Hillary's Kennedy In Law Refund Obscures Yet Another False FEC Report
Big news today in the New York Post- under the headline Clinton Giveback, the Post's ever vigilent political reporter Ian Bishop, came up with the following scoop,
February 9, 2006 -- WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has returned a donation from Ted Kennedy's felon brother-in-law, who wore a wire in a failed bid to help the feds nab one of her top moneymen, The Post has learned.
Ray Reggie's $1,000 campaign contribution was returned late last year, new federal records show, more than six months after he testified against fund-raiser David Rosen. Ian Bishop
Apparently Ian was the only major media reporter who discovered the amended FEC report filed by Hillary's New York Senate 2000 Committee on January 30, 2006. But upon finding the difficult to locate report on Hillary's 2000 campaign finances, that again provides material false information on the identity of her major contributors, Ian apparently missed the belated confirmation that more than $830,000 in contributions were in fact made by Peter Paul through his holding companies Paraversal and Excelsior! This unheralded admission that the largest contribution to her campaign has been hidden from the public since August, 2000, was filed as part of a settlement Hillary's campaign treasurer Andrew Grossman, was forced to make with the FEC to avoid prosecution.
In the meantime, Bill First is making big news with some ethically challenged insignificant gratuities he took from a few native American casino enthusiasts. Yet the motherlode of illegal campaign contributions, fraudulently obtained and hidden from the voters who inadvertently launched Hillary Clinton's political assault on the White House, continues to remain unnoticed and unmentioned by ALL media.
Ian didnt feel compelled to explain, in the terse report he filed, why Hillary refunded the $1,000 contribution made by former supporter and regular Clinton White House visitor Reggie, after he became a government rat wired to bring Hillary's finance director David Rosen down.
He also didnt feel compelled to get an explanation of why she wont refund the contribution of the other former Clinton supporter, Peter Paul, after Hillary vowed through her spokesman Howard Wolfson, in the Washington Post three months before her election, not to take any contribution from Peter Paul. Now that she was forced to admit to the world she did indeed take at least $830,000 from Paul through his front companies, how does she justify to the voters the breaking of that vow?
Dont worry, no reporter will ever ask her. Maybe when she is deposed under oath in Paul v Hillary R Clinton et al, we might get some explanation.