|
Allegations Trump Adjudication Where
Media Is Concerned
By Frank Salvato
The Hill, a publication that covers congressional
events in Washington DC, ran a front page story about a lawsuit filed by Leftist blogger
Lane Hudson. Hudson, notable for exposing the non-sex
scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley, filed a complaint with
the Federal Election Commission against former Senator and
all-but-announced presidential candidate Fred Thompson. His complaint
accused Thompson of breaking the law by violating the FEC’s “Testing the Waters” clause. It seems Mr. Hudson now fancies
himself some sort of unofficial political “watch-poodle.”
The interesting thing about this is that Hudson’s
partisan and rather obnoxious complaint over Thompson’s candidacy (or
non-candidacy) was filed within the context of one of the murkier FEC
regulations. It is apparent that the mere mention of Thompson’s name
catapulted what should have been simple blog fodder to the front page of a
respectable political publication.
Another interesting aspect – and perhaps a more
troubling one – is that the complaint is based on an as of yet
unsubstantiated accusation of campaign malfeasance. It infers
malfeasance.
This brings to the forefront a logical question. When
does the accusation of malfeasance trump the actual
adjudication of campaign finance fraud, in particular the biggest
case of campaign finance fraud in US history? The answer: When the person
at the center of that campaign finance fraud has the surname of
Clinton.
As outlined in detail in the seven part series, The Fraudulent Senator, Hollywood businessman Peter F.
Paul underwrote a gala event and fundraiser for Hillary
Clinton’s 2000 senatorial campaign in return for a promise that Bill
Clinton would act as a rainmaker for his private company after leaving
office. The event netted a sorely needed $1 million in hard money
donations for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, donations needed to keep the
campaign from going broke.
An FEC investigation into documents filed by the
Clinton campaign found the amount reported from this event to be grossly
under-reported. Adjudications were made and fines were assessed to that
effect. Inexplicably, the US Department of Justice never investigated any
of the crimes associated with the campaign finance fraud, the largest case
of campaign finance fraud in US history.
Ironically, the Clintons never came through for Mr.
Paul and his privately held company collapsed a short time after. There is
currently a lawsuit pending in California in which Senator Hillary
Clinton will be called to testify, barring any legal wrangling to exempt
her from fulfilling her obligation to the courts.
Critics of Mr. Paul – many in the mainstream media and
left-wing political advocacy communities – point to the fact that he is a
convicted felon and routinely dismiss his validated accusations. They
completely disregard the fact that when Hillary Clinton was taking
the money facilitated by Mr. Paul she never blinked an eye. Neither did
she return the money received from the event underwritten by Mr.
Paul.
Those who use the “convicted felon” argument in
attempting to discredit Mr. Paul’s assertions are relativistic. The
federal government routinely uses the testimony of convicted felons and
criminals to achieve favorable outcomes in trials. You need only to look
at the two border agents sitting in jail thanks to the testimony of a
confessed drug smuggler and border jumper to prove this point.
Further, the fact that Mr. Paul is a convicted felon
(an interesting story in its own right) is irrelevant due to the fact that
the FEC documents and investigation proving the campaign finance fraud
committed by Hillary Clinton’s 2000 senatorial campaign are independent of
Mr. Paul. The adjudication of campaign finance malfeasance is based on
documents filed and testimony given, generated during an FEC sanctioned
investigation. Mr. Paul’s felon status has little, if anything to do with
the FEC investigation. It is a smoke-screen for those attempting to
deflect the public’s sitcom attention span away from the crime that was
committed.
Where Mr. Hudson’s complaint against Senator Thompson
is concerned, we can chalk it up to one of two things and maybe a little
bit of both. One, he is exhibiting the sad societal norm of being grossly
and haughtily impatient, in this instance where the presidential campaign
feasibility process is concerned. And two, it is the by-product of a
campaign cycle initiated literally a year too early.
In the end, Senator Thompson’s exploratory staff will
be found to have committed no crimes and no campaign malfeasance and Mr.
Hudson will have gotten his name back into the media. I suspect that the
latter was the overall goal from the start.
But Hudson’s attempt at grabbing the media spotlight by
trying to smear a good man for politically opportunist reasons brings to
the forefront two disturbing questions. Why didn’t the Justice Department
pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton – and those of her Senate
2000 campaign staff judged guilty by the FEC – for having perpetrated the
largest case of campaign finance fraud in US history? And why does an
allegation from a Leftist blogger against a Republican
presidential frontrunner – announced or not – get front page attention
from a respected political publication when the biggest case of campaign
finance fraud in US history did not?
Related
Reading:
Blogger files FEC
complaint against Thompson
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/blogger-files-fec-complaint-against-thompson-2007-08-20.html
Lane Hudson
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570716,00.html
FEC Regulations: Sec.
100.72 Testing the Waters
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14feb20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/janqtr/11cfr100.72.htm
The Fraudulent Senator:
Seven Part Series
http://www.newmediajournal.us/daily_columns/the_fraudulent_senator.htm
The Hillary Clinton
Accountability Project
http://www.hillcap.org
The Hillary Clinton
Accountability Project: Associated Documents
http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=9
Equal Justice
Foundation
http://www.ejfa.org/en/index.php?/en | 
