Clintonista's Indictment Kept Secret for a Year

NewsMax.com ^ | 1/08/05 | Carl Limbacher

[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."

[kattracks]

An indictment *is* a formal charge. It's a grand jury saying that there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been committed to go to trial.

Then what's the purpose of an arraignment?

[F16Fighter]

"Again, if you have something specific, and prosecutable and that a judge would approve an indictment for, please speak up."

Let me remind you of no small detail regarding ANY of the so-called "investigations":

JANET RENO headed up the DoJ as Attorney General for one Bubba Clinton -- remember??

Just WHO investigated Reno OR the DoJ?

That's right. NOBODY.

[Lancey Howard]

I believe there may be some weird Mexican standoff going on.
If the Clintons use the FBI files, then the doors to the Ford Building fly open. That kind of thing.

[UCANSEE2]

However, by ignoring them,

They are not being ignored.

I believe the Clinton's did all or most of what we think they did.

I want them to be prosecuted and jailed.

I assure you, if it was that easy to prosecute and convict them, it would already have been done.

If you have some magic dust that can make it happen, please throw it in the air.

Al Gore was photographed in with Chinese Monks who were handing him bags of cash. Did he go to jail yet?

[F16Fighter]

"Why don't you just forgo a trial, and go chop off their heads?"

I was hoping John Ashcroft might provide me a guillotine and the honor ;-)

[F16Fighter]

"I assure you, if it was that easy to prosecute and convict them, it would already have been done."

Again -- I submit Exhibit "A": Janet Reno

"If you have some magic dust that can make it happen, please throw it in the air."

The word of the President to the Department of Justice.

[UCANSEE2]

FBI files.

Bubba never touched them. Hillary personally requested them, in small numbers at a time for so called background checks on potential appointee's.

It would be impossible to prove Bill had anything to do with it, (especially sense Hillary cannot be forced to testify against her husband).

[F16Fighter]

"Al Gore was photographed in with Chinese Monks who were handing him bags of cash. Did he go to jail yet?"

Yet another mystery.

See what I mean? ;-)

[F16Fighter]

"FBI files.

Bubba never touched them. Hillary personally requested them, in small numbers at a time for so called background checks on potential appointee's."

The "story" we were fed was exactly as you describe.

IF it was the truth, what in the world was Hitlery doing illegally tampering with federal records? She obviously should still be serving at Sing-Sing.

Considering Bubba's penchant for lies and deceits, it's highly unlikely he wasn't privy to the burglery -- and yet, HE is responsible for his owm "employees."

The "investigation" of the pilfering of 1000 FBI files, and WHO took the rap? The shoe-shine guy at the White House washroom.

[kattracks]

Some posters are being led around by the nose by that REPORTER.

When it comes to bashing the president or the Republicans, some posters would believe ANYTHING the MSM chooses to belch out.

Odd, that when it comes to the MSM most are more than reluctant to accept a majority of what they publish, except if it's anything negative about President Bush, his administration, or the Republicans. They somehow consider all of that type of "news" to be wholly truthful.

I'm not speaking about those who try to understand the reasoning behind some of the decisions made, but those who are always ready and willing to see crimes and cover ups behind those decisions.

You will find those same "usual suspects" on just about any post that gives them the opportunity to bash the president and the Republicans.

I don't believe, as they claim, that their motive is the pursuit of justice.

[Askel5]

Following the democrats left is NOT leading, unless your "leading" leftward on purpose.. Which seems to be the plan..

And now, a Republican administration
will continue and complete
the work of a Democratic administration.

This is the way environmental policy should work.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/04/20010419-2.html

Res ipsa loquitur.

I cannot believe I am the only one who's ever read de Toqueville or our founding fathers on the tyranny of the volonte generale that is Democracy or who cringes at the obsession with polling the "Will of the People"

This "democratizing" of the world by what was supposed to be a constitutional republic sickens me. Particularly where the unconditional surrender to the volonte generale (Will of the People) is coupled with a calculated use of exactly that terrorism without which the narodnya volya (Will of the People) knew the Revolution made no sense.

---

The Soviets needed the democratic restoration of 1945 very much indeed.

We know about a leading American general who, after World War II, met a a Soviet leader. We quote:

---

Circumstances had brought the two together on a number of occasions and the American had noticed an attitude of considerable friendliness on the part of the Russian. One day he commented on his attitude.

The Soviet leader made no reply for the moment, then he drew his chair closer to the table and from a matchbox he took four matches which he placed methodically on the table, each match about an inch from the next and parallel to it. Then he said, "Now this first match is what you call Capitalism'; the second is what you call 'Democracy'; the third is what you call 'Socialism'; and the fourth is what you call 'Communism'."

He paused a moment, and then, looking up at the American, said: "Now I like youir country because it is moving straight down the line from capitalism through the others to communism." (208)

---

The distinguished American, according to our information, was nobody else but General MacArthur.

Today, world conflict moves on several levels. The time of the old-fashioned cabinet wars is over, war has become total, partly because technology gave us staggering means of destruction, partly because, due to the withering away of religion, totalitarian ideologies capable of mobilizing the masses and fanaticizing pragmatists, have filled this void.

Hot wars destroy bodies, cold wars are waged for immortal souls. Still, what strikes one today, more than ever, are the words of Rivarol, (209) one of the most brilliant spirits of old France:

Politics is like the Sphinx: It devours all those who cannot solve its riddles.

---

Even pictures don't help, it seems ...

There are plenty of folks on this thread who have no excuse for YET misunderstanding the score:

---

Human Events[HE]:

What is the most significant thing that happened during the impeachment process that the country doesn’t know about but should?

Schippers [S]:

I think the most important factor that the public should know that they don’t know is that, before we ever appeared on the floor of the United States Senate, the House impeachment managers and I were told that there was no way we could win.

HE:

Who told you that?

S:

Six Republican senators. Members of the leadership.

HE:

Members of the Republican leadership came over to you?

S:

No, we were over there. We were discussing the kind of method by which we would try the case, and we, the managers and myself, were told, “Look we’re just trying to keep you from embarrassing yourselves.” I mean, this is after a vote of the House of Representatives impeaching the President.

In that same meeting one of the senators -- and because I do not know which one it was, I will not name any of the senators -- turned to Henry Hyde and he said, “Henry, I don’t care. No way are you going to get 67 votes.” This was before anything had occurred on the floor of the Senate.

And Henry Hyde said, “Well, you know Senator, we have other materials over there in that room that were furnished by Mr. Starr and I think that some of them may have to do with assaults or things like that. And the senator said, “Henry” -- this is a direct quote -- “I don’t care if you have proof that he raped a woman, stood up and shot her dead, you’re still not going to get 67 votes.”

At that point I raised my hand and I said, “Senator, are you telling me I just watched a hundred senators raise their right hand to God and swear to do equal and impartial justice and that they will ignore that oath too?” And the senator said, “You’re darn right they are.”

From that moment on I knew that we were in a rigged ball game. In Chicago we’d refer to it as a First Ward election.

---

And who rigs this game, really? What do the facts tell us?

[Askel5]

And who rigs this game, really? What do the facts tell us?

Regardless the words of the President, quoted above (on Republicans who "complete" the word of Democrats), or the Insider Knowledge of Tranny sorts, it's incidents like this delayed announcement of indictment -- the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the ignoring of Hillary's Filegate and other breaches, the wiping clean of Clinton and Reno's Waco weapons under cover of "Election Crisis" on November 8, 2000* -- which only underscore who actually calls the shots when push comes to shove.

It's not Republicans forever at the mercy of and forced to acquiesce to the "personal opinions" of Democrats. It's Democrats who are forced to adopt, with the lockstep--no room for dissent--militarism increasingly a feature of the right, the environmental and population control policies mapped out by Republicans over a generation ago.

I perpetually link NSSM-200 and the 1970 GOP Task Force Report on Earth Resources & Population because I cannot think of two documents which illustrate in a more stark fashion the FACT that abortion and environmentalism are GOP policies.

Further, these are not simply GOP policies by which eugenic re-formation a New Man and the destruction of the nation-state may both be accomplished with the express will of the people (for, as the GOP noted, it would be awkward to actually force on people those measures to which they could not be "educated" at state cost to embrace for themselves).

They are "twofers" of polarization by which an endless mellerdrammer ensues against the Democrats who get what they vote for in the way of socialists, communists, deathists and rabid environmentalists ... unshakable in their loyalty to the "personal convictions" for which they were elected.

(That is, unless they become "former Democrats" in the fashion of "former Soviets" like Putin or "former radicals" like the still-atheist, pro-choice Whoreowitz and his Progressive vision for The Party for whom nothing really changes but the title.)

While Republicans, on the other hand, get only a bunch of pantywaists who -- the higher they rise in the party -- understand only too well that it's a game of "Oh please don't throw me in the briar patch!!!" fearmongering that they expect their faithful to dutifully lap up at will when they're not busy chasing their tails and squandering their moral capital on utterly useless endeavors like pro-life license plates, "Parental Consent" legislation or the reserving the WORD "marriage" for contracepting and artifically reproducing heteros for whom children are likewise and OPTION of marriage.

One day, our leadership is deathly afraid of the Evil Clintons and begging us for the support necessary to bring them to the justice they so richly deserve.

The next, they're paying them to speak, sending them on official junkets and hiding their sins so as to avert embarrassment to them or their party the next.

What's wrong with this picture?

Stories like this only confirm that Democrats are not forever poised to wrest control from seasoned Republican politicians who -- READ MY LIPS -- somehow manage to trash Gulf War Laurels, a great economy and a 90% approval rating from the "will of the people" because they don't like campaigning any more than they like broccoli.

No ... Democrats inevitably are just sinners hanging by a string in the hands of the not-so-angry-after-all Republicans whose "Stoopid Party" faithful are supposed to marshal themselves against Evil Clintonistas save where it's political expedient to accept the Evil Clinton himself as a vital member of some bipartisan humanitarian fundraising team.

If this were soley a machination of elections or "public life" it would be one thing. But does anyone really believe Republicans are "forced" to fete and HONOR folks like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy? Were there really no other options for the foundations of Bob Dole or George H. Bush than to feature Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, respectively?

Doesn't anyone else find Kerry's "Am I the only one who likes BOTH Clinton and Bush" the least bit curious, particularly in light of an anti-campaign that rivaled those of both Gore and 1992 Bush I for its ability to repeatedly shoot itself in the foot?

(The only more obvious indication a party WANTS to lose a "democratic" election being those years they run Bob Dole up the flagpole. =)

* -- Because it is "on point" to the thread, I'd just like to include a big "Huzzah!!!" for the way Danforth managed to Ping voters to the subject of Waco repeatedly during the 2000 Election with the interim reports which repeatedly exonerated Clinton and Reno entirely and defused the subject for the length of the campaign.

Nice timing, that.

But I think it important to remember how perfectly calculated were these releases (as well as the news of the sealed indictment the subject of this article):

---

Danforth sidestepped the question over whether Reno should resign, saying he would not prejudge anything about the case. He also called for a chill on news coverage of the investigation as it got under way. He said ongoing commentary slowed progress created a bitter political atmosphere. He said his probe would produce a comprehensive report, which would be presented to Congress. The public, however, might never see the report. Danforth said he hoped the entirety of his investigation could be revealed publicly, but he did not rule out keeping all or parts of it secret for security reasons.

---

Lott presses for Reno's resignation [Danforth Does Not Rule Out Suppressing Waco Report]

[Askel5]

He was not removed from office. And, from the testimony of folks like Schippers, I wouldn't exactly call that circus of a sex show anything like a legitimate impeachment.

It was a show trial ... successful for its remaining strictly a Sho-Trial.

[Askel5]

Don't worry ... the Clintons aren't nearly the awful people some obsessives like to make them out to be.

UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING INVOLVING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. (PDF file, prepared by Henry "Nyah Nyah" Waxman).

If they were, the Republicans might have gotten at least one of the charges to stick and/or result in actual punishment of some sort.

Instead, they're free to come to the aid of the Republicans -- like George Bush or Bob Dole -- when a public figure or paid speaker is needed.

Could the Republican leadership be any more crystal clear in its "sending a message" about the Clintons?

[shellshocked]

"While under secret federal indictment"

That is scary! "Secret" indictments???

[Peach]

I'm a big supporter of the president but, as the article said, this was kept secret for a year. Regardless of the reason for keeping it secret for a year, perhaps so it wouldn't appear to be a political move during the election cycle, it did indeed protect the Clinton's and give them legitimacy for the last year when in fact they should have had none.

[Soul Seeker]

And may you have a wonderful day too! LOL

[Askel5]

=== 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.


Uh, Miss Marple?

You gonna stand by the fact that you let the "liberal media" determine for you whose words have more merit than others?

You really are too much, my dear. Now I'm kinda sorry whatever I said cause you to make such a telling statement! =)

[UCANSEE2]

I was hoping John Ashcroft might provide me a guillotine and the honor

Well, at least your heart is in the right place. A good old fashioned head chopping would go far in discouraging the kind of behavior the Clintons engaged in.

Too bad we are a fairly civilized society.

: )

[Miss Marple]

I care what is said in the liberal media because it affects the opinion of people who are ill-informed, but also vote.

If this is not something that you pay attention to, may I suggest you start doing so. I don't let the New York Times shape my opinion, but I darn sure pay attention to it as lots of dimwits read nothing but that silly paper.

Since John Kerry gets carried in the New York Times, people will listen to him. YOU, Askel, can't even make the Times. Therefore, I don't pay attention, since your pronouncements are not shaping public opinion.

There, see how easy that was to explain? Do you have any other questions?