Posted on 05/11/2005 4:06:32 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
NBC's Today on Tuesday focused on the start of the federal trial of David Rosen, the chief fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's 2000 New York Senate campaign, who is charged with falsifying the cost of a fundraising event so that Mrs. Clinton's campaign could pocket an additional $800,000. But instead of scrutinizing the Democratic presidential frontrunner's integrity, NBC treated her as the victim of attacks. Their on-screen tag: "Campaign Against Hillary." Reporter Campbell Brown fretted that despite how "the Justice Department says Senator Clinton was never a target of the investigation, longtime Clinton foes like the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, still want to see the Senator in the hot seat." Brown warned viewers not to think the former First Lady had done anything wrong. "We should say right up front that Hillary Clinton is not a part of the trial. She was never a target of the investigation," Brown told co-host Matt Lauer. Brown ended her report by repeating her exoneration of Mrs. Clinton: "It's pretty clear the trial itself is about David Rosen and she's not gonna get sucked into that."
[Rich Noyes, the MRC's Director of Research, submitted this item for CyberAlert.]
For their part, ABC's Good Morning America and CBS's The Early Show skipped the start of Rosen's trial.
While the NBC morning team went to great pains to make sure their audience did not walk away with the impression that Hillary Clinton might have an ethical problem, they have shown no such concern for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has been neither charged nor convicted of any wrongdoing. Back on the April 18 Today, MRC's Geoff Dickens noticed at the time, reporter Chip Reid seemed to presume DeLay's guilt: "DeLay is under scrutiny for his political fundraising, for his overseas trips and for his connections to lobbyists under federal investigation. All that comes on top of three admonishments by the House Ethics committee last year." Reid then played a clip of Congressman Barney Frank scolding DeLay: "We're not talking about peccadilloes here. We're talking about a serious corruption of the public policy process." Reid added: "Some political analysts say DeLay's troubles could hurt the whole party." Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute: "DeLay's ethics problems are dangerously close to moving over to affect the Republican Party. One more incident and I think it's really gonna be close to the end." Finally, Reid added a bit of balance: "But for now most of his Republican colleagues are firmly behind him." Representative David Dreier: "Tom DeLay has not been found in violation of a single rule, law, regulation or statute."
Compare that approach, where the only defense of DeLay came from a Republican colleague, with the way Campbell Brown on Tuesday repeatedly insisted that any tarnishing of Hillary for the possible criminal conduct of her fundraiser was unfair. Matt Lauer introduced the segment, which aired about 7:08am EDT: "On Close Up this morning, Hillary Clinton's former chief fundraiser under fire. He goes on trial today over questionable fundraising practices and it could have a major impact on Senator Clinton's potential run for the White House. NBC's Campbell Brown has more on that and she joins us this morning. Hey, Campbell."
With the words "Campaign Against Hillary" on screen, Brown began by assuring viewers that even though "her enemies" would focus on the fundraiser's trial, Hillary herself is blameless: "Good morning, Matt. And we should say right up front that Hillary Clinton is not a part of the trial. She was never a target of the investigation but the trial is giving a new stage to her enemies turning up the heat as more people speculate she could be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008."
Brown went on to discuss the background of the case: "But the story begins in Los Angeles during Hillary Clinton's campaign for Senate, August 2000. A star-studded Hollywood fundraiser cost more than a million dollars to throw. The Clinton campaign fundraiser, David Rosen, reported the cost at only about $400,000. The Justice Department claims Rosen intentionally under-reported the cost so the campaign could have extra funds to spend elsewhere. David Rosen denies the charge and a spokesman for Senator Clinton said in a statement her campaign quote, 'has fully cooperated with the investigation and we trust that when all the facts are in, Mr. Rosen will be cleared.'"
Sounding like a '90s soundtrack, Brown suggested that those who wanted an investigation of Hillary Clinton's role were motivated by mindless hate: "While the Justice Department says Senator Clinton was never a target of the investigation, longtime Clinton foes like the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, still want to see the Senator in the hot seat." Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch: "The money was given to her. She didn't report it. We want to know why. And if she didn't report it she needs to be held accountable." Brown: "Judicial Watch is calling for a Senate Ethics committee investigation, arguing the Justice Department gave Senator Clinton a pass because she is such a powerful political figure. So just how much of this is about her status and future plans with more political observers now pegging her as the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008." Newsweek's Howard Fineman: "It's a calling card, it's a wake-up call, it's a shot across the bow. Use any cliché you want the enemies of Hillary Clinton are saying, 'Look this is what your life and your campaign is gonna be like for the next few years." Brown wrapped up: "Because of her time in the White House during the Bill Clinton years Senator Clinton certainly has had a lot of experience waging legal war. It's pretty clear that she and her staff were expecting this fight and frankly Matt many more to come." Lauer inquired: "Let me just ask you, this, this conservative group is calling for an ethics investigation in the Senate. Any chance the Senate takes that up?" Brown admitted she didn't know, but predicted that the trial would not involve Mrs. Clinton: "You know it's a little too early to say. It's pretty clear the trial itself is about David Rosen and she's not gonna get sucked into that. But the political sideshow, which could involve the Senate getting involved, we'll have to wait and see." Lauer: "As we get closer to midterm elections and the 2008 election."
While Brown saw little connection to Hillary Clinton, New York Post columnist Dick Morris, the guru of Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election bid, argued in a Tuesday column, the case could wind up having a lot to do with Mrs. Clinton. Part of the evidence against Rosen is a conversation he had with Ted Kennedy's brother-in-law Raymond Reggie, which Reggie surreptitiously taped for the government. Morris noted that "on the tape, Rosen says he spoke to then-President Bill Clinton regularly -- at least once a week -- about the campaign fund-raising. What could the president have told him that the federal prosecutors would find interesting? We may find out."
An excerpt of Morris' May 10 column, headlined "Steak Dinner Could Cook Hill":
The Justice Department case against David Rosen, national finance chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate race, is getting stronger, increasing the odds the aide will start cooperating with the government -- which could be disastrous for the senator's ambitions.
Rosen has been indicted for deliberately reporting that the cost of an August 2000 Hollywood fund-raising gala was only $400,000 when the actual tab was $1.2 million -- a step that let Mrs. Clinton spend $800,000 more in "hard money" for her campaign. (After Hillary and opponent Rick Lazio agreed to ban soft money, both camps were scrambling to maximize their hard money on hand).
The New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported on a transcript of a Sept. 4, 2002, audiotape of a dinner between Rosen and Ted Kennedy in-law Raymond Reggie, who was wearing a wire. Most news accounts have left out the fact that Rosen implicated himself with each bite of steak.
On tape, the paper reported, Rosen "acknowledges that the gala probably cost far more to produce than he reported on federal campaign forms." Rosen says of the fund-raiser, "We woulda never done it if the guy [Peter Paul] said he spent $2 million. So now he's [Paul] saying he spent $2 million on an event that raised $1.4." Rosen goes on to agree that "he may have" spent the $2 million.
Reggie, whose sister is Ted Kennedy's wife, will get no more than five years in prison on bank-fraud convictions in return for cooperation and testimony at Rosen's trial....
The Times-Picayune reports that the feds have "lined up several other witnesses who will testify that Rosen was aware the event cost far more than his reports indicated."
The federal brief says that Rosen "became increasingly panicked as the costs began to spiral out of control. On some occasions, when news of yet another cost was revealed to him, the defendant literally threw up his hands and announced that 'I did not just hear that,' 'Don't tell me that again' and that he did not want the subject discussed around him again."
The feds also say Rosen directed one witness to "take thousands of dollars of line items" off a campaign report about the event's costs and told a "confidante" that there was "no way" he could accurately report the cost of the fund-raiser."...
On the tape, Rosen says he spoke to then-President Bill Clinton regularly -- at least once a week -- about the campaign fund-raising. What could the president have told him that the federal prosecutors would find interesting? We may find out.
The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy is closing in on her.
BARF BARF !!!!!!
I am a Proud Member of the "Vast Right Wing Consiracy" (Copyright 1991, Hillary Clinton)
Jeez, you are right. I forgot the barf alert!
The DEMORATS couldn't sink the Swift Boats and they will not be able to keep crime from the American public . .
Bad enough that the reporter said that, ignoring ties by Hillary to Rosen. However, the Clinton-appointed judge has been talking and taking the same line:
Clinton Judge Blasts Hillary's Accuser
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."
When Joe Goebbels goes to work for Joe Stalin, reporting like this is the result.
Couldn't you even try to look better for national TV?
or
This works for me: 
or even better:
Everyone knows that it isn't Hillary, it's the VRWC!!
And I'm a,
Great posts tuba guy!
" Reporter Campbell Brown fretted that despite how "the Justice Department says Senator Clinton was never a target of the investigation,
longtime Clinton foes ....want to see the Senator in the hot seat."
Brown warned viewers not to think the former First Lady had done anything wrong."
Campbell Brown should have recused herself from this story.
Her father Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Brown was found guilty in 2000 of lying to FBI investigators.
He was convicted on seven of 13 counts of making false statements to an FBI agent and did time in a federal prison.
He was originally indicted on 57 counts of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, insurance fraud and witness tampering.
What are the odds that Jim Brown and fellow Louisiana dirty Democrat , Raymond Reggie travel in the same circles ?
ping
Hey, Matt, you want to check her for signs of colon cancer while your head's up there?
"...longtime Clinton foes like the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, still..."<pP
Now JW is a "conservative watchdog group" again. When they sued Cheney, they were a non-partisan watchdog group.
Oh gee, another hate crime. Rats and Libs and Socialists are peas in a pod, they can never acknowledge let alone accept the consequences of their own behavior, there MUST be something or someone else to blame.
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.
