Thursday, May 7, 2009

Hillary Clinton 2006 FEC Immunity Deal May Be Voided, According to D. Colette Wilson, Attorney

/PRNewswire/ -- Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Hillary Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc. have become the subjects of a new Federal Election Commission Complaint filed today.

An original FEC complaint filed against Senator Clinton and her agents, President Clinton, Finance Director David Rosen and Treasurer Andrew Grossman, in July 2001 exposed the false reporting of more than $1.2 million expended by Hollywood dot-com millionaire Peter Paul at the request of Senator Clinton and her agents. Clinton Finance Director David Rosen was indicted and tried for FEC fraud in 2005 as a result, and a Conciliation Agreement with Andrew Grossman Treasurer of NY Senate included a fine of the Clinton campaign and an immunity agreement protecting Senator Clinton from further investigation of illegal acts.

The January 2006 "confidential" FEC immunization of Hillary Clinton as in the Senate campaign, was subject to the filing of a fourth corrected FEC Report on January 30, 2006, to legally report the $1.2 million plus expenditure contributed by Peter Paul to underwrite Event 39, and hidden in previous reports.

The new FEC complaint presents new evidence that the latest FEC Report by Hillary Clinton and her campaign violates the Conciliation agreement compelling the FEC to void its grant of immunity. It states:

"The false reporting of [Paul's 1.2 million] expenditures as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 was and is a violation of the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. Section 434(b). The activities of [Hillary Clinton and the other Respondents] in making false statements which resulted in such contributions' being improperly reported as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 (false statements) and/or 18 U.S.C. Section 2 (aiding and abetting)."

When the FEC decided to close its file as to Hillary Clinton in 2006, it stated that, "Any potential liability of Senator Clinton would be based on whether she knowingly accepted prohibited or excessive in-kind corporate contributions." Such evidence was lacking then, but not now, according to D. Colette Wilson, attorney. Ironically, in defending against Peter Paul's fraud complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, Hillary Clinton and her agents David Rosen and James Levin filed sworn declarations that prove Mrs. Clinton knowingly accepted prohibited, excessive contributions in underwriting Event 39, by soliciting, directing and coordinating Mr. Paul's in-kind contribution.

Attorney D. Colette Wilson, on behalf of Clinton 's "unreported" donor, Peter Paul stated:

"The filing presents new evidence -- out of the mouths of Hillary herself and her agents -- proving that Hillary lied when she said her largest campaign fundraising event -- Event 39 -- wasn't a Hillary Clinton for Senate event. That's ALL it was. This new evidence proves it was a sham to claim that it was a Democratic party event, in order to get away with claiming that Peter Paul's expenditures were soft money donated to her Joint Fundraising Committee, New York Senate 2000, rather than federally proscribed, hard money to Hillary Clinton for Senate, the intended beneficiary."

Political News You Can Use

1 comment:

  1. The FEC and the DOJ refuse to enforce the laws clearly violated by the Clintons in soliciting, coordinating and directing more than $1.2 million they admit was donated by Peter Paul. Even after giving them an immunity agreement, Hillary refused to file a legal report. See the Paul v site and the blog to understand - its up to the People to demand that the Clintons be governed by the same laws as Ted Stevens


We do not publish all comments, and we may not publish comments immediately. We will NOT post any comments with LINKS, nor will we publish comments that are commercial in nature.

Constructive debate, even opposing views, are welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters or individuals in the article are not, and will not be published.

We will not publish comments that we deem to be obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.