September 28, 2007

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Clinton Campaign “Media-Controlled, Media-Obsessed”

 

Two stories hit the press this week that highlight the Clinton campaign’s obsession with secrecy and control, especially when it comes to their public image.

 

According to ABCNews.com:

 

“Clinton, D-N.Y., is running perhaps the most media-controlled -- and media-obsessed -- campaign in presidential history.  Her aides carefully screen access to the candidate, generally avoid news conferences on the campaign trail and have been known to throw around the Clintons' considerable weight to block negative stories and influence coverage of the candidate they're protecting and promoting.”

 

And then there was this from Politico.com:

 

“Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign for president learned that the men’s magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland. 

 

So Clinton’s aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.”

 

Just a few weeks ago, it was also reported that the Clintons spiked the release of the DVD version of “Path to 9/11,” an ABC television docudrama that highlighted the Clinton administration’s failure to address the threat of terrorism.  They felt it might cast Hillary’s presidential campaign in a negative light.

 

The Clintons have always been controlling, paranoid and secretive.  That’s the way they operate.  The real shame of it all is the fact that the media allows it to happen!  Hillary was on Meet the Press last weekend.  To his credit, Russert did ask one question about disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu.  He even asked a question about Johnny Chung and the first Clinton administration’s illegal fundraising practices.  But instead of holding Clinton’s feet to the fire, Russert allowed her to spin the questions into a three-minute commercial for public financing of campaigns.

 

For their part, executives from GQ and ABC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the Clintons to bully them into submission.

 

Truth fears no inquiry.  If the Clinton campaign and Hillary were operating honestly, they would have nothing to hide.  If the media was doing its job, they wouldn’t be able to get away with it.

 

Bill Clinton Tied to Shady Business Deals

 

One of the reasons, of course, that the Clintons have to be so secretive is because of the company they choose to keep.

 

Former White House intern Douglas Band, who now effectively serves as Bill Clinton’s “right-hand man” and travel companion, was linked this week to a couple of shady business deals gone bad.  Here’s the scoop according to The Wall Street Journal:

 

“Two years ago, Mr. Band befriended a handsome and charming Italian businessman named Raffaello Follieri.  The young Italian, now 29 years old, had moved to New York in 2003 to launch a business buying and redeveloping Roman Catholic Church properties.  As a gatekeeper to the former president's web of business and charitable enterprises, Mr. Band helped Mr. Follieri get into business with Mr. Clinton, according to people involved with the three men.  In 2005, Yucaipa Cos., a Los Angeles investment firm where Mr. Clinton has been a partner and a senior adviser, agreed to invest up to $100 million in Mr. Follieri's church-property venture.”

 

(You may recall that Ron Burkle has contributed large amounts of money to the Clinton campaigns, the Clinton Legal Defense Fund and Clinton Presidential Library.  Yucaipa also hired Bill Clinton as a consultant in a business deal that could net the former president – and his wife – tens of millions of dollars with little risk or investment.)

 

Band also reportedly helped broker another multimillion dollar business deal between Follieri and Toronto realestate mogul Michael Cooper.

 

What did Follieri offer the Clinton camp in return?

 

With his supposed Vatican connections, Follieri said he would help deliver the Catholic vote to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  The Follieri Foundation also contributed $1 million to a vaccination program sponsored by the Clinton Global Initiative.  Follieri also gave to Band a $400,000 “finder’s fee” for the Cooper deal.  (Band claims he did not keep the money, but rather gave half to Mr. Cooper, and the other half to another person who helped broker the deal.)

 

It appears, however, that what began as a potentially lucrative business relationship has quickly soured.

 

Yucaipa CEO (and Bill Clinton’s boss at that firm) Ron Burkle has filed a lawsuit against Follieri, charging him with misappropriating more than $1.3 million.  The lawsuit claims Follieri used Yucaipa’s money “to fund a lavish lifestyle that included a Manhattan penthouse, five-star meals and private jets for Mr. Follieri and his girlfriend, actress Anne Hathaway.”  Michael Cooper wants his money back because Follieri did not keep up his end of the bargain.

 

The Clintons have been forced, once again, to distance themselves from one of their allegedly corrupt business associates.  According to the WSJ, when asked about Follieri, “Jay Carson, Mr. Clinton's spokesman, said in June that while the former president had met Mr. Follieri a few times, ‘he obviously meets hundreds of people every day, and does not know him well.’”  (Never mind the photos of Follieri and the former president arm in arm, or the time Bill Clinton brought Follieri onstage to thank him for his contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative.)

 

Why is all of this important?  Because Bill Clinton’s business deals are Hillary’s as well.  When a company throws money at and uses Bill Clinton, they are throwing money at and using Hillary.  When Bill Clinton makes a promise, it is Hillary’s to keep.  This latest news story also speaks to the Clintons’ judgment.  Just a few weeks after Hillary’s largest fundraiser was outed as a fugitive from justice, another Clinton associate is in trouble for alleged shady and corrupt business practices.

 

Bribery Trial Provides Evidence Against Ted Stevens (R-AK)

 

Former Alaskan state legislator Pete Kott was found guilty this week of peddling his legislative influence for bribes, including $9,000 and a job with VECO Corp, an oil field services company.  So why is this bad news for Alaskan Republican Senator Ted Stevens?  Because Stevens, the Senate’s longest serving Republican, is under investigation by the FBI to determine whether he also received illegal gifts from VECO.  Evidence presented during the trial suggests he did.

 

This according to The Associated Press:

 

“The two-week [Kott] trial included testimony by VECO chief Bill Allen that he doled out more than $400,000 in bribes to various officials and had company workers remodel the home of Stevens.”

 

Last week, we also learned that the FBI had been recording conversations between Allen and Stevens.  And on July 30, FBI investigators searched Stevens’ home in search of evidence.

 

In addition to the scandal involving VECO, a federal grand jury is also looking into a $3.5 million earmark from Stevens that may have financially benefited one of Stevens’ campaign contributors and, perhaps, the Senator’s son.  Justice Department officials are investigating Stevens to determine whether federal funds he steered to an Alaska wildlife research center may have enriched a former aide.

 

None of this is all-too-surprising for a man known as the “King of Pork.”

 

For his part, Kott was convicted of conspiracy to solicit financial benefits, extortion and bribery, and could spend the next 35 years in prison.

 

According to The Hill, “In exchange for assurances he would cast votes in VECO’s favor on a key petroleum production tax proposal, the jury found that Kott solicited bribes and received cash, checks and the promise of a future job with VECO. Trial evidence included more than 60 recordings of conversations involving Kott and former VECO executives.”

 

For the Republican Senator from Alaska, it seems to be not if, but when, he is indicted by the feds.

 

Until next week…

 

 

Tom Fitton
President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.