RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

mi hear Hillary a talk bout Rezko "non" scandal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mi hear Hillary a talk bout Rezko "non" scandal

    must be brought to the front by the media....even if shi survive Tuesday, it's over... Barack have some rhatid backers....Kennedys and Rockefellers? LOL...

    Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm

    Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT
    Filed Under: Politics



    By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News
    Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.
    The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."
    In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.
    "This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."
    Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.
    Allegations:
    Adrienne Slick, who worked at IPA for seven months in 2000 and 2001 as a business coordinator and is now part of the EEOC suit, told NBC News in an interview that the sexual harassment was oppressive. “I had multiple managers come at me, press themselves up against me ... ask me to go home with them, and to a hotel room so they could fulfill their fantasies," she said.
    The EEOC lawyers say the man at the top of the firm - IPA founder and Managing Director John R. Burgess - was among the worst offenders. The EEOC lawsuit claims, “The harassment emanated from the top: the owner and Managing Director, John Burgess, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women.”
    Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.
    Still, none of that has stopped powerful politicians in both parties from being courted by Burgess and IPA. Since 2000, IPA officials and their family members have given Sen. Clinton at least $170,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns, federal campaign records show. Senator Clinton also spoke at a company event and rode on an IPA jet in 2004.
    In May 2006, the New York Times brought Burgess's criminal history, and the allegations against IPA, to Sen. Clinton's attention. The May 7, 2006, article was titled “Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents.” In the article, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying the Senator was not aware of Burgess’s criminal past and "will be reviewing" the contributions.
    Almost two years later, federal records indicate that Sen. Clinton still has not returned the IPA money. Howard Wolfson, her communications director, did not dispute the $170,000 figure in an email to NBC News. He said Senator Clinton was not aware of Burgess’s past legal problems when she first accepted the donations. "In 2000 and 2003 when Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted money from Burgess, it was not aware of his legal problems from the 1980s," he said.
    However, there were public reports of allegations against Burgess as early as 2000. That’s the year that Inc. Magazine first reported that Burgess had patronized a prostitute and had pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny. And Senator Clinton’s campaign has accepted other contributions from other senior IPA officials as recently as last year, the campaign records show.
    Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations.
    Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.
    Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment.
    "The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women's issues and women," says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. "I don't think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked."
    Adrienne Slick, the former IPA employee, says she's disappointed in any politician who would take or keep money from IPA. "This is not something that should be taken lightly, and to accept those funds makes a statement," she told NBC.
    The EEOC lawyers would not comment on any aspect of the political donations, and confined their remarks solely to the lawsuit.

    Clinton Campaign Response:
    Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution." Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show.
    IPA Reaction:
    For its part, IPA vigorously denies any wrongdoing and said it has been fighting the EEOC lawsuit for more than six years. "Since a lawsuit was filed in June 2001, IPA has continually and consistently denied the allegations," IPA spokeswoman Jennifer Cumbee wrote in an email to NBC News. "At IPA, we have zero tolerance approach when it comes to sexual harassment."
    Cumbee added: "This involves primarily claims by persons who worked a short time in the mid- to late 90s (although there are some persons who worked after that). Immediately after the lawsuit was filed and by early 2001, IPA in an abundance of caution had its sexual harassment policy completely revised by competent outside professionals."
    She says, "IPA has had no unresolved claim of harassment for several years now and any one of its 2,000 employees who violate the policy, after investigation, is dealt with swiftly." She would not comment directly on Slick’s claims, citing employee confidentiality. She said that the EEOC already has dropped some claimants from the suit. “All employee claims have been contested as many have no witnesses or records or current complaints,” Cumbee said.
    The IPA spokeswoman did not dispute that Burgess had a criminal record from his days in New York. "All that you have asked, in regards to John Burgess, is a matter of public record," she wrote. “Mr. Burgess is not a felon and was never convicted or pled to a felony.” She said that it would be unfair to judge Burgess on two-decade-old crimes, and pointed out that Burgess and IPA are solid employers who donate generously to charities.
    Karl commenting on Maschaeroni's sending off, "Getting sent off like that is anti-TEAM!
    Terrible decision by the player!":busshead::Laugh&roll::Laugh&roll::eek::La ugh&roll:

  • #2
    damn, even donors a sue Clinton... fi har campaigne over

    Lawsuit: Clinton scheme
    cost donor millions

    Peter Paul's amended complaint seeks damages for loss of internet company
    Posted: August 25, 2006
    1:00 am Eastern

    © 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


    A $2 million Hollywood bash that honored President [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Bill [COLOR=blue ! important]Clinton[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and raised buckets of money for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign in 2000 was bankrolled by business mogul Peter Franklin Paul, and he says that was because Bill Clinton told him he'd work with Paul's company once he left the White House.

    Peter Paul and Sen. [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Hillary [COLOR=blue ! important]Clinton[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] (Courtesy Hillcap.org)
    But that plan failed when, Paul alleges, the former president's agent diverted a key investment away from Paul's company and it failed in the dot-com meltdown several years ago. Now his lawsuit against [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Clinton[/COLOR][/COLOR] and others for allegedly conspiring to destroy his $200 million Internet business is moving forward, with a motion to file a second amended complaint.
    A hearing on that motion, submitted to the court today, is scheduled Sept. 25, officials with the United States Justice Foundation told WorldNetDaily.
    Paul alleges after he donated $1.9 million of cash and in-kind contributions for Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign, Bill Clinton's agent used proprietary information obtained from Paul to convince Paul's Japanese partner to incorporate Venture Soft USA with him, not invest another $5 million with Paul.

    "Underlying this complaint is the damage that was done to my business and to me as a businessman, because I allowed Clinton access to a proprietary relationship that I had with my Japanese partner," Paul told WND.
    "Rather than being disgruntled contributor, I am an injured businessman whose entire interest was to employ an ex-president as a rainmaker for my company," Paul told WND. "I had no interest in the politics."
    It's the latest incarnation of a series of allegations Paul has maintained following the 2000 election. He said he made huge contributions to Hillary Clinton's campaign after he was told by Clinton's representative that Clinton had agreed to a plan to work with Paul after he left the White House.
    Paul told WND that he was assured personally by Clinton on three occasions that the plan to have Clinton work with Paul's company was fine.
    The amended document lists as defendants William Jefferson Clinton, Gary Smith, Clinton spokesman James Levin, and Aaron Tonken.
    The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of the $1.9 million plus punitive damages, which could be $30 million for his lost company, according to the filing prepared by Colette Wilson and Gary G. Kreep, of the USJF.
    The Clintons' longtime attorney David Kendall has in the past told WND he would not comment on the case. He stopped commenting to the media last December when the [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]senator's[/COLOR][/COLOR] campaign was fined for filing false reports, which had hidden Paul's contributions.
    Paul said he was just trying to create a 21st Century Disney-style entertainment company based on the Internet, using the "most successful communicator to young people through superheroes," Spiderman creator Stan Lee.
    His plan, he said, was to reach an agreement with Bill Clinton so that following his departure from the White House he would do work as a "rainmaker" with the new company to raise its profile. A rainmaker is a leader who attracts investors, establishes banking relationships and draws partners.
    To that goal, he said, he was willing to reach out to the Clintons by donating huge sums to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign as a "prelude" to the commitment he believes he was given from the Clintons. Paul says he was guided by DNC chairman Ed Rendell on how to approach Clinton and became Hillary Clinton's largest campaign donor on Rendell's advice and Clinton's requests.
    Then, however, a Clinton associate, Jim Levin, allegedly used proprietary information about a potential Japanese investor obtained from Paul and instead persuaded that investor to incorporate with Clinton's agent, leaving Paul's company without a needed cash infusion during the dot-com meltdown of the early 2000s, he says.
    "They used all the trappings of the White House to sabotage my plans," Paul told WND. He says the White House allowed Oto to have pictures taken in the Oval Office, then delivered those photos to Oto in Japan.
    Some related issues were discussed during an earlier complaint brought by Judicial Watch in the U.S. [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Senate[/COLOR][/COLOR], where officials said the election concerns were without substantive merit. Paul's civil complaint so far has survived challenges to dismiss up through the state Supreme Court and is set for trial next March.
    Paul has been critical of the Judicial Watch filing, saying it failed to identify the significant issue of fraud in connection with the loss of a public company, and instead made it appear to be a political dispute.
    Paul said the updated complaint, now being handled by USJF, focuses on the financial damage he suffered, and the roles played by Rendell and the Clintons.
    The action alleges Paul, whose past includes convictions for cocaine possession and "liberating $8.7 million from Fidel Castro" in a black market coffee transaction, money later used for counterinsurgency activities in Venezuela and Colombia, began working with the then-77-year-old Stan Lee, creator of Spider Man, the Incredible Hulk and other characters, to build an international media company.
    Paul noted that the convictions did not prevent him from working on a subsequent projects with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger and [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]President [COLOR=blue ! important]Reagan[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], nor did it prevent him from obtaining the clearances to sit next to Bill Clinton at various fundraisers.
    "Plaintiff achieved substantial success, and, after two mergers in 1999, Stan Lee Entertainment, Inc., became Stan Lee Media ? a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of approximately $350 million," a copy of the complaint said.
    Then Paul was contacted by a former employee, Aaron Tonken, who had begun working for the Democratic National Committee, about establishing a relationship with Clinton through sponsoring a fund-raising event, and Paul "conceived of a plan to expedite his goals for Stan Lee Media and (another company) Mondo English by hiring CLINTON, at Plaintiff's sole expense, to serve as an honorary board member and 'rainmaker' for the two companies when CLINTON left office in January 2001."
    Toward that goal, he says he first contributed $30,000, then more, and eventually a total of almost $2 million after being told he had a commitment from Clinton for a year's worth of work in return for $10 million in Stan Lee Media stock, $5 million in cash and $1 million for the Clinton [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Presidential[/COLOR][/COLOR] Library, plus underwriting "The Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton."
    "On or about July 13, 2000, CLINTON, through LEVIN as his agent, informed Plaintiff that his proposal had been accepted," the lawsuit says.
    However, the lawsuit alleges that was a sham to induce Paul to commit more money to Hillary Clinton's campaign, and eventually Levin was introduced by Paul to his Japanese business partner, Tendo Oto, founder of Venture Soft Co., Ltd.
    Oto had indicated to Paul a willingness to invest $5 million in Stan Lee Media, but the lawsuit alleges that did not come, and eventually Paul discovered Levin "set up a U.S. subsidiary of Venture Soft called Venture Soft USA, Inc., on Oto's behalf."
    The result of the lack of financing eventually forced the Stan Lee Media share price from $6 to $1, and "the company was forced to cease operations on December 19, 2000," Paul said.
    Even Chelsea Clinton was used to further the deceit, Paul alleges.
    During a brunch at Barbra Streisand's home, Chelsea Clinton "sought out Plaintiff, his wife, their guests, Oto and his translator, and LEVIN to relate her excitement about what Plaintiff as doing for her parents."
    And she discussed her father's enthusiasm for working with Stan Lee Media.
    However, the result of the machinations, Paul alleges, meant that Stan Lee Media failed, and Clinton did not then need to follow through on his "commitment" to work with the company.
    This filing is just the latest in several years' worth of work on the claims. Last January, the FEC issued a $35,000 fine to a joint fund-raising committee that included Clinton's campaign, New York Senate 2000, for failing to report accurately $721,895 in contributions from Paul.
    But the Senate Ethics complaint pursued by Judicial Watch did not produce any results for Paul. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton called the determination a "free pass" for Hillary Clinton.
    And a year earlier, Clinton's former top fundraising aide, David Rosen, was acquitted for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, Rosen's boss, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement. Paul said that established his contention that he personally gave the money to Sen. Clinton's campaign, and his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the FEC.
    Paul also has documented his allegations in a declaration about the situation.
    He also noted that Sen. Clinton did not deny the allegations in his civil suit declaration but, instead, only swore she had no recollection of certain conversations.
    The USJF has appealed Hillary Clinton's dismissal as a defendant in the case.
    As WND has reported, Bill and Hillary Clinton head a list of potential witnesses in the suit that includes Muhammad Ali, Brad Pitt, Barbra Streisand, James Brolin, Cher and Whoopi Goldberg.
    Karl commenting on Maschaeroni's sending off, "Getting sent off like that is anti-TEAM!
    Terrible decision by the player!":busshead::Laugh&roll::Laugh&roll::eek::La ugh&roll:

    Comment


    • #3
      Yuttie: The internet also has stuff on Barack Obama

      http://bigheaddc.com/2008/02/14/larr...-barack-obama/

      http://nihlist.blogspot.com/2008/02/...s-lawsuit.html
      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

      Comment


      • #4
        my goodness Karl, there is something known as credibility, something you seem to lack.. mi can go pan various blogs and post every anti clinton remark mi si, but mi use credible news agency, not blogs.....

        Karl, use credible source no boss, even if its the not so credible Fox News or any of the Newscorp enterprises.
        Karl commenting on Maschaeroni's sending off, "Getting sent off like that is anti-TEAM!
        Terrible decision by the player!":busshead::Laugh&roll::Laugh&roll::eek::La ugh&roll:

        Comment


        • #5
          Karl, the difference between a youtube allegation with an accuser who didn't bother to show up to take $10,000 for a lie detector test........and a substancial article...

          WASHINGTON -- Six years ago, the launch of Hillary Clinton's career in the US Senate was marred by allegations that her brothers had received payments from people pardoned by President Bill Clinton in the waning months of his presidency.
          Now, in the wake of the launch of her presidential campaign, the pardon controversy has reemerged in an obscure court case in which Senator Clinton's brother Tony is battling an order to repay more than $100,000 he received from a couple pardoned by President Clinton.
          Tony Rodham, who acknowledged approaching the president about a pardon for the couple, is the second of Hillary Clinton's brothers to receive money from people who were eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.
          But while Hillary Clinton immediately expressed chagrin over the news in 2001 that Hugh received the money -- and asked him to return it -- she said Tony was "not paid," according to a congressional report. The Clinton campaign yesterday declined to comment on the case involving Tony Rodham.
          Clinton critics have been seeking to revive an array of controversies, from the Whitewater land deal to the Monica Lewinsky case. The Clinton campaign has sought to depict them as old or moot cases. But the Tony Rodham case could be different because it is in court just as Senator Clinton's campaign reaches full speed.

          Yesterday, US Bankruptcy Court Judge Marian Harrison of Nashville ordered Tony Rodham to respond by March 16 to the allegation that he failed to repay a loan of $107,000 from the couple pardoned by Clinton, according to attorneys involved in the case.
          President Clinton's pardons have been a political issue for Hillary Clinton because of her ties to a number of the cases. In addition to the people who paid her brothers, those receiving pardons included commodities trader Marc Rich, a fugitive who was prosecuted for tax evasion by then-US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani and fled to Switzerland. Rich was pardoned after his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed heavily to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.
          Controversy over the pardons was reignited last week after Hollywood mogul and former Clinton supporter David Geffen criticized the Clintons for the Rich pardon.
          "It is a legitimate campaign issue," said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers' and her own involvement in the pardons because "the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained. "
          The Tony Rodham lawsuit revolves around his work for a carnival company, United Shows of America, which was owned by Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory. The couple, who had been convicted of bank fraud, hired Tony Rodham as a business consultant and paid him $244,769 in salary over 2 1/2 years, according to a congressional report.Continued...
          Edgar Gregory has since died, and his company is now bankrupt. The lawsuit against Tony Rodham, brought by the bankruptcy trustee, revolves around whether the Gregorys loaned Rodham $107,000, or whether that money was part of his salary. The trustee for the bankrupt estate says it was a loan that was never repaid and that, with interest, it would now be $153,000.
          When Tony Rodham's involvement with the Gregorys first became public in early 2001, Hillary Clinton said that her brother had known the couple "for some time . . . he has a personal relationship with them. He was not paid."
          The House Government Reform Committee report the next year, noting that Rodham had worked as a consultant to the Gregorys, said a further review should be conducted to determine whether Hillary Clinton "knew of the financial relationship between Tony Rodham and the Gregorys when Rodham was lobbying the President for pardons." The report said Hillary Clinton's "statement that Tony Rodham 'was not paid' is not accurate."
          Rodham yesterday did not respond to a request for comment. In 2001, he said on CNN that he had worked as a consultant for the Gregorys but that "on the pardon issue, I never received a dime from them."

          Rodham also said that he mentioned the pardon application to then-President Clinton. "Yes, I did," Rodham said. "And I have no problem saying I mentioned it to the president."
          Attorneys for Rodham and the bankrupt estate said they have no plans to involve the Clintons in the case and declined to comment on the pardon.
          "We are dealing with a bankrupt estate, so we are not going to be spending a lot of money to flesh out the pardon issues that are related to this," Michael Collins, the attorney for the bankrupt estate, said.
          Rodham's attorney, Samuel Crocker, said in an interview yesterday that he believed the case would be settled. Crocker said he had "no interest" in involving the Clintons in the proceeding or delving into the pardon.
          Groups critical of the Clintons have tied the case to questions about the pardons. Judicial Watch, a group that has targeted the Clintons for years, said the bankruptcy proceeding should prompt the Justice Department to review the circumstances of the pardon.
          But a Justice Department official wrote to Judicial Watch on Jan. 16 that "it is likely that any new allegations would be outside of the five-year statute of limitations period."
          Judicial Watch last year tried to obtain unredacted documents related to the pardon of the Gregorys but were rebuffed by the Bush administration, which said releasing them would violate executive privilege.
          T he Clinton pardons were a major scandal in early 2001, as Hillary was beginning her term. She said she and the president did not know her brother Hugh had received $400,000 in fees from two people, one of whom received a commutation and one a pardon. Hugh Rodham has said he returned the money.
          The Rich pardon received the most attention. Rich had been indicted in 1983 on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Rich fled to Switzerland and never stood trial.
          Before Rich received the pardon in January 2001, his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clinton's Senate bid, and also made a large contribution to the Clinton presidential library.
          President Clinton has said he pardoned Rich at the behest of Israeli officials, and has denied any wrongdoing.
          Karl commenting on Maschaeroni's sending off, "Getting sent off like that is anti-TEAM!
          Terrible decision by the player!":busshead::Laugh&roll::Laugh&roll::eek::La ugh&roll:

          Comment

          Working...
          X