The Federal Election Commission, responding to a Judicial Watch complaint, fined the Clinton fundraising operation $35,000 for failing to report more than $700,000 in campaign contributions from former Judicial Watch client Peter Paul.
In response to Tom Fitton’s recent article published in Hawaii Reporter, I would like to correct the premise presented that the FEC responded to a Judicial Watch complaint in fining Clinton’s fundraising operation for failing to report my contribution to Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign.
Unfortuantely Judicial Watch suffers from the same inability to communicate the whole truth that Hillary Clinton suffers from. I commented yesterday on the misleading legal analysis regarding Hillary’s exoneration by the FEC given by Hillary’s legal spokesman in responding to the FEC fine and settlement requiring the amendment of Hillary’s false FEC reports in my blog at www.peterfpaul.com,
Now I am now forced to correct the misconception that Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch are perpetuating for their own benefit and agenda regarding the FEC responding to a Judicial Watch complaint in finally holding Hillary’s campaign accountable for the largest finance fraud ever reported by a contributor. As anyone who understands English can glean from the cover letter transmitting the Conciliation Agreement entered into by New York Senate 2000, treasurer Andrew Grossman and the FEC, the four and one half year investigation leading to this FEC censure arose from a complaint filed by Peter Paul. NOWHERE is any reference to Judicial Watch and/or an “FEC response to a Judicial Watch complaint”.
The story written by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who is not a lawyer, intentionally confuses the reader with its failure to distinguish between actions taken by Judicial Watch in its capacity as legal representative for a client, and Judicial Watch as a public advocacy watchdog group acting on its own account.
Unfortunately, when I refiled my FEC complaint in August, 2001 (because the original complaint filed on July 16, 2001 by Judicial Watch on my behalf was technically deficient) Judicial Watch was representing me as my legal counsel. Judicial Watch never developed independent evidence of, or independent information on, the campaign finance fraud surrrounding my dealings with the Clintons. Yet Tom Fitton and company have mercilessly and ruthlessly taken my work product, derived from acting a my legal counsel, and used it as their own when they filed a Senate ethics complaint without my approval in May, 2005, and in taking credit for my success to date in my civil suit against the Clintons exposing the largest campaign finance fraud ever reported by a contributor.
Judicial Watch is intentionally indifferent to the distinction between what they do for clients and what they do for their own benefit. In fact, had I not succeeded in replacing them as my counsel when they unethically withdrew from representing me in March, 2005, and keeping the multi million dollar litigation fund contributed by hundreds of thousands of my supporters, in the middle of state court appeals by the Clintons to throw out my civil case, I would have lost all of my initiatives to hold the Clintons accountable and the FEC would not have had the same pressure to force the conciliation agreement with the Clinton campaign.
This correction is essential for purposes of ensuring that those who have supported me, and believe they continue to support me through Judicial Watch, understand that the FEC did not fine the Clinton campaign in response to a Judicial Watch complaint, but rather in response to a complaint by Peter Paul which was filed on his behalf by Judicial Watch when Judicial Watch represented him, which representation was terminated in March, 2005, due to unethical conduct by Judicial Watch.
I hope this distinction is adequately explained in this letter, as it corrects a misconception that Judicial watch trades off of to enrich itself and jeapardize my efforts to hold the Clintons accountable.
Peter F Paul