Fiedler Didn’t Tie Offer to Withdrawal of Davis : Prosecutor Cited Lack of Connection in Opposing Congresswoman’s Indictment, Transcript Shows

Rep. Bobbi Fiedler, indicted last month for allegedly offering a $100,000 contribution to state Sen. Ed Davis to lure him out of the Republican U.S. Senate primary, never told Davis aides that her assistance was tied to his withdrawal, according to a transcript of secret grand jury testimony made public Wednesday.

Citing Fiedler’s failure to specifically connect her offer to Davis’ quitting the Senate race, Deputy Dist. Atty. Candace J. Beason argued against indicting Fiedler when Beason presented the case to the Los Angeles County Grand Jury, the transcript revealed.

However, Beason told grand jurors that prosecutors believe that Fiedler’s fiance and chief political aide, Paul Clarke, was clearly guilty of violating the California Elections Code. A rarely enforced section of the code makes it a felony to pay or offer money to a candidate to persuade him to pull out of a political campaign. The offense is punishable by up to three years in state prison.

“With Paul Clarke, there is no question that he has done his best to encourage, to facilitate, to tempt Ed Davis to withdraw from the campaign in exchange for paying off the campaign debt,” Beason said during her closing statement to the grand jury last Jan. 22.

Twice, Beason told the jurors, Clarke brushed aside warnings from Davis campaign manager Martha Zilm that giving Davis financial aide in exchange for his withdrawal from the campaign might be illegal.

The first warning came during a Jan. 3 meeting at Sutter’s Mill, a San Fernando Valley restaurant, where Zilm and Clarke talked about raising money to pay off Davis’ campaign debt.

According to a transcript of the conversation, which was secretly recorded by Zilm at the behest of prosecutors, Zilm told Clarke, “. . . I think we’re dealing with some legalities here--illegalities.”

‘Crossing the Line’

Clarke replied, “Oh, I mean, if . . . see, the point is, if--if you put something in writing and you had a contract and you did that, then you probably would be crossing the line. . . .

“But if I--if I say to you, OK, we’ll help, OK, that’s--that’s our offer--we’re offering that. You’re not coming in and demanding it.”

Eighteen of the 21 grand jurors who considered the case voted to indict Clarke, 39, the day Beason delivered her closing statement. Three abstained.

Fiedler, 48, was indicted two days later, after several votes and after the jurors listened again to two conversations involving Fiedler and Clarke that had been secretly tape-recorded by Zilm.

The first recording involved a Jan. 10 telephone conversation with Fiedler in which Zilm outlined her understanding of the Fiedler campaign’s offer of financial assistance. The second recording was made by Zilm at a Jan. 12 meeting with Fiedler and Clarke at Fiedler’s home.

The grand jury’s first vote on Fiedler was split 10 to 9, with two abstentions, the transcript states. There is no indication whether jurors were leaning for or against indictment. Fourteen votes are required to return an indictment.

The 361-page transcript details the evidence on which the jurors based their decision to indict and indicates what the prosecution believes are the key elements of the case.

To obtain a conviction, prosecutors must show that Fiedler and Clarke intentionally offered financial aid in exchange for Davis’ withdrawal from the Senate campaign. Although offering someone money to secure a political endorsement might not be considered ethical, Beason told the grand jury that such conduct is not illegal as long as it is not aimed at enticing a candidate to abandon a campaign.

Transcript Made Public

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office made public a copy of the grand jury transcript Wednesday afternoon, after attorneys for Clarke and Fiedler read portions of the document to reporters during a press conference at the Sportsmen’s Lodge Hotel in Studio City.

During the daylong event, the Fiedler camp played for reporters recordings of the conversations between Zilm and Fiedler and her aides. The defense attorneys had obtained copies of the tapes from prosecutors to help prepare their case.

Despite his office’s recommendation against indicting Fiedler, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Gilbert I. Garcetti said Wednesday that prosecutors will pursue the case against the Northridge congresswoman “vigorously.”

Garcetti added: “We shared with the grand jury our analysis of the case. The grand jury is an independent body. They have . . . the ability, after hearing all the evidence and the applicable law, to reach an independent decision on whether an indictment should be returned.

‘Vigorously Pursue’

“They heard the same evidence that we heard and they concluded the evidence warranted prosecution. . . . We will accept their judgment and we will vigorously pursue the matter.”

Among the evidence considered by the grand jury were tape recordings that Zilm made of nine telephone conversations and face-to-face meetings with Fiedler, Clarke and Arnold Steinberg, a Fiedler political consultant and pollster. Steinberg was investigated by the grand jury but, on the recommendation of prosecutors, was not indicted.

Seven witnesses, including Zilm and two San Fernando Valley businessmen who first discussed the notion of a Fiedler fund-raising effort for Davis, testified during six days of hearings that began Jan. 13 and ended Jan. 23.

The conversation between the two businessmen--Fiedler supporter Arthur S. Pfefferman, founder of the DoNut Inn chain of doughnut shops, and real estate developer George E. Moss, a Davis backer--prompted the investigation that led to the indictment of Fiedler and Clarke.

Tells of Phone Call

Moss testified that Pfefferman called him early last November. Pfefferman said he felt that Fiedler had a better chance of winning the Senate nomination than Davis and told Moss that some members of the Fiedler camp wanted to talk to Davis about withdrawing from the race, Moss testified.

“He indicated that supporters of Fiedler would be willing to retire his (Davis’) campaign debt,” Moss told the grand jury.

Pfefferman, in his testimony before the grand jury, said he first discussed the rumors of Davis’ withdrawal with Clarke and let Clarke know that he planned to pursue the matter with a contact in the Davis camp. Pfefferman said, however, that the talk of retiring the Davis debt was predicated on his understanding that Davis was already planning to get out of the contest.

When Moss telephoned Zilm and told her about his talk with Pfefferman, Zilm was “outraged,” she later testified. Zilm said she first telephoned political attorney Dana W. Reed and then, on Nov. 13, talked to Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, a Davis backer. Bradbury, in turn, referred the matter to Los Angeles County prosecutors.

In addition to Moss, Pfefferman, Zilm and Reed, three others testified before the grand jury. They were Fiedler aide Stephen R. Frank, Fiedler’s professional fund-raiser, Bradley O’Leary, and William J. Kupper III, an investigator for the district attorney’s office.

Depends on Tapes

However, Beason relied largely on the word-for-word transcriptions of the taped conversations as she argued her case to the grand jury.

In recommending against an indictment of the congresswoman, the prosecutor cited three conversations between Fiedler and Zilm. Two were Jan. 10 telephone conversations, while the third took place at Fiedler’s Northridge home on Jan. 12, minutes before Fiedler and Clarke were informed that they were under investigation.

During the Jan. 12 meeting, Fiedler discussed what she could do to raise money for Davis. According to a transcript of the tape, which was played for the grand jury, Fiedler told Zilm:

“I do think it’s important, however, that, uh, this is not a quid pro quo as far as I’m concerned, and I hope you don’t consider it a quid pro quo either. This is something that we’re doing because Ed--because Ed and I have been longstanding friends.”

Beason also alluded to a talk two days earlier, during which Zilm and Fiedler were discussing details of what Fiedler believed would be Davis’ pending announcement of his withdrawal from the Senate campaign and his endorsement of her.

Heard Tape Again

This was the second tape that grand jurors listened to again.

During that conversation, Zilm told Fiedler:

“You know, I have had several meetings with, uh--with Paul and with Arnie about your offer to help pay off the campaign debt in exchange for Ed’s withdrawal from the race, and before Ed goes any further with this, he wanted to meet with you in person to make sure the offer was really coming from you.”

Fiedler replied, “I think that maybe it would be a good time for he and I to meet with one another.”

Of that conversation, Beason told the grand jury, “She (Fiedler) doesn’t say yes, she doesn’t say no.”

Recorded Exchange

Later during the same conversation, Zilm recorded this exchange:

Zilm: “I think that he (Davis) wants to know that this is your offer and that you’re aware of it and that it isn’t something that just Arnie and Paul, uh, you know. . .”

Fiedler: “Yeah, I understand that.”

Zilm: “--are doing without your--without your concurrence.”

Following the grand jury’s decision to indict Clarke, the jury submitted several questions to Deputy Dist. Atty. Ed Ferns, who is the jurors’ legal adviser. Among the questions were:

“Was Clarke meeting (with Zilm) for himself or for Fiedler?”

“If, in fact, Clarke was meeting as an agent of Fiedler, is she not equally guilty?”

Ferns told the jurors that they would have to answer those questions for themselves.

Zilm failed to record a second telephone conversation with Fiedler later that day, mistakenly leaving the “pause” button depressed on her tape recorder. During that talk, Zilm testified, she again asked Fiedler if the offer outlined by Clarke was in fact being made on Fiedler’s behalf.

Zilm told the grand jury, “I went through another--another piece of it that--where I said that this (offer of financial assistance to Davis) was in exchange for Ed’s withdrawal from the race. And at that point she (Fiedler) said, ‘I understand that he would endorse me.’ ”

Despite her assessment of the case against Fiedler, Beason told the grand jury, the evidence was clear that Clarke knew the proposed offer of financial help for Davis was being tendered in the hope of persuading him to quit the Senate race, and that Clarke knew that such an offer would be illegal.

In their meeting on Jan. 3, Beason noted, Zilm said to Clarke:

“In any case, you know George (Moss) had said that if Ed would get out of the race you guys would take care of $100,000. And, um, so I had a couple of meetings with Arnie (Steinberg), as you know, and I told Arnie I would talk to Ed, and I did.

“And the only way he will do that is if that’s going to be taken care of.”

Response of Clarke

Clarke replied, “Well, as Arnie told you, we will do our best. . . .

“And the point--the point is that, you know, we can do everything that there--there is to do. . . .

“But I can’t guarantee you that I can raise, you know, right now a hundred thousand dollars. . . . Uh, but I--I am sure, and (professional fund-raiser) Brad O’Leary is--is absolutely dead-bang certain that over a period of time we will be able to do it.”

Beason also noted the two occasions, at the Jan. 3 meeting and during a Jan. 11 telephone conversation, on which Zilm told Clarke she was worried that their plans might be illegal.

‘Makes Me Really Nervous’

During the Jan. 11 telephone conversation, Zilm said to Clarke, “You know, I don’t know about you, but this makes me really nervous--”

Clarke: “Well--”

Zilm: “--because it involves a payment to withdraw, and I--I think that’s illegal.”

Clarke: “Well, we’re not offering any payment . . . OK? We’re just offering to help.”

Referring to both exchanges on the subject of the legality of Fiedler’s offer of financial aid, prosecutor Beason told the grand jury: “Any reasonable person who had an opponent or an opponent’s representative in a race say to them, ‘This is illegal,’ or ‘We are dealing with some illegalities,’ would sure as heck go back and check that out. Say, ‘Geez, I don’t want any part of that. Let’s be sure, let’s check again.’ ” Clarke did none of those things, Beason said.

However, Harland W. Braun, one of Fiedler’s two defense lawyers, offered another interpretation of Clarke’s remarks to reporters. He specifically referred to the Jan. 3 meeting during which Clarke suggested that nothing would be wrong with the financing arrangement as long as it was not committed to writing.

Different Interpretation

“What you are hearing on the tape makes it sound like something illegal is going on here,” Braun said. “But what Paul was really talking about (at the Jan. 3 meeting) was what he talked to a Republican campaign lawyer about. You would not want to write down an arrangement in which, say, Fiedler gets a contributor to pay a bill that Davis has.

“In that case,” Braun said, “it would still be the contributor helping Fiedler and if that contributor had already given the maximum to Fiedler, then it would not be legal. I don’t think the D.A. ever understood that this is what Paul was talking about when he mentioned not writing it down.”

Times staff writers Paul Feldman, Keith Love and Jack Jones contributed to this story.