home

Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 06:56:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Albert Pirro

The Washington Post reports Jeanine Pirro has launched her Senate campaign website for her run against Hillary Clinton. She has over 100 photos on it, but not a single one of her husband, Al Pirro, who went to prison in 2001 for tax evasion. (Hillary has lots of pictures of Bill on her site.) Pirro's bio page doesn't even mention Al.

Some analysts are saying that because both have "bad-boy" husbands (Pirro's also defended a paternity suit in 1997) it will not be an issue in the race - they cancel each other out on that score. Pirro's advisor explains the lack of pictures of husband Al to the Post by saying "This campaign is about Jeanine Pirro and her experience, qualifications and willingness to serve as New York's full-time senator."

I think Jeanine's making a mistake. She ought to acknowledge his past, his presence in her life and explain it. Otherwise people are going to start digging to find out what she's hiding. Like I just did, out of curiosity. Here's what I found, right on his company's website. Shouldn't people know that Candidate Pirro is married to a big-time Republican lobbyist?

Albert J. Pirro serves as President and CEO of The Pirro Group. Also from the website:

Pirro, Buley & Associates, a Pirro Group company, provides lobbying services for a broad client base, which represent diverse fields such as real estate, health care, energy, and technology.

Our experience with political leadership on both sides of the aisle will give your company the competitive edge. We utilize a broad range of political and professional relationships to help your business achieve its goals.

By utilizing the skills of The Pirro Group, your needs will stay high on elected official's agenda. In addition, our pragmatic solutions to seemingly complex problems will help your business avoid unnecessary legislation.

....Some of The Pirro Group lobbying services include:
* Advancing positive legislation and hindering negative legislation.
* Actively monitoring the legislative and political landscape.
* Assist in obtaining crucial "letters of support" from elected officials for projects

Now that might be of interest to voters.

Curiously, the Washington Post makes it seem like Al Pirro's defense of his paternity suit was successful. You be the judge:

In 1995, an Indiana woman named Jessica Marciano slapped Al with a paternity suit, saying he fathered her now 16-year-old daughter during a tumultuous three-month affair in Florida....For three years, Pirro denied the claim, even tarring Marciano as a "convicted felon," citing her 1983 arrest for theft. (He also claimed the service of a private detective he used in the suit as a business deduction.) A court-ordered DNA test last June confirmed Marciano's claim. Pirro has publicly accepted responsibility for the girl and established a trust fund, with a $10,000 initial contribution. Marciano is still seeking half a million dollars in past child support.

I want Hillary to win the race, and she will, she certainly doesn't need my help. I'm not trying to trash Jeanine, whom I admire for her accomplishments and enjoy debating on tv. My reasons for opposing Jeanine's candidacy have to do with her position on crime issues, not her husband. Her latest book, which she touts on her webite is called "To Punish and Protect Against a System that Coddles Criminals."

It's not fair to say that Jeanine shouldn't be Senator because of her husband. But it is fair to say she should be more open about him, particularly because he's an influential lobbyist. If he's part of her life, say so. Maybe they are for all intents and purposes separated, and she thinks a married woman in a separated state can't win an election. If that's the case, she is doing women a disservice. A woman's marital status should not be a factor in an election, any more than her sexual orientation should be. The silence implies she's hiding something. It's not open or honest and both are traits we should demand from our elected officials.

Update: The New York Times reports Jeanine is doing a little flip-flop on her support for abortion. In 2001, she was okay with late-term abortions. Now that she needs conservative voters, she says she's changed her mind and supports it only when the life (not the health) of the mother is at risk.

< Drug War Survival Skills | ABA Backs Shield Law for Reporters >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands | 13 comments (13 topical)
    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    i tend to agree. ignoring something as obvious as the fact that you're married seems like a tactical blunder, unless, i suppose, you're married to jack the ripper. in that case, you might want hubby to maintain a low profile. on the other hand, jack was very successful at his trade, so....................! as a relatively informed (i hope) voter, that would strike me as somewhat odd: why hide your spouse, unless you're embarrased by him/her? this leads to all kinds of (usually negative) speculation on the part of both the press and the voting public. i'm certainly no expert (heck, i don't even qualify as a rank amatuer!), but i should think that wouldn't be good for your candidacy. it isn't as though he's a big secret either, so this strikes me as a major gaffe on the part of her campaign manager.

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    By utilizing the skills of The Pirro Group, your needs will stay high on elected official's agenda. In addition, our pragmatic solutions to seemingly complex problems will help your business avoid unnecessary legislation.
    Sounds lovely. I wonder what the solution could be...

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#3)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    So in two days she's gone from a sacrificial lamb to enough of a worry that you're already doing opposition research? What changed? And not very good opposition research, mind you. All of this has come out in previous campaigns, including the one she won while her husband was sitting in jail. The people of New York are well aware of who her husband is and what he has done. Pirro still faces a long uphill battle, and Hillary can be a tough campaigner, but if it comes down to a battle of the spouses, I would think that a clear indication that neither candidate is worth voting for. After all, neither of the husband's is running for office.

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    jp, i think that was more or less the point: all this has come out before, why pretend it doesn't exist now? kind of makes ya wonder! yes, if it comes to the point where it's spouse v spouse, than neither candidate would really be worth voting for. however, i seem to recall a v.p. candidate who's husband caused her some difficulties: geraldine ferraro by name. personally, i'd love to see clinton on the ballot in 2008. think of the cleansing action for the republican party: all the whackos would go twirling off into the stratosphere in a psychotic frenzy, allowing the legitimate members of the party to re-take the control they lost when reagan took office. now that's entertainment!

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#5)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    "all this has come out before, why pretend it doesn't exist now? kind of makes ya wonder!" CP, I doubt very much that this was the point TalkLeft was trying to make. Do you really expect someone running for office to rehash old news about their husband on their website? If so, why is there no complaint about Hillary's failure to list all of the scandals her husband has been involved in on hers?

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    no jp, the point is, she has a husband, not that her husband has some........issues. it has been the norm in american politics to include family in your campaign materials: to show how "normal" you are; show your concern with education, because you have children, blah, blah, blah. i would expect at least some recognition of her family, as part of her bio, etc. if you put pictures on your web site (which pretty much all of them do), family pics are usually included. true, you might want to leave out the one of hubby in prison stripes, but you get my drift.

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    all of the scandals her husband has been involved in
    Yeah, and why not a picture of Vince Foster's corpse, huh!?!??!?!??! Good god, you wingnuts need to let it go.

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#8)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Scar, Wingnuts, wangnuts, whatever. If the left brings up Pirro's husband's "issues", you can bet the right will bring up Clinton's. But I fail to see how pictures of a suicide will help anyone win an election.

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    The Jeanine Machine Read about what we in Westchester County, NY have had to deal with concerning DA Pirro.

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Well, my point is, what are "all these scandals"? None of them ever panned out, except for Monicagate, but lying about a BJ isn't as bad as lying about your child, for chrissakes.

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#11)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Scar, Waco? Elian? 900+ Confidential FBI files in the basement of the Whitehouse? Whitewater (with convictions)? Campaign financing violations (with convictions)? Paula Jones (settled out of court)? Juanita Broderick? You have a very selective memory of those 8 years, don't you? And I'm stil lwondering why you want to see pictures of Vince Foster's body as part of Hillary's (or was it Pirro's) campaign? Wingnuts and Wangnuts indeed.

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    No, no, remembering the FIFTY MILLION spent on investigating, uselessly, the Clinton's land deal gone bad, is quite sufficient. The point is that this person is married to a LOBBYIST. That's common enough, but not disclosing that information makes her quite vulnerable to allegations, now and later, that she is advancing his career, or he is advancing hers. You're a liar, though, justpaul. You say (convictions) but you know damn well that those convictions were not of the Clintons in ANY of those cases. And Elian? That's hilarious.

    Re: Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    Curiously, the Washington Post makes it seem like Al Pirro's defense of his paternity suit was successful. In 1995, an Indiana woman named Jessica Marciano slapped Al with a paternity suit, saying he fathered her now 16-year-old daughter during a tumultuous three-month affair in Florida....For three years, Pirro denied the claim, even tarring Marciano as a "convicted felon," citing her 1983 arrest for theft. (He also claimed the service of a private detective he used in the suit as a business deduction.) A court-ordered DNA test last June confirmed Marciano's claim. Pirro has publicly accepted responsibility for the girl and established a trust fund, with a $10,000 initial contribution. Marciano is still seeking half a million dollars in past child support.
    Small corrections in passing: >> He also claimed the service of a private detective he used >> in the suit as a business deduction. Not "a private detective" but SIX private detectives - all appearing in court on May 24, 2000 for Al Pirro’s tax trial (six, out of the known 12). Almost every check was drawn on the corporate accounts of Albert J. Pirro Jr. PC and AJP Management Group Inc. >> Pirro has publicly accepted responsibility for the girl and established >> a trust fund, with a $10,000 initial contribution Public statement and (hide it from the public) private lie. The "trust fund" was his lawyer’s trust fund (to pay his child support obligations only). Sounds good. Sounds like ‘help’ for his daughter but simply a transfer of money into his lawyer’s account. Later, he canceled his daughter’s health insurance. Because the jury had found him guilty of tax fraud, in the Indiana court his lawyer claimed he was about to be made bankrupt and got a reduction of his (temporary) child support. At the same time he transferred the income from his business interests to Jeanine (reported in the Voice as: "placed in a trust while he was in prison, with his wife as trustee"). That, when you deliberately hide money from your creditors - as Jeanine will know - is fraudulent transfer (a federal and state crime). The paternity suit? That’s currently ‘marking time’ at the Supreme Court because New York refused to act according to law. Yes, the same court that suspended Al Pirro for his 34 felonies (although later, the Supreme Court disbarred him).

    Hillary v. Pirro: Their Websites and Husbands | 13 comments (13 topical)