Post Magazine: House of Cards

What do Cher, a Hollywood con man, a political rising star and an audacious felon have in common? Together they gave Bill and Hillary Clinton a night they'll never forget - no matter how hard they may try.

April Witt, whose article about political influence peddling and the Clintons appeared in yesterday's Washington Post Magazine , will be online to field questions and comments..

April Witt is a Washington Post Magazine staff writer.

____________________

April Witt: Welcome. Thanks for joining this chat on a holiday. Let's get started.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Maybe I missed this, but was there at any point in this scandal where Bill and/or Hillary Clinton were aware of the dishonesty of the people involved in this fund raiser?

April Witt: That is certainly one of the 1.176 million-dollar-questions. David Rosen said the vetting system failed, and thus put him in harms way because he didn't know the personal histories of Peter Paul or Aaron Tonken. Had he known, for example, that Tonken had spectacular financial problems and a track record of wild overspending, he might have watched his back more closely or even talked the campaign out of doing the gala with them. The Clinton's lawyer said that the campaign law firm searched Paul's name on Lexis-Nexis, the electronic database, and found no record of his criminal convictions. I have no way of knowing whether the Clintons knew who they were dealing with or not. But I do know this: campaigns get the vetting systems they want. If a campaign really wants to make sure they don't get into bed financially with the wrong donor, it's not that hard to launch an aggressive, effective background check of anyone proposing to give unusually generous support. That didn't happen here. It probably doesn't happen much in politics. It's not an irrational leap to say that it probably doesn't happen because campaigns are in the business of striving to attract donors - not weed them out.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: I was surprised that you did not quote the Washington Post's story on August 17, 2000 which referred to Hillary's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, telling Post reporter Lloyd Grove that they knew that the Gala cost more than a million dollars, "but it was an in kind contribution" , yet two months later in the FEC report that Hillary's campaign filed which was supposed to advise voters the amount she received from contributors were and their identities, her campaign stated the Gala only cost $366,000 and it came from a company rather than an individual, Peter Paul, as later confirmed in David Rosen's trial. Why not include that Post exclusive fact in your story?

April Witt: That's a fair point. Thanks for making it. I certainly seriously considered including that fact. The main reason I didn't was that the million-dollar figure published in Reliable Source back in August 2000 was not used inside direct quotation marks. The implication of the way the sentence was written was that Wolfson was saying the gala cost one-million to produce. However, since that sum was not inside direct quotes, I couldn't be certain. Thus I didn't use it. I will note, however, I found no record in the Post database that anyone from the campaign demanded a correcton on that $1 million dollar-figure at the time. So that certainly raised questions for me about why the figures ultimately reported to the Federal Election Commission were so much lower.

_______________________

Astoria, N.Y: I have to admit, I just can't stomach reading your story. After watching panelists discuss how the Clinton's are responsible for 9/11 today on Fox News (in the context that they were discussing the former FBI Director's new book), I am so disgusted at how some people continue to knock-down the Clintons and I am afraid if I read your column I would put you in the same column as Fox News which is something you don't want (I only watch Fox briefly to see what the 'other side' is saying). Anyway, my question, why are we still debating the Clintons and their past, can't we look forward? Other than discussing Hillary and her current role as Senator, I feel like it is some strange obsession of people to duscuss everything Clinton and then blame them for everything. Perhaps I am wrong about your article, but as I mentioned I am afraid to read it, should I be? Should I write you off as another Fox News contributor, albiet at the Wash Post?

April Witt: Since you are afraid of reading my story and wonder if it would be akin to turning in to Fox, I'll quote Dan Rather: "Courage."

"

You needn't fear I have any political axe to grind. I don't. I'm not for the Clintons or agin' them. I'm a neutral journalist. I try diligently to reveal the facts to the best of my abilities. Although this particular tale is set in the world of the Clintons, I don't believe Democrats have any more unethical fundraising than do Republicans. If anyone doubts that, all they have to do is follow recent news events and the accusations against Tom DeLay.

_______________________

Upland, Calif.: Despite David Kendall's spinning, why didn't you mention that the California Supreme Court has told Bill Clinton to prepare for discovery in Peter Paul's civil trial?

April Witt: I did say in the article that the civil suit is still on - despite the Clinton's best efforts to free themselves from it - and oral arguments could well happen before the end of the year.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Ms. Witt,

I imagine you're getting ripped from both sides about your article on the Clinton gala/fundraiser.

I'd like to thank you for delving into the murky dealings of the Clinton fundraising world.

Aaron Tonken and Peter Paul were the bookends to a long line of crooked moneymen Bill and Hillary Clinton associated with that began with Jim McDougal and Whitewater in Arkansas, went through Indonesia's John Huang and James Riady, communist China's bagman Johnny Chung, Al Gore's Buddhist temple, Denise Rich's ex-husband Marc Rich and the Tonken/Paul sleazefest.

While you were researching this article, were you struck at all about the breadth of corrupt people the First Couple took money from? And do you see any comparisons to the Tom Delay charges filed against him in Texas?

April Witt: I imagine I'll be knocked from both the left and right on this story. I'd be surprised if I wasn't. People have strong feelings for and against the Clintons.

I haven't reported on the DeLay accusations. So what I know about them is what I've read in newspapers and heard broadcasted. Both the saga of the Clinton's Hollywood gala, and the news reports of the accusations against Delay, remind me of something someone I interviewed for this story said: Trying to reform political fundraising is like waging the war on drugs. If we are ever going to win we need to eliminate the demand for the supply.

_______________________

Salem, Ore.: House of Cards was an interesting story and good writing. However, I was surprised to find (or not find) at the end that this whole event is not on track to become a movie. But then again, is it?

April Witt: We should ask Aaron Tonken that question. He's a clever fellow, an engaging teller of tales, and certainly has a lot of friends still in Hollywood. (Though I imagine it's tough to find gold watches to send them from the prison gift shop.)

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Who are Rosen's current two clients? And will he ever fundraise for Hillary again ?

April Witt: That's a very intersting question about whether David Rosen will ever fundraise again for Hillary Clinton. He certain did work for her after the gala. But, as of the last time I interviewed him, he had not done any work for his trial. Rosen appeared to be loyal to her. Although he was found not guilty, he was left with crushing legal bills in excess of one million dollars. I'll be curious to see if the Clintons and Democrats come through for him now by hiring him and helping pay his legal debts.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Will David Rosen be able to get reimbursed by the government for his legal bills?

April Witt: No. Would you really want your tax dollars to be used to reimburse everyone tried for a crime and found not guilty?

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Do you think that a contributor like Peter Paul who according to the Justice Department personally gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary's campaign, who spent three hours sitting next to hillary and Bill at the concert, then three more hours sitting next to Bill over dinner, would NOT tell them what he did for them? Is it logical that someone would decide to make arguably the largest reported personal contribution to a Senate candidate in history and hide it from the candidate and her husband the President given meetings with them during and after the event itself? Dont you think Hillary knew that her campaign was n ot being truthful in its FEC report filed at the request of the FEC to clarify expenses, in a letter on July 30, 2001 to the FEC? Since Grossman signed the fraudulent returns, why was Rosen the only one indicted for filing them?

April Witt: Peter Paul has been quite clear in saying consistently that he made the contributions in order to curry favor with Bill Clinton in hopes of doing business with him after the president left office. So why on earth would he want to keep those contributions secret? I can't think of a logical explanation. The jury didn't get one. The defense argued, essentially, that Tonken and Paul were bad guys who hid what they were doing for their own negarious reasons. Those reasons were never detailed in the courtroom - or to me. On another point, I don't know what Hillary knew and I'm not in the business of making guesses. But you are not the only person to ask why all blame fell to Rosen.

_______________________

Upland, Calif.: Now I starting to really get peeved. Unbelievable answer. You know very well that this is going to be a movie. Why did you deceive your readers about it?

April Witt: You must know something I don't. (I hope for your sake you know many things I don't.) I haven't heard a word about this being a movie. Since you seem to have inside information, who have they cast to play Hillary and Bill?

_______________________

New York, NY: Why didnt you try and get comments from Hillary and Bill Clinton on this affair? It seemed as though you treated them like innocent bystanders surrounded by corrupt friends, contributors and incompetent lawyers. Didnt Hillary play any role in cultivating Peter Paul and inducing him to give her money, then after she denied taking any from him or dealing with him as a result of the Post's exposing his crminal past, she actually wrote him a letter thanking him for his friendship - then hit him up for another $100, 000? Why is she immune from reporter's questions as well as the law?

April Witt: You are jumping to conclusions. I would have liked to interview the Clintons. But the Clinton's lawyer was designated to take my questions. Certainly Hillary played a role in cultivating Peter Paul. There are many photographs, as well as video footage, of her speaking with Peter Paul in a very chummy matter. He's said consistently that he wouldn't have given any money just because Rosen asked. It required encouragement from the Clintons, he says. I wouldn't be surprised if readers judged everyone in this story by the company they kept.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: In your story, Rosen comes across as low hanging fruit...an easy target for the gov't to pursue. Is there a sequel coming on why others futher up the food chain were not pursued?

April Witt: I'm not planning one. Whether there is a sequel or not depends on what happens in the civil suit and what, if any, action the FEC or Justice Department take.

_______________________

Upland, Calif.: Fair enough. Let's call it a "documentary" instead of a movie. In all the time Peter spent talking with you, surely he had to mention the "documentary." It will include 5 hours of home video of Hillary never before seen. It will include on-camera appearances by some major players. If we send you a DVD, will you review it?

I would still like to know if you understand the signifigance of the timing of the civil lawsuit. It was filed and service accepted by Kendall before the final amended FEC report. Paul included copies of checks and invoices. How can Hillary claim she didn't know?

April Witt: Ah, the documentary. I thought you were talking about a fictional account starring John Travolta or something. Yes readers, Peter Paul is making a documentary about his dealings with the Clintons. I'm not in the movie-reviewing biz, but would love to see the documentary when it's done. Regarding the second part of your note, certainly Paul laid out his allegations in his lawsuit, which the Clintons and/or their lawyers would have had ample time to read before the final FEC report was filed. If the civil suit persists, then maybe someone will ask them about that in a deposition.

_______________________

Sims, N.C.: If the guy was found not guilty is your article fair. Is it another case if you can't get them in court, get them in the press.

April Witt: I certainly don't think I tried Rosen in my story. Compared to some other people in the tale, Rosen seemed like a choir boy. His supporters certainly think he is a good person who was made a sacrificial lamb.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Ms. Witt,

What an interesting and thought-provoking article. From the right, this manuscript appears like more useful fodder to use should Hillary run in '08. How much will this gala impact her running? You think "the mushy middle" sees this event as just another desperate attempt by the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to attack Hillary?

April Witt: I don't think the gala has impacted her much so far. I don't expect that to change unless there are some damaging revelations in the civil suit. Dick Morris once made a crack about this case during a television interview. This is a rough paraphrase from memory, but he joked, essentially, that it was smart politics for the Clintons to have a fundraiser hosted by a convicted felon. Because then, when it all went South, nobody would believe his accusations.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: You must know that the third count of Rosen's indictment relating to the third fraudulent FEC report filed by Hillary's campaign on July 30, 2001, was dismissed because the Judge thought there was no evidence linking it to Rosen. If the government claimed it was a fraudulent report, filed WEEKS AFTER her campaign treasurer Grossman, who signed the report, and Hillary Clinton were served with a civil complaint, an FEC complaint and a demand letter all supplying facts and checks substantiating Paul's claims, how can you say you dont know what Hillary knew about at least the last FEC report that could not be blamed on Rosen?

April Witt: You are certainly correct about the timeline as I recall it. Far be it from me to try to channel Sen. Clinton, but she might well argue that she didn't take everything Paul alleged in his civil suit as gospel. She's fighting the suit vigorously, after all. Unfortunately for her, the FBI subsequently confirmed Paul's allegation that the gala cost more than previously reported to the FEC. Now that testimony in the Rosen trial has bolstered Paul's claim will the campaign file a new report with the FEC. We'll have to wait and see. We're out of time, folks, thanks for your questions and comments. Sorry I coudln't get to them all.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.