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."
Okay. The election's over.
Now the Justice Department better go for the throat.
bump for later
Thanks, BSF.
Anyone who acts like the President is pro-abortion is so far to the right that you have met the left in common agreement.
Rant on, at your discretion. I frankly pay no more attention to your opinion than I do to John F. Kerry's. Less, in fact, because he gets media attention, while you do not.
(Adjusting tinfoil hat) The NWO generals have already given their thumbs-down to that notion.
How else could anyone possibly explain the litany of provable deceit, treason, rape, and various federal offenses that have gone TOTALLY unpunished?
FBI files.
1) a permanent mistrust of the office of the Presidency
Only people can be mistrusted. The office of the Presidency can do nothing by itself. Only the person in that position can. I trust that President Bush is making choices in the best interest of our country, but he is human. So I retain some skepticism and find out the facts and refrain from making any such blanket judgment. That would be like disbanding the Boy Scouts because some Leaders were gay.
If you have a permanent distrust of that office, I understand. In general I distrust all politicians until they prove different.
2) the stench of collusion between elected officials in high places to protect each other
And it has been that way since time began. I find it hard to blame Bush for over 200 years of history involving collusion.
3) the knowledge that a sitting President gets a FREE PASS for blatantly committing "high crimes and misdemeanors"
President Bush is the President. He is not a circuit court judge, a jury, or a Supreme Court Justice. He cannot prosecute, nor judge guilty, anyone. He could have frustratingly pursued prosecution of the former President, but at what cost? Remember, the former President was impeached, and yet those who DO JUDGE, decided not to vote for his removal from office. If you want to blame someone, blame them.
4) the acceptance of abhorrent behavior by a sitting Commander In Chief.
I'm with you 100% on this one. No US citizen, No member of that President's political party should have tolerated his behavior during his term. He disgraced the highest office in the land.
.... but such opinion is irrelevant when the law of the land has NOT been carried out.
Again, it was carried out by the impeachment, but the removal of BC from office was not. I am sure GWB would like to carry out all applicable laws of the land against any crimes of BC. (And don't think he isn't trying. But it takes time, and patience.) Hillary's campaign fund underreporting is an example. But she had a sacrificial lamb. (BC isn't the brains behind the Clinton's crime sprees. HC is.)
Ooops, yeah. Imagine that? :-P
Speaking of the FBI files, how about that bogus "investigation"??
The BIGGEST mystery regarding Bubba is STILL that virtual non-investigation of so blatant a crime for possibly enabling the Rapist-In-Chief to blackmail WHOMEVER he need to (and he needed to).
And by having his father teamed up with BC, he ensures BC works above board, and the DEMS can't protest what is done, because their star is on the team.
Dumb as a monkey, my butt.
No tape. Who cares. He was caught with the goods on him.
In any court of law, possession of stolen goods is a crime.
"If your porch collapses, and more than three illegal campaign contributors are crushed, you might be the DNC."
Why do so many insist GWB is 'protecting' the Clinton's????
An indictment against the main Democratic fundraiser was just announced. This is next in line to Hillary. How is that giving them a pass or protecting them? Invesigations are still ongoing. It's hard to convict someone of a crime when they murder the witnesses.
I would like to see one of you take on all the tasks President Bush is handling. If he spent his time puruing the Clintons, he would have little time for anything else.
Be patient. You never know when theft of office supplies can hit you in the butt. Rome wasn't built in a day, and nailing the Clintons and their cronies won't be done that quickly either.
How true. But just as true is that President Bush will not lower his standards to match theirs.
I agree with you to a degree.
Dubya is human and prone to mistakes. I believe he is making many choices for the betterment of the Republic, however on the issue of "finding out facts" until making judgements, the "facts" ARE in.
Bubba Clintoon IS a rapist. Bubba STOLE FBI files. Bubba's relationship with Chinese "investors" was highly suspect. Bubba pardoned Marc Rich. Ad infinitum...
Without enacting the judical "cleansing" of the nth degree sullying of the White House by Bubba, it is impossible not to be TOTALLY skeptical of collusion.
"He [Dubya] could have frustratingly pursued prosecution of the former President, but at what cost?
What again is the "cost" of NOT prosecuting so serious and obvious of crimes against the United States of America?
For instance, the so-called "investigations" into the FBI debacle and Vince Foster were a joke. They were NEVER legitimately "investigated." Are you suggesting we honor some kind of moritorium on enforcing righteous justice?
Look, I know you feel it's better to be pragmatic about whether Bubba's crimes against humanity and the United States of America ought to be can o' worm worth opening. However, by ignoring them, the integrity and honor of the Office REMAINS suspect and compromised.
There may have been another reason (besides the one being discussed) for keeping the indictment sealed.
Remember, the 'idea' that President Bush kept it sealed to help the Clintons is THE OPINION OF THE AUTHOR OF THAT ARTICLE, WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE OF our arch enemy, the MSM.
But he wouldn't make that up to get you and me to mistrust President Bush, would he?????
Some posters are being led around by the nose by that REPORTER.
It would be more intelligent to get an official response from the horse's mouth before jumping off any cliffs.
My thinking leads me to believe the DOJ wanted to make sure they had their ducks in a row. You can bet Bush would be ticked off if the DOJ, which he presides over, submitted a sloppy half-assed indictment.
You are incorrect. Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED. Since you got that wrong, the rest of your post devolved into some circular madness.
I guess it's pretty dark in your world.
Correct. Beyond that, he was disbarred.
Yes. Ron Brown, Mena Airport,etc. Or did you personally have some proof no one else in the US has seen?
< They're sitting ducks should Dubya Bush instruct the DoJ to investigate HALF the skeletons in BOTH the respective Clinton closets.
How do you know they have not been so instructed and are currently pursuing this? And sitting ducks. My, my, my. The man was found guilty during the impeachment, yet the vote to remove him from office LOST. Invisible sitting ducks with bulletproof armor,maybe.
Yes. By cutting out the heart (see above)
Again, if you have something specific, and prosecutable and that a judge would approve an indictment for, please speak up.
Why don't you just forgo a trial, and go chop off their heads?
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.