… by the FEC allowing Hillary’s campaign to file a fourth false FEC report on January 30, 2006, as part of a settlement and FEC fine for her Treasurer’s [Andrew Grossman] prior three false reports which hid Peter Paul’s donations, the FEC allowed Hillary’s campaign to contradict the evidence presented by the FBI and Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity in the May 2005 trial of her finance Director David Rosen – that Peter Paul personally contributed more than $1.1 million to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign! This false report enabled Hillary Clinton’s re-election to the Senate without addressing the proof of the false statements she made about Paul to assure her first election.
Several online news sites and newspapers, including the New York Post, featured articles during the last year regarding the Stan Lee Media Co-Founder Peter Paul suing the Clintons Over Campaign Funds. Peter Paul, who was indicted on stock manipulation charges, said that Hillary Clinton did not report donations of approximately $2 million he made to her 2000 Senate bid, but never reported the monies to the Federal Elections Committee because he is a convicted felon.
The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, named N.Y. Sen. Clinton, former president Bill Clinton and others as defendants. By exposing the political couple’s alleged failure to report the donations, Paul tried to avoid possible prosecution for federal campaign-finance violations. According to the Post, the campaign for Mrs. Clinton returned $2,000 of the approximately $2,000,000 in contributions, which were substantiated by Peter Paul’s canceled checks.
A reader wishing for a full, balanced picture of Sen. Hillary Clinton won’t get it from the New York Times, which in the 17-month period between Election Day 2004 and April 1, 2006 followed a pattern of mainstreaming Clinton’s liberal policies while throwing roadblocks in front of her potential Republican Senate opponents and playing down her controversial remarks. Such whitewashing from America’s paper of record will serve Clinton well as she prepares for a presidential run.
The main Hillary-hailer-in-chief for the Times was reporter Raymond Hernandez, who got the mainstreaming strategy rolling in a November 4 , 2004 article after John Kerry’s loss, “For the Moment, Mrs. Clinton Looks Like the Candidate to Beat.”
“Mrs. Clinton has staked out moderate-to-conservative positions on a host of issues, from welfare to the war in Iraq, much to the chagrin of her liberal supporters and the satisfaction of some Republicans.”
In a February 9, 2005 story tucked away in the Metro Section, Hernandez and Ian Urbina reported on a fundraising scandal involving Hillary Clinton, “Clinton Benefit Has a Lesson: Double-Check That Donor List.”
The headline suggested the skew of the story, which dispersed the blame away from Clinton (David Rosen, Clinton’s finance director, was later acquitted). As a result, the story came off as more of a cautionary tale for politicians in general than about an actual political scandal involving Clinton.