"2003"??? What the hell is going on here? Look at the 2002 date at the top of the indictment below...
--Boot Hill
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."
The MSM would have been all over him if this was released before the election
But now that it's over .... never know what more we might find out :0)
LOL. That's why I was split on the idea. :)
=== Believe me, you won't be missed.
Why?
Echo Chamber Only thread?
I can understand. After all, we're talking about the left, these days, as opposed to the far left at DU who's even in more dire need of Validation than ya'll.
Just for fun:
Danged if you do and danged if you don't!!
Why?
Because I'm not the only one who is tired of your long winded replies which are all about b####ing and moaning about almost everything Republican/Bush.
"2003"??? What the hell is going on here? Look at the 2002 date at the top of the indictment below...
--Boot Hill
In that case I'm sure glad I'm not your insurance underwriter.
We know that if positions had been reversed, the democrats would have seized on it as a campaign issue. Watergate redux or whatever. That said, I wish republicans, at the very least, would consider Americans first and let the chips fall where they may.
Hmmmmmm. I thought it was the president's constitutional duty to protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic! IMHO Hillary Clinton, the socialist/communist, is an enemy of the state!!!
In regards to this article, it seems to me that keeping an indictment sealed is perfectly appropriate, in order to ensure a fair jury trial. Myself, I would not want to be a juror in this trial had it come before the election. Every news person in the country would be after me and my family, trying to ferret out some deep conspiratorial connection with the Bush administration. Democrats would be looking for ways to intimidate me and no doubt there would be threats.
Now that the election is over, the media will pretty much ignore this story and there is actually a chance at a conviction, without a tainted jury.
Of course, since I am a known Bush supporter my opinion won't carry much weight with those who fault Bush for not arresting all Clintonistas last Inauguration Day.
I'm not really sure: but certainly the farther you get from an alleged crime, the more evidence is lost. If nothing else, potentially exonerating witnesses die, for instance. So once the prosecution has put its case together (which it has, through the grand jury process) the Sixth Amendment seems to me to require that the defense be allowed to begin preparing its case at once.
What all this REALLY means is that there is no difference in the two parties, down deep they cover each others A$$e$ and care not about the people.
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.
Yeah, cause the collapse of the twin towers was a well kept secret, and Bush had aliens paint the DUST that was in the air with invisible paint so no one would be able to tell the air was saturated with pollutants and dust.
I doubt it. More likely Mr. Tonken may face sudden accidental or suicidal death.
Same reason most cards are dealt FACE DOWN, and same reason you keep a straight face, when you have four aces.
It is highly unlikely the Clintons will be held accountable for all the underhanded and illegal things they did, or we think they did.
But, it is possible to bust up their gang.
YES.
Dear Cyn. Pardon the interference, but I think he said,
"I am so much better than anyone else, and I just wanted to make a post to that effect. I know everything and I would have done this matter differently, although I will never tell you how. I will not bother with other posters or posts, as you underlings are not worthy of my time or attention."
(I can send you the new ASKEL5 decoder ring, but it's a real bitch to get on your finger, and it hurts all the time.)
Hey Askel5, any particular reason for this antisocial behavior?
Not only that, but you can be sure Hillary isolated herself from any documentation that would support and indictment.
It is only his word against hers, and that won't win in court.
Sometimes it is better to keep your enemies where you can see them.
There is a difference between hiding knowledge of criminal acts, and not pursuing indictments that a prosecutor would throw out. Maybe President Bush has some info about some of the Clinton's acts that the rest of us are not party to. If you can't prove them, publicly stating them is grounds for libel.
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.