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]

Sorry if I misled any reader about your post. I said it was an IMPLIED REFERENCE.

Your remarks implied that SOMEONE said Bush did it for gain during the election. I am assuming you didn't come up with that idea on your own.

You were stating that IT WOULD BE WRONG for BUSH TO DO SUCH A THING, and I completely agree with you.

It was not the best idea to use your post to support what I was doing. I hope this clears it up.

Thanks for being civil in your redress of this misunderstanding.

[bjs1779]

Seriously, what is it in my statement that makes you consider me insane/democrat/or both?

I guess I don't have the heart to tell you. Sleep well.

[RWCon]

But when will they ever get the SLUT herself?

[bjs1779]

But when will they ever get the SLUT herself?

I admire bluntness.

[UCANSEE2]

UCANSEE2 was sticking up for soul seeker who thinks the Clintons should be left alone by the Bush administration. You are correct absolutely and they look silly.

I was providing info that YOU DEMANDED, and apparently you don't like being proven WRONG, so you want to take it out on me.

I can't speak for Soul Seeker, but I don't want Bush to give the CLINTONS a FREE PASS (as someone earlier remarked).

But I don't want the President to waste all his time chasing after the Clintons, attempting to get them prosecuted for claims that won't hold up in court.

Quietly, and discreetly, routing of corruption at all levels of the government is taking place, and because the media doesn't trumpet it to your home, most of the public is not aware it is even going on. There is a long chain of corruption that ultimately leads to the former President. TIME and MONEY are the limiting factors, and whether the top of the chain will ever successfully be reached is unknown.

Perhaps, after you read ALL THE POSTS, you will see my position on this issue and that I do not suggest nor support Bush 'protecting the clintons'.

I, again, apologize for any readers who did not understand the words "IMPLIED REFERENCE" followed by YOUR VERY OWN WORDS WHERE YOU CLEARLY SAID IT WAS WRONG TO SUGGEST HE would have tried to GAIN in the ELECTION by dropping pursuit of the Clintons.

[UCANSEE2]

If you truly had a reasonable objection, you would have stated it. I have seen this excuse used over and over here on FR.

I can take anything you can dish out, so don't worry about being honest. You already called me insane, so why be concerned over explaining your thoughts on a statement?

If I may, here is the likely (and time-proven) reason you don't answer.

You made a hasty, and emotional remark, and you can't figure out a justifiable reason for that remark.

What I call the QUITTER SYNDROME.

Prove me wrong.

I asked a reasonable question, in response to a less than civil post from you, and now you won't answer.

EVERYONE IS WATCHING!

[UCANSEE2]

I thought you would understand my first response, and appreciate the humor.

Since you apparently didn't, or you have some other motive, I will simplify my response.

FOR

[F16Fighter]

"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."

I'd call that a fair assessment.

[UCANSEE2]

To all fellow posters, whether angry with my comments at the moment or not.

I too must soon head for bed, and realizing how late it is made me reconsider BJS1779's last comment.

If you don't wish to reply, that is your business, and if you have other reasons , those too are your concern, and should not be called to question.

It was not fair to back you into a corner on making a reply.

If I do not get back on FR tonight, I will be on sometime during the day tomorrow and check to see what happened on this thread.

I want those posters who took issue and countered my posts that I appreciate your comments, even when things get a little ugly, and would not find much value in FR without them.

They are the basis of learning, because they force the mind to ASK QUESTIONS and THINK. Those who agree with my particular slant on any issue make me feel good, but do not help me learn anything new.

To all of you I say, "In truth, we all want the same thing in life, so May all your goals be achieved, even though we all have different paths to get there."

[Askel5]

Well, you're right. I did have the Coulter quote wrong. Instead, it went like this:

She concluded her comments on candidates with a forceful move away from any flip and comedic language. In the context of her discussion of the Courts, she looked her audience in the eyes and forcefully cautioned, "No matter what Bush does, you have to vote for him."

But hey ... she's a hottie. If we can forgive her more comic comments (let's nuke North Korea! Christmas was so fun this year because saying "merry Christmas" is like saying "f... you"), we can forgive her thinking that election of Bush was vital for the effect he'd have on the Judiciary.

The media is all about hype and sensationalism for profit.

Oh please. If there were a "profit" motive left in the field of journalism, major cities (besides NY and LA) would have more than one daily paper left in circulation.

You might as well argue that the healthcare industry is all about helping people.

Both the news and healthcare industries are perfect examples of what can happen when the government is most interested in closing down all competition and removing the profit motive for purposes of ready regulation of content and services, respectively.

If there were anything like open competition using "hype and sensationalism" for profit, Americans might learn a fraction about the actions and quotes of their leadership that Europeans do. News of the United States is far more sensational, so to speak, abroad than here at home, IMHO. I got some of my best leads for interesting stories to follow by burning the candle at both ends while in Russia, especially, so as to devour their feeds before returning home to compare and contrast the same stories (if they existed at all) back home. Most interesting.

The media doesn't give a hoot about DEMS or REPUBS.

Weeelll ... yes and no. I think those who call the shots probably realize there's not a dime's bit of difference between the leadership of the two parties. But if you're arguing the press has done yeoman's work to convery or "educate" the US citizenry to "democratic" initiatives, then I suggest you start paying more attention to "republican" initiatives as set forth in no uncertain terms ... particularly where "education" of the public through the media (including million-dollar War on Drug/War on Terror commercials for the Super Bowl, even).

But the concept that BUSH stalled the JD to protect the Clintons, or help Bush win the election, IS THE UNFOUNDED, UNPROVEN, OPINION of "an undocumented source, which told the TIMES, which fed it to Carl L, which you read.

The one thing we know for sure is that it was stalled. Does the reason given sound somehow implausible to you? Can you think of an even better reason why it would be delayed?

If not, I see no reason to suspect the "sources" are lying. Assuming this story grows any legs, perhaps we'll find out otherwise. I doubt it. Who knows why this much made it into print at all.

I see no reason we all can't accept the fact at this stage of the game that the government need not disclose jack about anything. Why shouldn't the judiciary enjoy the same new veils of privacy the Executive branch does?

There's not a great deal we can do about any of that.

But what we can do is resist the urge to spin for OURSELVES whatever comforting reasons for inexplicable facts make us feel full of Republican Pride and love for the cleverness and sportsmanship of all things Bush.

I think all that's pretty lame, actually. Honestly ... where does this syndrome come from? Are we really still appalled by those who wore kneepads for Clinton when we repeatedly fail to hold our own accountable or question in the least what APPEAR to be truly odd, if not illegal or otherwise scandalous, decisions on their part?

But, sometimes planes just crash. Sometimes people do commit suicide.

And MOST of the time, you'll find that the lying liberal media does a bang-up job lying for the Republicans. I shall use your questions on ESCR as starting point for my first thoroughly PROOFREAD, carefully constructed and copiously footnoted article in the hopes that barebones facts will speak for themselves.

Regards.

[Askel5]

I actually do try to be fair.

I cannot help the Feelings of those who bristle at any and all criticism of the President or the Republican Party. I couldn't care less about either, actually. I'm solely facts and issues-oriented and have lost all interest in "politics."

Besides, as a woman owning no property of her own, I shouldn't be voting anyway.

Regards, F16Fighter.

[F16Fighter]

"I want those posters who took issue and countered my posts that I appreciate your comments..."

Back atcha too, UCANSEE2.

I know at the end of the day we're both on the same side.

[TheForceOfOne]

[F16Fighter]

"I actually do try to be fair.

I cannot help the Feelings of those who bristle at any and all criticism of the President or the Republican Party."

Hear you LOUD AND CLEAR.

I submit that there are those at FR of whom expect ALL Freepers to march lockstep along with the President and Party on EVERY issue OR "face the wrath of Khan" (or insert appropriate Bot here).

Blind loyalty and censorship is NOT what Free Republic is about.

Many of conservatives prefer to follow a policy of principle over power. That means we shall continue to support the President when he is righteous, and give him the benefit of doubt during times of crisis; AND voice criticism when he is wrong. And contrary to some opinion, he's prone to be wrong at times because he IS human. Free Republic and THE truth are the beneficiaries.

FWIW, I've appreciated your fearless outspokenness at FR over the years. Hold your position, soldier ;-) Your voice is needed.

[Askel5]

That means a great deal coming from you. I checked your homepage long ago and have always admired your ability to prioritize.

All the best, F16Fighter.

[bjs1779]

I was providing info that YOU DEMANDED, and apparently you don't like being proven WRONG, so you want to take it out on me.

I don't know where I have been proven wrong, but I see you are sensitive. I just loged on again today. I hope you understand how little all of this beggaring can mean by now. Never take anything here personal. Okay? Your friend, bjs.