Peter Paul’s Disappointment In Washington Post’s Hillary Campaign Fraud Story

October 11, 2005

Editors of the Washington Post

Re: House of Cards, Washington Post Sunday Magazine, October 9, 2005

I was elated to learn that the Post editors assigned a Pulitzer Prize nominated “investigative” reporter to finally report all the facts surrounding the campaign finance fraud that Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign committed in 2000. (see www.hillcap.org)

Since I am both the contributor of the more than $1.2 million in unreported contributions at the heart of the criminal charges brought by the Justice Department against Hillary’s finance director David Rosen, and the whistle blower whose civil fraud suit against the Clinton’s led to Rosen’s indictment, I had more than a passing interest in the truth finally being published by a “paper of record”.

You can not imagine my disappointment upon reading “House of Cards” the 8000 word tabloid style white wash of the role played by Hillary Clinton in inducing and directing the largest campaign finance fraud on record.

As you can see from the two email requests I made to April Witt, (appended below) after spending twelve hours on the phone in interviews with her for the story, I valiantly tried to ensure that the basic facts that are reflected throughout the public record, including your own newspaper, were included in her story. Amazingly, April would refused all my requests. She would not even refer to the scoop by the Post’s then reporter Lloyd Grove, of Hillary Clinton’s spokesman’s admission that they knew the Gala fund raiser I produced for her in August, 2000, “cost more than $1 million and was an in kind contribution”.

This admission is extremely important to understand the significance of the first of three fraudulent FEC reports filed by Hillary’s campaign two months later, three weeks before her election. That FEC report intentionally misled the FEC, and the voters who relied on it, regarding the amount I personally contributed (more than $1.2 million according to the Office of Public Integrity’s case in chief against Rosen), and the fact that I personally was the donor, not my public company.

This omission regarding a “smoking gun” that your own paper uncovered, as well as the others described in my emails, demonstrate the most outrageous effort to protect and advocate for Hillary Clinton that I have yet seen in the Mainstream Media. It even trumps the New York Timesâ€™ February, 2005, 2200 word attack piece on me that blamed the “felonious” donor (me) for making the largest donation of Hillary’s campaign, and then demanding that it be legally reported.

I would hope that when your editorial board reviews the facts presented in my emails to April Witt, that you would make some effort to amend your 8000 word “romance epic” to include the most salient facts of the story, even though they may raise legitimate questions about how Hillary induced me to become her largest contributor, hid the fact from the voters of New York through deceptive statements made through your paper on August 15 and August 17, 2000, and then enabled three fraudulent FEC reports to be filed, while making no effort to correct them for the last five years, or to refund the undisputed illegal contribution of more than $1.2 million as corroborated by the FBI.

As a candidate, and now the elected Senator from New York, she has a continuing legal duty to ensure that all reports made by her campaign to federal agencies like the FEC and IRS, are accurate and that any illegal contributions are returned within thirty days of notice of their illegality. All of which Hillary continues to defy. No one from Hillaryâ€™s campaign has yet to contact me about the evidence I have been supplying to Hillary since June 28, 2001, confirming what the FBI has stated in its own affidavits, that I personally contributed more than $1.2 million to Hillaryâ€™s 2000 Senate campaign.

Please review the attached emails and act in accordance with your solemn responsibility as a leading member of the Fourth Estate to ensure the public is honestly and accurately informed of the actions of their public servants and elected officials, so they can make educated decisions on exercising their constitutional rights to vote and petition their government with grievances.

Against Hillary Clinton Where the facts are - Hillary Clinton News

Peter Paul’s Disappointment In Washington Post’s Hillary Campaign Fraud Story

Comments

Angry Clinton Supporter Declares McCain Will Be Next President

Advertisement

Never Forget

Latest Headlines

Categories

Archives

Related Sites

Referrers

Admin