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."

[UCANSEE2]

Hillary didn't steal the FBI files.

She legally requested them, and got them.

What she did the gave rise to this issue is that she requested a small amount of files, alledgedly for background checks on potential hirees or appointees, for the President to evaluate.

She kept going back, each time with the same line.

Before anyone took issue, she had legally obtained tons more files than could ever be needed for normal hiring/appointing during a President's term.

So, we can only surmise that blackmail is her purpose. She did nothing illegal in obtaining them. It was the overall amount of them that gave suspicion.

[UCANSEE2]

I think somebody left their cake out in the rain, which left them with a permanent affliction. Severe paranoia.

[Askel5]

=== That is scary! "Secret" indictments???


What's really scary is the thought that -- given the GOP's desire to hobble us with campaign finance reform and hide indictments lest the opposition be "embarrassed" during an election cycle or the GOP be accused of playing hardball (gasp!) -- the Democrats soon will be availing themselves of all the extra- and un-constitutional measures enacted by the Republicans.

If Waco stands as example of what Democrats can do with the GOP's federal police force (and the blessing of folks like Danforth), I can't wait to see what they do with Patriot Act powers, the Intel bill, biometric IDs and other assorted goodies with which the GOP's gifting future "Evil Democrat" administrations at present.

[UCANSEE2]

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

Here you indicate you can't trust the MSM.

given the GOP's desire to hobble us with campaign finance reform and hide indictments lest the opposition be "embarrassed" during an election cycle or the GOP be accused of playing hardball (gasp!)

And here you qoute the rantings of a newspaper reporter and insist it is fact.

BUSTED!

[Miss Marple]

LOL! Excellent catch!

I have noiced the anti-Bush crowd is prone to quote the mainstream media as the final authority when it fits their prejudices.

Myself, unless I see it live on TV, I am skeptical of anything in the MSM, including Fox.

[Askel5]

==== And here you qoute the rantings of a newspaper reporter and insist it is fact.


Hold on there, Partner ...

How do you know that, unlike Miss Marple, I give more credence to the words of commonfolk than the liberal press and have simply "bought into" the Big Lie my fellow FReepers are promoting herein where the Gentlemanly and Clever concealment of the indictment was concerned?

Please don't tell me that you are suggesting the media is lying or "covering up" the REAL reason the Bush Administration delayed this news!

Because, if so, I will be on the edge of my seat awaiting your and Miss Marple's best possible Conspiracy Theories in this regard.

LYING liberal media ... we should have known better than to believe they were telling the truth about the Bush Justice Department's covering Clinton's butt.

Bring it, baby ... I'm all ears for the truth of the matter (as you see it)!!

[Miss Marple]

You prove what I have often said. The extreme right is in bed with the left.

How sad it is to have views as yours. You are never happy and distrust almost everyone.

Well, I know enough about politics and life to discount your opinions.

Good night!

[Askel5]

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


Okay ...

Now what do you think is the lying liberal media's intent herein where affecting voters is concerned? Are they trying to get Democrats to realize what Friends of the Clintons the Bush Administration can be?

And, if so, why would they be doing that?

[Walkingfeather]

I do.

[Miss Marple]

The media is all about creating division and discord amongst the Republicans. I am amazed that you have been registered here for many years and don't seem to recognize this.

[bjs1779]

I'll assume this reply wasn't intended to escape my notice, even though you failed to address it to me but rather yourself.

You are right about that. I do that sometimes when I go by the ping list instead of going to the thread directly.

Proof I provided. What you wish me to do is cite individual poster names behind their back, and that I will NOT do

No names, just post the proof where someone said that Bush should do it for his polictal gain like you stated in your accusation that I responded to. Is that to tough for you? I fail to see one reply here that Bush should do it for his own gain. I trust you will correct my oversite on this

[Askel5]

=== The media is all about creating division and discord amongst the Republicans. I am amazed that you have been registered here for many years and don't seem to notice.


Indeed I have been here for years and one thing I USED TO LIKE ABOUT THIS PLACE was that Republicans or "conservatives" as they like to call themselves these days, were not possessed of the same Lockstep mentality as Democrats, they were individualists who shared the same essential respect for self-evident truths but who could go hammer and tong in the meantime where the correct and just application and preservation of those truths were concerned.

I used to liken it to the opening scenes of "Sons of Katie Elder" or the messhall fights in old John Wayne war movies where the principal heroes fought like cats and dogs until push came to shove and they toed the line together ... one for all and all for one.

That's not what's happening here. Quite the opposite.

Nowadays, it's the Democrats who can bicker as the day is long, infight and destroy each other only to lockstep stand tall on their Litmus Test "personal truths" such as the right to abortion, the primacy of environment over man and other key issues.

Meanwhile, Republicans are busy-busy-busy stamping out dissent in the ranks, engaging in Bolshevik style purges of those deemed not "patriotic enough" for failing to go along with whatever extra-constitutional measure is proferred by the Party. If the actions of the leadership at present had any passing connection to the self-evident truths on which this nation was founded or comported in the least with commonly held notions of "constitutional rights" and limited government, it might be one thing. But they don't.

Even worse, they have adopted a pansy "Personally opposed, but ..." stand by which they regularly abandon or compromise the Non-Negotiable sorts of convictions (such as the Right to Life) for which we elect them!

No Democrat EVER votes against abortion even though he's "personally" in favor of a woman's right to choose.

How in God's name -- and in God's name it is, given the way so many Republicans, as opposed to Democrats, take same in vain -- can we rationalize the spectacle of Republicans "splitting their consciences" and sacrificing constitutional protections of pro-lifers or the lives of unborn children themselves for purposes of good press or political expediency.

Doesn't add up, Miss Marple. And it bothers me greatly. The change has been quite dramatic in the seven years I've been hanging out here.

Rather sad, really. It's because I cut my teeth on FR during the heyday of Whitewater files on the Clintonistas that it makes me rather sick at heart to read some of the replies by longtime handles on threads like these.

[UCANSEE2]

Mostly the media is all about selling using sensationalism and hype to sell advertising, and garnering favor with liberal administrations that give them so-called leaks or insider info they can use to gain viewers, and raise more advertising dollars.

As always, it's about money and power.

[Miss Marple]

1. This administration is more pro-life than any in the last 30 years, including Reagan.

2. I see that you are ignoring my statements and simply using my post as a platform for your rants. Whatever.

[Askel5]

1. This administration is more pro-life than any in the last 30 years, including Reagan.

Uh ... this is not exactly a resounding endorsement, you know. Or have you been getting your news about the "pro-life" GOP -- especially under Reagan and Bush I, mind you -- from the New York Times?

This statement reveals that you too are as Ill-Informed as any Democrat on the very critical issue of abortion. I've managed to maintain somehow my devotion to Reagan IN SPITE OF the record of his administration on abortion. That may be a failing on my part but if you need the facts about the human life records of the Reagan and Bush administrations, I'm happy to tell you things you're never going to read in the New York Times (whose job it is to make GOP look like "pro-lifers" as a rule).

But, bottom line ... let's remember that the President's FIRST televised address to the nation, his FIRST order of public business (having already quietly DOUBLED the budge of the NIH who would be funding the experiments) was to legitimize ESCR with a limited pool of Potential People bearing the proper "killed by" date.

As with the "rape/incest" provision which sticks like a foot in the door to keep abortion forever legal, depending on the circumstances, the President's Scripture-laden speech rationalizing the use of these human beings for humanitarian research instead of dumping them in the trashbin only served to etch in stone the rationalizations now underpinning the billion-dollar initiatives of Republican Schwarzenegger and other states to engage in and profit from Human Farming.

Another thing the New York Times did not and will never report is that Bush's ESCR decision rendered MOOT all of the NIH's proposed protocols on ESCR as "Human Experimentation."

Because you spend a lot of time reading the NYT, let me explain that so it's crystal clear for you. Bush's decision on ESCR created a whole new window of Human Non-Personhood such that the general rules for "human experimentation" no longer applied.

I realize the NYT has fed you a couple headlines on abortion funding (which mean about as much as headlines on "parental consent") but please, I beg you, do not delude yourself on this most critical point. Read the Federal Register if you must and educate yourself to the FACTS of the matter where your misconceptions about this administration's being "pro-life" are concerned.

2. I see that you are ignoring my statements and simply using my post as a platform for your rants. Whatever.

Not ignoring them at all ... just still thinking about them.

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.

This is just one reason, by the way, that I find it a shame FReepers had to be "protected" from liberal or leftist sources. One really great feature of Free Republic in the old days before it became a cult of personality putting The Party first and foremost, was the way you could watch truly informed and educated folks rip same to shreds.

It was extremely valuable in exposing the Biggest lies, sifting one's way toward the real truth and keeping tabs on the direction winds of far-left propaganda were blowing their useful idiots.

I'm agreed with you, of course, on the Media as Propaganda outlet.

But if that be the case, I suspect Republicans in particular should be more cautious about rejoicing over some of what is reported as news these days ... much less fleshing out a story like this with all manner of righteous pats on the back for the sportsmanlike Republican leadership who stall the wheels of the Justice Department, even, lest the Clintons be embarrassed or they be accused of "taking no prisoners" during what I thought was a critical election of some sort.

[UCANSEE2]

Since I consider you serious about this subject, and not just a fool, I will attempt to understand your response, and you can let me know if I am doing so correctly.

How do you know that,

I do not know your mind, I can only attest to what you posted.

unlike Miss Marple,

I don't even know what the reference to MM is doing in this sentence.

I give more credence to the words of commonfolk than the liberal press

I didn't make reference to commonfolk, nor compare their words to yours or the media.

If , like most Freepers, you follow your own judgment and the knowledge and judgement of others you trust, and distrust the liberal press, OK. But it sounded like you meant the opposite, the way the sentence was constructed. I can't read the words you have in your head, but don't put on paper.

My point was you have been arguing WHY BUSH KEPT THE document sealed by using a direct qoute from the LIBERAL MEDIA.

and have simply "bought into" the Big Lie my fellow FReepers are promoting herein where the Gentlemanly and Clever concealment of the indictment was concerned?

OK, who are you now referencing? YOU bought into this, or Miss Marple, or me?

You must have a lot on your mind, and quite a prolific informational background, but it tends to hurt your communications as you veer this way, then that, losing the rest of us in trying to figure out which noun applies to what verb, and which adjectives go with what.

I am sure you know what you meant to convey, but frankly, I am lost.

My previous post was very simple.

I assume you do not trust the MSM, just like I don't.

But you keep harping on the reason Bush kept the indictment sealed.

Which would be OKAY, except that info is not FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE, it is not AUTHORIZED INFORMATION by a member of the WH staff, and it is not words from the mouth of the President. It is the ramblings and opinion of a REPORTER.

So, why are you qouting it as if it were FACT?

Please don't tell me that you are suggesting the media is lying or "covering up" the REAL reason the Bush Administration delayed this news!

I didn't, because that would be illogical, considering past practices of the media, and it isn't true.

Because, if so, I will be on the edge of my seat awaiting your and Miss Marple's best possible Conspiracy Theories in this regard.

LYING liberal media ... we should have known better than to believe they were telling the truth about the Bush Justice Department's covering Clinton's butt.

I guess this last paragraph is a sarcastic redress of the one before it. But it is hard to be sure. Are they lying, or not?

[UCANSEE2]

Here is an implied reference to that.

While I guess I don't really care - What ever happened to simply disclosing the indictment when it comes down, in the normal course. ANY interference by anyone in the process is wrong, whether it is to rush it or delay it for political or other advantage. 2 posted on 01/08/2005 2:17:44 PM CST by drt1

[Askel5]

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

I'm not speaking about those who try to understand the reasoning behind some of RATIONALIZE the decisions made, but those who are always ready and willing to see crimes and cover ups behind those decisions WHICH ARE BEYOND RATIONALIZATION ON THEIR VERY FACE.

I think somebody left their cake out in the rain,
which left them with a permanent affliction.
Severe paranoia.

Who is "Trannie?"
For background information, go to Thread 4. (Look for the "Who is Trannie?" paragraph.) You can also read this reply from an earlier thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b9d1801b14.htm#99

The Trannie threads in chronological order:

JULY
A Clinton Third Term: Nightmare or Reality? (written at Trannie's request and with his guidance and input)
A Clinton Third Term: Nightmare or Reality? (THREAD 2)
A Clinton Third Term: Nightmare or Reality? (THREAD 3)
The Clinton Soliloquies: Gun Control (written using Trannie's input as a guide)

SEPTEMBER
JUST POST THE DANG THING! (the actual correspondence with Trannie)
Just Post the Dang Thing, Part II

NOVEMBER
Wag The Vice-President: Trannie Revisited
Wag The Vice-President: Trannie Revisited (Thread 2)
Wag The Vice-President: Trannie Revisited (Thread 3)
Wag The VP: Trannie Revisited (Thread 4)

DECEMBER
Wag The Vice-President: Trannie Revisited (Thread 5 - Faster Load!)
Wag The Vice President: Trannie Revisited (Thread 6)
Wag the Vice-President: Trannie Summarized (Thread 7)
Trannie Revisited: Clinton's Final Options (Thread 8)
Trannie Revisited: Clinton's Final Options (Thread 9)
Trannie Revisited: Out of the Sunlight and Into the Shadows? (Thread 10)
Beyond Trannie: What Are The Remaining Options? (Thread 11)

JANUARY, 2001
Beyond Trannie: What Are The Remaining Options? (Thread 12)
Beyond Trannie: What Are The Remaining Options? Thread 14)

(Please go to previous threads to see Options 1 - 3)

Option #4 - The "Clinton Iron Triangle: "A "Shadow Government?"
Trannie Revisited: Out of the Sunlight and Into the Shadows? (Thread 10)
(See "4. The "Clinton Iron Triangle:" A "Shadow Government?"

This appears to be the most likely scenario at this point. It is to be expected that some number of in-place bureaucrats (Government Service [GS] employees) throughout government will be sympathetic to socialist/Democrat Party ideology and policies. As GS employees, these people are not replaced by a new administration, and they will be available to act as conduits of "insider" information from the Bush administration to Clinton, et al. They may also act to subvert, deny or sabotage new policy initiatives from the Bush administration. In rare instances they may even act as conduits for disinformation from Clinton, et al, into the new Bush administration.

Like telling them that it would "look bad" if they proceeded with the timely prosecution of Rosen?

Maybe there was something to this Trannie guy who so monopolized the Paranoia of FReepers where the "evil" Clinton was concerned.

[UCANSEE2]

Here is WHO said it.

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."

NEWSMAX - article written by Carl Limbacher.

[UCANSEE2]

To: kattracks

=== former finance chairman David Rosen was actually indicted in 2003, the Bush administration kept it secret till the indictment was unsealed late Friday

Perhaps this is just timed so that the Moral Party's loosening of its own standards in order to wipe the slate clean for Delay won't appear quite so hypocritical.

14 posted on 01/08/2005 2:22:29 PM CST by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)

BINGO. Consider your oversight corrected.