Posted on 05/06/2005 4:15:57 PM PDT by doug from upland
A top fund-raising official on Senator Clinton's campaign, David Rosen, plans to defend himself against federal felony charges by arguing that he was tricked by two "self-confessed 'con men'" involved in planning an August 2000 fund-raiser. Mr. Rosen, a Chicago political consultant, faces trial in Los Angeles next week on an indictment alleging that he caused the filing of false campaign finance reports that understated the cost of the star-studded gala by $500,000 or more. In a motion filed Tuesday, Mr. Rosen's lawyers disclosed that they plan to claim that their client was deceived by a businessman who was the event's main financial backer, Peter Paul, and by a promoter of Hollywood fund-raisers, Aaron Tonken.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
When do we get to see Her Heinous doing the perp walk? That's what I'm hoping for.
Thank you for the explanation.
So, how does she get out of this one?
Arkancide
I don't expect jail time for her. But I hope it keeps her out of the White House.
(Sorry - slipped into George Raft mode there. With her it's so easy...)
Rosen's Arkancide, that is.....
If there are tapes, recordings and witnesses that will obliterate this defense, they need to have been found admissible in court or they walk on these charges.
Not saying evidence against them wouldn't be admissible, but would say don't be surprised of things are not allowed to be presented. What if this gets before a liberal Democrat elected and leaning judge?
Could any of these possibilities manage to keep things covered up as has been the consistently done so in the past DFU?
Does the prosecution and witnesses 100% have their evidence truly lined up and ready to go?
I don't know what is going on in the prosecutor's office. But as I said before, nothing like this has ever happened before. People simply pay fines. Not this time.
Well, things go before judges and the system, so my concerns are the Judge, what is allowed in court as admissible to use against this guy, and so forth.
Caught you on Hannity the other day, you gave me Putnam guest appearance flashbacks with you. Nice job, good times. :-)
Thanks. Glad you heard Hannity. Peter was actually even better with Tony Snow yesterday. There is more to come.
don't be surprised of things are not allowed to be presented. What if this gets before a liberal Democrat elected and leaning judge? You don't get it. Hillary wants this guy to go to jail. She needs for him to become a "convicted felon," so that if he ever turns on her, she can squirt slime on him to make him go away. Secondly, she'll say, "See that? David Rosen was convicted of that. It had nothing to do with me." Which will sound like an iron-clad defense to the media and the rest of her adoring fans. Rosen is so screwed. |
But .. since personal destruction is Hillary's specialty - I guess Rosen figures Hillary will supply him with plenty of dirt to smear the "con men".
Poor thing, David has no idea Hillary will not have anything to do with him.
Hi Nick,
Your theory has THIS hole in it, if he is convicted over this, it would be over a Hillary issue.
She'd have to say that he can't be trusted because he was involved in a felony connected to being associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign. OUCH...doesn't work, she bleeds to death from paper cuts.
If he's screwed and convicted, she is hurt by it, that is not IMO the benefit she would wish for.
If he died in this process which maybe she would arrange, THAT would be more helpful. So they better be guarding this fellow night and day.
he was involved in a felony connected to being associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign. OUCH...doesn't work, she bleeds to death from paper cuts. No deeper cuts than the McDougal cuts, the Web Hubbell cut, the Cisneros cut, and too many more to count. The Clintons leave a trail behind them of people going to jail. One more is nothing. |
With the connections I heard expressed on Hannity between this guy, Bill and Hillary... I think it's harder to escape from.
Where I fear they get a pass is that for the sake of pride in America and to protect our history, I can't see there being much taste for convicting the Clinton's in our lifetime.
They deserve it, but historically, we always try to give a pass to those and their families that have served as President and first family. I've never seen a couple either more corrupt or stupid than these two in constantly trying to take advantage of the PEOPLE'S good will. That said, because of tradition and respect for the office of President, I don't see the Clintons EVER getting nailed on anything.
I do think this can help prevent her to be elected in both NY and as President.
I hope Rudy runs for her NY job in 2006.
As a Presidential candidate for office, she has no chance to win, in addition she brings so much negatives to a run by her that she could increase Republican office holders across the country by 25%, and that my friend is a good thing.
As a Presidential candidate for office, she has no chance to win I prefer to make sure. I think a nice criminal indictment would go a long way towards that. Even if, as you say, they get off... the stink will not. |
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.