrelated bank fraud charges.

A request for an interview with Hillary Clinton was referred to her lawyer, David Kendall, who would not comment. Last year, Kendall told The Associated Press that Clinton's campaign properly reported all donations in 2000.

Rosen's attorney, Paul Mark Sandler, also declined to comment.


It is not the first time a Clinton campaign has been under scrutiny. President Clinton's 1996 campaign was dogged by allegations of illegal fundraising from overseas donors. ``Things like this have occurred along the way in the Clinton national role and they have handled it,'' said Lee Miringoff, an independent pollster and director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Poughkeepsie, N.Y.


The key, he said, is whether ``fingerprints lead back to her.''


Government lawyers won't say publicly why they believe Rosen might have underreported the cost. But one theory suggests it would have allowed Clinton's campaign to spend more money on essentials such as advertising.


Under arcane campaign finance rules of the time, reporting the event's actual cost would have forced the campaign to forfeit coveted ``hard money,'' according to Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who now leads the campaign-finance watchdog Center for Responsive Politics.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story....d=20050421LA201

05/08/05

schsa
05-09-2005, 05:07 AM
So does it matter? She isn't going to run for President and she's smart enough to know that she would not get away with any finance fraud so she can dump it all on her campaign manager and he is the one eating the charges. I am sure that she would not have tollerated the deception if she had known about it. She's been in politics too long not to know that people will go after you even if they have no evidence.

Jolie Rouge
05-09-2005, 12:15 PM
So does it matter? She isn't going to run for President and she's smart enough to know that she would not get away with any finance fraud so she can dump it all on her campaign manager and he is the one eating the charges. I am sure that she would not have tollerated the deception if she had known about it. She's been in politics too long not to know that people will go after you even if they have no evidence.

Let me see if I understand you : it doesn't matter because she says at this time that she might not run for the Oval Office in 2008 ?? She is smart enough to get her campaign manager to take the fall for her - for something that she didn't do or have any knowledge of ??

I am confused - you have an excuse for any angle here :confused:

schsa
05-09-2005, 12:23 PM
No, I was just thinking that she won't run and if she does she won't be elected. The time for a woman president hasn't come yet. And her campaign manager should have known better. As the campagner you can't possibly keep up with all of the money coming and going. You have to trust someone to be able to do that. If he screwed up and did some fancy numbers then he takes the fall, not her. Too many people contribute to campaigns that large. It would be like running a bank and knowing what everyone deposited on a daily basis. So someone else handles the money while you are out making speeches. I don't think in politics anyone is really 100% honest but I really don't trust the people who handle the money.

Jolie Rouge
05-10-2005, 10:45 AM
So if a similar situation occurred within the Bush campaign you wouldn't be insisting that he is ultimately responsiable for the actions of those in his employ ??

Jolie Rouge
06-14-2005, 07:22 PM
Just thought this was interesting given the "Porn Stars at the Republican Fundraiser"


Here we have illegal activites excused for a Clinton while some are ready to roast Bush for the entirely legal activities of the GOP staff - whom he has NO control over ( unlike Hilary and her Campain Manager )


As the campagner you can't possibly keep up with all of the money coming and going. You have to trust someone to be able to do that. If he screwed up and did some fancy numbers then he takes the fall, not her. Too many people contribute to campaigns that large. It would be like running a bank and knowing what everyone deposited on a daily basis. So someone else handles the money while you are out making speeches.

janelle
06-15-2005, 10:03 AM
Stands up and applaudes Jolie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

YNKYH8R
06-15-2005, 10:16 AM
Who cares if a porn star was at a GOP fund raiser? Maybe he'll lighten them up...or was the porn star a woman?

adorkablex
06-15-2005, 02:30 PM
Who cares if a porn star was at a GOP fund raiser? Maybe he'll lighten them up...or was the porn star a woman?

:D
;)

Jolie Rouge
01-25-2007, 09:24 PM
Liz Taylor backs Hillary Clinton in presidential race
Thu Jan 25, 6:08 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Hollywood may be debating who to support in the 2008 presidential election, but Dame Elizabeth Taylor already has her woman -- Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In a statement on Thursday, the actress said, "I have contributed to Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign because she has a mind of her own and a very strong one at that. I like the way she thinks. She is very savvy and a smart leader with years of experience in government, diplomacy and politics."

A spokesman for the 74-year-old actress said she had contributed $2,100 to the New York Democratic senator, the legal limit an individual can give in a primary campaign. Earlier the spokesman had said Taylor gave $100,000, but said that was an incorrect figure based on misinformation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070125/pl_nm/taylor_dc

PrincessArky
01-26-2007, 06:18 AM
So does it matter? She isn't going to run for President and she's smart enough to know that she would not get away with any finance fraud so she can dump it all on her campaign manager and he is the one eating the charges. I am sure that she would not have tollerated the deception if she had known about it. She's been in politics too long not to know that people will go after you even if they have no evidence.

Remember white water??? The Clinton's got off that one that one while others involved where put in prison not to mention the ones that mysteriously died.

Jolie Rouge
09-11-2007, 05:30 AM
ironic in light of the current "troubles" ??