Posted on 05/10/2005 7:52:37 AM PDT by peacebaby
Atlanta Journal & Constitution
Washington --- A conservative watchdog group with a history of hounding the Clintons urged a Senate panel on Monday to investigate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton over a Hollywood fund-raising event for which a former staffer faces charges.
An FBI agent's 2002 affidavit said the costs were deliberately understated in order to increase the amount of funds that could be spent on Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign. Justice Department officials recently said, however, that they need not prove a motive. The New York senator, a Democrat, has not been charged.
Judicial Watch, which has pushed officials to look into the fund-raiser, filed paperwork with the Senate Ethics Committee on Monday saying that Clinton had to have known of the alleged misreporting. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton argued that she closely monitored the gala and knew that its actual cost was much greater than the $400,000 tab reported.
"They're false and she knows them to be false," Fitton said. He equated Clinton's situation with the ethics controversy surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who has been criticized for taking privately funded trips.
Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson called Judicial Watch's complaint "a meritless publicity stunt by a thoroughly discredited right-wing attack group." Robert Walker, a senior staffer on the ethics panel, declined to comment.
Questions about the gala surfaced after Peter F. Paul, a three-time convicted felon who pleaded guilty in March to securities fraud charges, told the FBI that he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars that Clinton's campaign didn't report. He told prosecutors that he spent $1.1 million, but Rosen reported the amount as $400,000.
Judicial Watch took the unusual step of providing legal defense work in Paul's criminal case, but Paul later broke with the group, complaining it was using him to raise money from conservatives opposed to the Clintons.
Fitton said the group had a "good working relationship" with Paul and gave him valuable legal work, and he denied that the group had used him in any way.
Paul said Monday that he hoped the Senate would act on Judicial Watch's complaint but said he feared the move was designed to raise money for the group.
"They're getting on my bandwagon," said Paul, who argued that he has been shut out of a case that he began. "I'm just responsible for the indictment, and nobody wants to use me in the trial."
She wears a flameproof teflon pantsuit. Nothing will happen from this.
I had to call the AJC this morning because I couldn't find anything on theDavid Rosen trial on AJC.com. SouthWall, if you get the AJC, maybe you found it easier. I had to search Hillary's name to uncover this article.
"Had to have known" ???? Don't think that would get them very far in court. If there is proof then they wouldn't be using those words. It's a personal opinion not a legal one. I've finally come to the realization that Judicial Watch files a lot of suits, but doesn't win many of them.
It's interesting that Paul has come out so openly against the Clintons .. his charges have already delivered one indictment but it's gonna be another story to be able to nail Hillary.
When I read stories like this .. carefully .. I realize that there's a lot of hype and a lot of personal opinions. Personal opinions and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.
JW sends out contribution letters every time they file one of these. IOW, they're in it for the coffee.
Pay-as-you-go gadflies. There's something unseemly about that. But they exist. Of course AP drops the "conservative" label whenever one of these groups files a suit against Cheney for example. Then it comes right back out when they sue Dems.
One other thing: when I read "history of hounding the Clintons" ... I thought, for a group like this, that means nothing more than "goes after low-hanging fruit."
Judicial Watch should not be collecting any more money from this case. The group is no longer his legal counsel.
"What goes around comes around."
True enough, but it can be delayed to another lifetime, especially with help from her friends. So far the Clintons have been given a stack of get out of jail free cards.
I am optimistic. Where there's smoke, there's fire. The Clintons can't continue to escape the bullets.
Back to my regularly scheduled programming.
It's totally within the realm of possibility that the Clintons will get away with everything they do.
So they dodge this particular bullet. In the meantime, we add more heat to the fire. I continue to say that, while Hillary is cunning and calculating, she's not very disciplined verbally and she's likely to say something crude and rude, which is her very nature. She's likely to throw the lamp and ashtray verbally and, hopefully, literally. And that's my hope.
I've been wrong before. I'm very naive. But I'm going to be optimistic about a public downfall for the Clintons...during my lifetime.
I have long ago come to the sad conclusion that neither of the Clinton's will ever be made to pay for their many, many crimes. If however, this case can derail her presidential campaign then I would be satisfied.
What I would like to see if Hillary run and be soundly defeated dragging her party down with her.
As long as the so called 'Main Stream Media" covers for them and squashes all bad news about them. That's why they can do what they want with almost complete assurance that they'll suffer no repercussions. The corruption is in the media too.
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.