Posted on 01/08/2005 12:13:31 PM PST by kattracks
Though Hillary Clinton's former finance chairman David Rosen was actually indicted in 2003, the Bush administration kept it secret till the indictment was unsealed late Friday, a move that spared the former first couple and the Democratic Party significant embarrassment during the height of the 2004 presidential campaign.
"The indictment was handed down more than a year ago," the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.Citing "sources familiar with the probe," the Times said the Bush Justice Department decided that any criminal charges would not be made public until after last fall's presidential election for fear they would be seen as a politically tainted vendetta by the Bush Administration."
While under secret federal indictment, Rosen was able to continue working for top Democrats throughout the long presidential campaign, eventually joining the campaign staff of Clinton protege, Gen. Wesley Clark, who launched his own presidential bid on the advice of the former first couple.
The decision to keep the politically awkward indictment under wraps allowed Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to assume high profile roles attacking President Bush on the Iraq war, as well as a whole range of domestic issues, without having to answer questions about their role in Rosen's case.
In Sept. 2003, Mrs. Clinton went so far as to accuse the White House of corruption, saying Bush officials had deliberately covered up unhealthy air quality at Ground Zero in the days after the 9/11 attacks.
In a measure of the extraordinary sensitivity with which Bush officials handled the Clinton-related case, the Times said the Rosen probe was "being directed by federal prosecutors with the Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department's headquarters in Washington, who specialize in this type of case."
Although the 10-page indictment does not indicate whether others, including the Clintons, were suspected of wrongdoing, Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra told the Times, "All we can say is that there are no additional subjects at this time."
But a key witness in the case has alleged that Hillary Clinton had guilty knowledge of concealed campaign contributions for an Aug. 12, 2000 fundraiser on behalf of her Senate campaign, which formed the basis for Rosen's indictment.
Hollywood producer Peter Paul, who funded the star-studded Los Angeles gala, has claimed that Mrs. Clinton personally negotiated "the largest payment for the event that I underwrote."
Paul and the his lawfirm Judicial Watch have maintained since 2001 that Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign deliberately undereported nearly $2 million in in-kind contributions he made to cover expenses for the Aug. 2000 event.
Celebrity fundraiser Aaron Tonken, another key figure in the probe, has also suggested that Mrs. Clinton may face legal trouble because of his testimony about work he did for the former first couple.
In a soon-to-be released book that covers his relationship with the Clintons, Tonken says he handed out checks to "certain pols" that were "illegal." And he personally witnessed a "brown bag" stuffed with cash going "someplace it shouldn't."
In 2002 deposition in an unrelated case, Tonken testified: "I'm a star witness against President and Mrs. Clinton. . . . regarding the fundraising activities that I've done on behalf of the Clintons."
NEVER FORGET"
I can't...nor won't.
.
Good for you, My Fellow Freeper.
Good for you..!!!
.
Bush has always been too nice to them. Hillary must be stopped before 2006.
'We Were Soldiers' is one of my favorite movies - Just got it as a Christmas present.
First people stated the President and Ashcroft would never pursue indictments. They do, and now he is criticized for not using the criminality of another to his advantage.
At least the President is consistent.
He is a good man. Sorry if people wish him to use his Presidency to get even with the Clintons, he isn't going to do so. That isn't his job, I didn't elect him to pursue a vendetta.
Bill may not be in prison but he is paying for what he did. He is no longer President. He no longer has the power and prestige of the white house. His health is failing. He has a miserable marriage. His legacy will be impeachment, Monica, and perhaps failure to pursue terrorists before our buildings had planes fly through them.
I feel sorry for him. Clinton had the potential to do a great deal of good, and the skills to get him there. He wasted his life. No jail sentence can equal the weight he lives with daily.
I have no doubt in her time Hillary will experience equal judgement in her time.
One could only come to the conclusion that "deals" were made that have compromised American justice forever."
I cannot argue with the second sentence. It may be true. I hope it's not.
Let's assume that it's not, and move to the first sentence. In a perfect world, you are absolutley right. The world is not perfect. I knew that before the Clintons. But I didn't realize how imperfect it was until the attempt was made to deliver justice to them. Ken Starr and Linda Tripp found it out also, in a very, very hard way.
I hope you are right soul seeker.
I'm not suggesting it'll happen at the time of our choice, nor that it'll take the form of judgement we may choose.
There are some upset Clinton isn't in prison. I'm not. What Clinton most desired, he lost. He's in a living Hell.
I've no doubt the same awaits Hillary in her future, only I haven't the sligtest clue how or when it'll occur. I'm not suggesting anything in terms of her political future. Only that I have Faith our deeds in life catch us all in the end.
To his advantage? Could you show me where someone said anything remotely related to that?
Doesn't this apply when someone is actually charged with a crime?
I don't believe an indictment is the same thing.
An employee of Clinton's was indicted of criminal act.
G.W. kept this quiet during the campaign season.
Read the thread.
The comments I speak of are self evident.
I asked you where someone said that he sould use "criminality of another to his advantage."
I am not impressed by your 'self evident' evasion.
THIS is what you asked of me. You did not state I should find the exact phrase. IF you had asked that of me, I would have responded those were MY words summing up the context of what others had stated. As I didn't place this phrase in quotations, I fail to understand why you would assume I credited that statement to anyone but myself.
As to your 'request' I lead you directly to the context of multiple posts that led to that conclusion, I suggested you do your own homework. Not too much to ask, I thought, as I gave you the criteria to work with.
The President was accused of covering for the Clinton's while they took shots at him. The President was accused of being too nice of a guy, of letting the new tone possibly jeopardize his re-election by not airing what he knew of this earlier. I consider statements along these lines to be advocacy for using the criminal actions of another, to boost one's image and possibly seal re-election.
All of this IN Context summed up to the position I arrived at. Surely you can find the individual posters that voiced these views for yourself if knowledge of their identities is of extreme importance to you.
If you do not share this interpretation, it is of no importance to me. I stand by the statement despite your approval. Nor will I cite individual posters to satisfy your will, as they are not intimately involved in this discussion between you and I. The sentiments expressed are ALL you need, and you will find them IF you read the thread.
But, Dan Rather would have called the documents a forgery. /sarcasm
We can't taint the Clinton's during a campaign, but we can pump false info about Bush to mouthpiece CBS Rather.
In other words, you are silly. If you don't want to uphold and apply the law for all, just say so. In the future, don't make an accusation without proof.
If you don't want to uphold and apply the law for all, just say so.
A statement that makes absolutely no sense in relation to anything I said or we discussed. Placing words in my mouth or sentiments I did not express will not further your cause.
In the future, don't make an accusation without proof.
Proof I provided. What you wish me to do is cite individual poster names behind their back, and that I will NOT do. I have repeatedly offered you the sentiments mentioned. all YOU have to do is read the thread, something YOU see uninterested in doing. IF you read the thread, you'd note the exact sentiments I cited, and the posters which made them would not be rudely drawn into an argument in which they are unlikely to have any desire to enter.
If, in the end, all you are left with is the ability to lower yourself to namecalling and demands I cease sentiments you are not in accord with, I find you not worth any further use of my time.
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.