|
Posted on 05/10/2005 4:38:41 AM PDT by Libloather
Hillary-haters seize on trial of fundraiser in bid to smear Clintons
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
10 May 2005
A former fund-raising director for Hillary Clinton goes on trial in Los Angeles today to face accusations of campaign finance irregularities that political opponents of the former first Lady turned US senator hope will help dent her chances of a successful run for the presidency in 2008.
To the growing band of Hillary-haters who have set up websites and political action committees to try, again, to stop her political career in its tracks, the case has all the hallmarks of sleaze and criminality they have long associated with both Mrs Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton.
The defendant, David Rosen, is accused of deliberately under-reporting the cost of a star-studded fund-raising event in Hollywood during Mrs Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign.
He is on record as having organised the event with the help of a convicted fraudster and cocaine-user called Peter Paul, who went to prison again after the 2000 election when he was convicted of defrauding investors in an internet venture he once hoped Mr Clinton would join after he left office.
But there are several reasons to doubt whether the case really has legs for the various Stop Hillary campaigns. First, Senator Clinton herself is not accused of wrongdoing and is not expected to be involved in the trial in any capacity.
Second, Mr Paul had a very public break with the Clintons after his shady past came to light in a newspaper article. Not only did he turn against the Clintons; it was his evidence that formed the basis of the prosecution. In other words, the Clinton-bashers cannot easily champion him and at the same time try to use him as a weapon in their campaign.
Third, Mr Rosen himself has not been accused of specific book-fiddling or questionable cheque-writing. The case is based on the allegation that he knowingly allowed Mr Paul to do most, if not all, of the under-reporting. The best evidence for that comes in a wiretap arranged by the FBI in 2002 in which Mr Rosen tells an interlocutor over dinner in New Orleans that the gala fundraiser probably cost more than was reported at the time.
The defence is likely to argue - with some justification, show media leaks of the wiretap transcript - that the tape is very far from an admission of wrong-doing and can just as easily be interpreted as a commentary by Mr Rosen on the untrustworthiness of Mr Paul, not an endorsement of his behaviour.
It probably does not help the prosecution that much of the alleged under-reporting came in the form of in-kind contributions, not hard cash, making it much harder to make the case for willful wrong-doing.
One of the four original charges against Mr Rosen has already been dismissed by the trial judge. He faces a maximum of 15 years behind bars if convicted on the other three counts.
From a political perspective, the trial is perhaps best seen as an attempt by Republican operatives to throw everything they can at Mrs Clinton in the hope that some of it might stick. That was their strategy in the 1990s, when endless investigations into the Clintons - their Whitewater land deal, the workings of the White House travel office, and so on - led, quite unexpectedly, to paydirt in the form of Monica Lewinsky.
So far, the various anti-Hillary campaigns have been far less successful in raising money than has the senator herself. Officially, Mrs Clinton is focusing only on her re-election battle next year, a battle even her bitterest detractors expect her to win with relative ease. Unofficially, she is widely expected to throw her hat into the ring for the White House in 2008. The prospect of the Clintons' return to the Oval Office is what has grassroots Republicans foaming. But the campaign to defeat her is not without its internal struggles. Mr Paul was initially championed by a right-wing legal outfit called Judicial Watch, but the two have since fallen out badly.
More than a thousand people attended the $1,000-a-head event during the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in August 2000. The centrepiece was a concert featuring performances from Cher, Melissa Etheridge, Patti LaBelle, Diana Ross, Toni Braxton, Michael Bolton and Paul Anka.
All depends on what Raymond Reggie recorded while chatting with David Rosen...
Can't wait for this author's breaking news about the Bush-haters - eh?
Never saw a headline titled "Delay haters".
Gee, ya think?!
What an interestingly disparaging way of putting this.
I'll bet Gumbel's got an inkling of what's on those tapes. Heh heh heh heh heh.
Anybody who doubts Hillary didnt have knowledge and input in this is a total frickin idiot.
How about:
"Clintons caught cheating again.?
"Does Justice stand a chance?"
Hillary-haters seize on trial of fundraiser in bid to smear Clintons
.... and the problem would be?
This was HER campaign, therefore she is ultimately responsible for how it was handled. Again, the Clintons try to distance themselves from their corrupt inner circle.
To have this done to Hillary would actually require the information to be FALSE. When it is TRUE, it is not a smear.
You forgot the projectile barf alert.
I guess the stupid lib author considers this another 'hate crime'.
The press has been sent the approved Democrat talking points to cover the trial...and the press responds! Today show has set the stage as well...enemies of Hillary must be behind the allegations. It's "amazing" how they seem to coordinate the framing of a story.
Hillary suffers greatly when compared to our current classy first lady. Hillary looses on charm, wit, poise, grace under pressure, and every other measure of one's character, when compared to Laura Bush.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice beats the pants-suit off Hillary when it comes to raw brain power.
Senator Kay Baily Hutchison has a much more distinguished career of accomplishment in the senate than Hillary.
Hillary is really only a celebrity because she is a celebrity, somewhat like Paris Hilton, only Hillary is ugly.
Hillary's only strength is the Clinton News Network and other members of the fading main street media.
If Hillary is repeatedly compared to the high profile women in the republican camp, she will be exposed as the second rate candidate that she truly is, whether or not one of the high profile republican women chooses to run against her.
It is the job of those of us in this increasingly effective "new media" to make that comparison.
No, and the word "smear" would never be used either.
Notice how this writer needs to tell his readers how to feel about this issue before even presenting the facts. Typical.
Here's a newsflash, Mr. Gumbel. People who do not want Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office are not "Hillary Haters". They are "America Lovers" who despise the thought of our country being subjected to more Clinton-rape.
|
"Hillary-haters seize on trial of fundraiser in bid to smear Clintons"
Well, we haven't seen such headlines about this case here in America. YET.
She will slither out of this leaving a trail of slime just like that POS husband of hers has got out of his problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
There are multiple material errors of fact in this piece, but since it does not seem to have appeared in the United States yet, I will let him have his fun setting up his Irish readers for a surprise.