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."
Not sure why, but that really grossed me out. The thought of Hillary's undies will do that everytime.
By putting Billy on a Tsunami mission ...Bush further covers himself from charges of partisanship
Anyone notice if it's in the MSM? I never view, nor read, anything from the MSM.
And the Bush administration covers up for the Clinton's ---- Again.
If, when, she wins in 2008, they (the Bush "handlers" who are scared shirtless of the MSM) have ONLY themselves to blame.
Wow Dude,that looks like food for American Chopper
tonight!
Don't know but whatever it is it could hardly be worse than what we already know about these scumbags.
>Hopefully, Sandy Burglar will be next...<
My thought exactly. Sandy Berger - definitely a player in this "who dunnit?" In any court case involving them, all Clinton appointed judges should promptly recuse themselves
If history is an indication, the Administration will keep this trial very low-key, while Hitlery's Prez campaign will remained unscathed by her closet-full of impropriety and scandal.
I think Bush has been misunderestimated again. ;^)
Tons of stuff, I'd bet. Letting it out would only hurt Bush though.
Clinton was politically paralyzed during the impeachment, and the last two years of his presidency. But so was the GOP, in the process of prosecuting him. I think there is nothing more the dems would like than to start all that over again. Portraying themselves as victims is their sole political advatage at this point and Bush would be playing right into their hands to go after them.
What? For God's sake 7-11 tapes who goes in and out of their stores, are you telling me the National Archives doesn't tape?
Lol (head-spinning)
Methinks he should be ZOTted. But I don't know what the conditions or qualifications are.
>Why has the President been treating the Clintons with courtesy and kid gloves<
All that courtesy is supposed to bless moral recipients with a downpour of humbling anguish. Just doesn't work in this case, Dubya.
I'll tell you one thing. The Travis County DA, Ronnie Earle, is investigating Speaker Delay for much less serious accusations than this.
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.
There were several indictments in Delay's case, even though some have or will probably be thrown out.
Any announcement of this by the Bush administration would have been turned back on them, with a vengeance.
If she runs/wins in 2008 it will be because the MSM will not ask her any "embarrassing" questions, or bring up anything negative (unless it can be used against her "enemies") that the clintons have been involved in. That's exactly what happened when she ran for Senator. (Remember her "listening tour"?)
Trust me, I've got plenty of gripes with the Repubs.
A. The Presidential candidacy of one Hitlery Clinton
B. Justice
Both valid points. However, I don't think it's Bush's job to stop Hillary. That's the job for the next presidnetial race and that candidate whoever he or she it might be. Furthermore, I also think that acheiving his agenda, even in part, will help the next GOP candidate far more than prosectuting Clintonistas in this term. I could be wrong, but I think it's just a political reality.
Justice. That's really the thing that irks us and nobody more that me. I think letting the CLintons of the hook legally is one of the great miscarriages of justice in US history. But americans made is absolutly clear during impeachemnt they didn't want the Clintons to face justice. That's another political reality that is hard to face but I beleive it's true.
I've accepted the fact that there is not going to be justice in regards to the Clintons, at least in this life. I had to accept it, it was driving me nuts.
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.