| "She's not in the loop in any direct way, and that's something the jury will be told," the judge said.
This is good news. It actually increases the pressure on Rosen to do his best canary impression. |
Posted on 05/11/2005 3:03:26 AM PDT by The Raven
LOS ANGELES - As the trial of a top fund-raising official on Senator Clinton's 2000 campaign got under way in federal court here yesterday, the judge hearing the case vowed not to allow the proceedings to become a referendum on Mrs. Clinton, her politics, or her personal life.
"This isn't a trial about Senator Clinton," Judge A. Howard Matz said, as lawyers discussed written questionnaires filled out by potential jurors in the case. "Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or a principal. ... She's not going to be a witness," the judge said.
David Rosen, 40, who served as Mrs. Clinton's national finance director, is charged with hiding the true costs of a star-studded fund-raising concert that took place in Los Angeles on August 12, 2000. He faces three counts of causing false reports to be filed with the Federal Election Commission and has pleaded not guilty.
Judge Matz said he plans to stress to jurors that they should set aside their views about the former first lady. "She's not in the loop in any direct way, and that's something the jury will be told," the judge said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
I have but one thign to say to clinton, snowe, collins, kerry, kennedy, warner, etc. A man, woman or child lives has once to live and then the microsecond of death comes the judgement of GOD. Hebrews 9:27(?)
Judge Matz said he also does not expect Mr. Rosen's lawyers to call Paul or Tonken as witnesses. Rather, the judge said he expects-and will allow-the defense attorneys to use "an empty chair defense," where the defendants argue that a party not before the court was responsible for the crime.
The government has asserted that by understating expenses and in-kind donations to the fund-raiser, Mr. Rosen hoped to increase the money Mrs. Clinton's campaign would receive. The Justice Department has indicated that the investigation into the episode has concluded and no further indictments are expected.
You'd think the good judge would recuse himself....
This trial doesn't have to be about Clinton, but the facts coming out of it may lead to a new trial about her (I hope, I hope).
Judge says Hillary is not going to be a target in this case.
| "She's not in the loop in any direct way, and that's something the jury will be told," the judge said.
This is good news. It actually increases the pressure on Rosen to do his best canary impression. |
Hillary may not be the target, but how can she avoid being a witness. Unless Rosen cops to the whole thing he should in any case be asked what Hillary knew and when did she know it. This case looks like it is a farce. How can someone who got the benefit of this mans theft not be asked about her part in it. ? This is crazy. Who the hell is Hillary that she isnt charged as a co-conspirator?
| This is crazy. Who the hell is Hillary that she isnt charged as a co-conspirator?
If as the trial unfolds, Rosen sees that he's headed for the slammer, things could change. Right now the Clintons' lawyers are whispering in his ear that he has nothing to worry about. He'll make his own decision about that after seeing what the government has on him. He can cop a plea right up to the last minute. If he turns and fingers Hillary (or as I suspect, Bill), things could get interesting. They'll have to put him on Arkancide watch if that happens. |
By Paul Chavez, Associated Press
It is not the first time a Clinton's campaign has been under scrutiny for alleged fundraising violations President Clinton's 1996 campaign was dogged by allegations of illegal fundraising from overseas donors.
How can it be 'alleged' or 'allegations' if the impeached *Crinton administration had to return the illegal loot?
This stinks having a Clinton-appointed judge.
Yeah it does. It leaves the door open for speculation (or more) that the system is being gamed.
It would be very convenient to pin this on someone who's no longer alive.
Watch your six, Peter Paul....
Yes.If Rosen turns over on Hillary! in a deal with the feds, to save himself, it could be embarassing or even damaging depending on what he has to say. But if she and all the flying monkeys call him a liar, and there is no real documentary evidence, she won't be indicted let alone convicted. This is just a kind of en-passent problem for her. Annoying, but she can see her way clear.
Peter Paul's civil suit is what the Clintons really have to worry about. His lawyers can present documentary evidence she can't really explain. They can call witnesses that owe her nothing and don't fear her.
how can the judge make that statement ? If anyone mentions her name, she can be called as a witness.
What is most puzzling is, if Rosen rolls on her, the trial WILL be about her.
When you read the entire article it's clear the judge is a mouthpiece for the Clintons. Matz declares that Peter Paul is a "con artist" and has no credibility. In the face of overwhelming evidence the Clinton game plan is to destroy their accusers and deny culpability. We've seen this game plan over and over....
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.
The judge has to say that. If anything else happens, Rosen walks in a mistrial. Some elements in the press will try to spin these kinds of statements as if the judge has examined evidence about Hillary and is declaring her innocent. No such thing has happened. Matz is just trying to keep extraneous hoo-hah out of a trial that's about Rosen.