Posted on 05/11/2005 11:51:01 AM PDT by wagglebee
U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz is blasting Sen. Hillary Clinton's key accuser, Peter Paul, whose allegations spurred the indictment of David Rosen, the finance chairman for Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign.
In a trial that began Tuesday in Los Angeles with Judge Matz presiding, Rosen is charged with filing false reports to the Federal Election Commission in connection with an August 2000 Hollywood gala fund-raiser that Paul produced.
While outlining instructions he intends to give the jury, Judge Matz, who was appointed by President Clinton, called Paul "a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual."
"He's a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established," the Clinton appointee added, in quotes picked up by the New York Sun.
When it came to Mrs. Clinton, however, Judge Matz was more forgiving.
"This isn't a trial about Senator Clinton," he insisted. "Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or a principal."
Though both Paul and another key witness, celebrity fund-raiser Aaron Tonken, both say they told the former first lady about the campaign cash Rosen allegedly hid from federal regulators, Judge Matz insisted, "She's not in the loop in any direct way, and that's something the jury will be told."
Though Paul's record includes past convictions for stock fraud and cocaine trafficking, his charges against Rosen have survived numerous challenges by Rosen's legal team, headed by the Clintons' scandal lawyer, David Kendall.
His testimony is also backed by tape recordings made by Kennedy in-law Raymond Reggie, who agreed to an FBI request to wiretap subjects of their investigation into the August 2000 fund-raiser.
Matz was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by President Clinton in March 1998 on the recommendation of California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who argued at the time that Matz had "a deep commitment to justice."
How very convenient for Hitlery.
the fix is in .....big surprise
The fix is in. Clinton teflon remains intact.
You have to admire how slick they are when it comes to getting their various criminal cases heard before the judges they want. Slick as ice.
Hmmmm.....an editorializing Judge.......hmmmmm
The Untouchables
Shouldn't he recuse himself?
Gee, now there's an unbiased judge! This guy should be recused.
One more reason for the President's judicial nominees to be approved by the Senate.
Get a spine, Senators!!
Sounds like the prosecutor has awfully good grounds for requesting that the judge recuse himself . . . or be told to do so from higher courts.I know, the appeal would have to go through the Ninth Circus . . .
No judicial activism going on here, This is all written in The Constitution.
promise!!!!
He may have said this, but if he doesn't say it to the jury, and doesn't prevent the evidence from coming in, it doesn't matter what he thinks. The jury decides.
If he does say it to the jury, then he needs to be slapped by the appellate court. His opinions on the facts are irrelevant at best, and possibly prejudicial.
Ping
This guy should be removed.
The fact the judge said that in open court DURING a trial is grounds for recusal.
I hope the prosecutors at least make the motion so it is preserved for appeal.
Is this the type of thing were FR would send emails to the Judicial Qualification Comittee, or get the Judicial watch people involved?
Well then it looks like he fell in with the right crowd.
This isn't a trial about Senator Clinton," he insisted. "Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or a principal."
If the judge has already decided everything ahead of time then why even have the trial?
>>While outlining instructions he intends to give the jury, Judge Matz, who was appointed by President Clinton, called Paul "a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual."
"He's a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established," the Clinton appointee added, in quotes picked up by the New York Sun. <<
OH MY GAWD! Those words are going to be said by the presiding judge during Jury instructions.
I would say there is a bit of conflict of interest here. Can he really predjudice the jury that way and get away with it?
What is his home address.
Why have a trial at all?
Let's all pretend we don't notice the huge CONFLICT OF INTEREST in this case. This judge should be removed from the bench if he doesn't recuse himself.
"...editorializing judge..."
That's right. Now if a juror expressed the same opinions, out he goes, he's biased and we can't have that!
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.