Posted on 05/11/2005 4:07:47 PM PDT by Libloather
Ex-aide's trial puts Hil at high risk
GOP salivates over campaign finance case
By KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton isn't on trial in Los Angeles on Tuesday - but as far as her political adversaries are concerned, she may as well be. Her ex-finance director David Rosen has been charged with concealing the real cost of a star-studded Hollywood fund-raiser for Clinton in August 2000 - and if he's convicted, her enemies plan to exploit it to the maximum.
"If it was any other senator, it might not be an issue, but with her past it will be," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "She clearly has her eyes set on the White House [in 2008] ... so it's going to be an issue between now and then."
Sensitive to whispers Rosen's prosecution may be politically motivated, the feds say Clinton has not been implicated in any wrongdoing and will not be an issue in the trial.
"We're certainly not calling her as a witness and it might be a mistake for the defense to do that - but that's up to them," said a Justice Department source.
Clinton is standing by Rosen and thinks he is innocent. "We believe that when all the facts are in, [Rosen] will be cleared," Clinton lawyer David Kendall said on behalf of the senator.
Still, if Rosen is convicted, Clinton (D-N.Y.) is certain to face repeated attack ads accusing her of running a corrupt campaign and reminding voters of the 1996 investigation into Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers and White House coffees to raise political cash, GOP operatives promised.
Even Democratic political operatives fear a Rosen conviction could lure a strong Republican candidate into Clinton's reelection race next year. "This could be an issue that has traction," said a top Democrat who works closely with the Clinton campaign.
If convicted, Rosen, 40, could get 15 years in prison on three counts of filing false campaign documents. He allegedly cooked the books to free up more money when he reported that the $1.2 million gala cost only $400,000.
In a truly bizarre twist, a member of the Kennedy clan is the government snitch. Ted Kennedy brother-in-law Ray Reggie wore an FBI wire and taped a conversation with Rosen at a state dinner in 2000.
The brother of Kennedy's wife, Victoria, and son of a prominent Louisiana judge, Reggie also raised money for Clinton and contributed to her Senate campaign. He allegedly discussed the Hollywood gala with Rosen while working for the FBI.
Among the potential witnesses is longtime Clinton political adviser Harold Ickes, who headed her campaign. The FBI's lead investigating agent, a Federal Elections Commission expert and others close to the campaign also are expected to testify, according to sources familiar with both the prosecution and defense.
"We don't have any surprises up our sleeves, but you never know what the defense is going to do," a government source said.
An unlikely witness is convicted felon Peter Paul, who claims he wrote checks to help pay for the Hollywood soiree that featured Paul Anka, Michael Bolton, Toni Braxton, Cher, Melissa Etheridge, Patti LaBelle, Brian McKnight, Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder and Luther Vandross, among others.
Paul now is among the chorus of Hillary-bashers raising money to unseat her, and sources say the defense would have a field day knocking down his credibility if he takes the witness stand.
Crimes? No kidding. Say, does anyone recall Big Media being worried about Dubya getting attacked - politically? Didn't think so...
So her corruption is all about republicans?
Never heard that the Dems were salivating over Delay either.
The old biddies that voted her into the Senate will also vote for Hillary as president, no matter what comes out of this trial.
Hillary is the poor little victim, doncha know?
If you replaced Hillary's name with that of Tom DeLay, does anyone believe that this piece would have been written?
Pretty good article.
If the *Beast woke up one morning (sun and all) and noticed *she was running out of loot, would *she be the kind of person that would allow illegalities to occur in order for an election win?
Oh, my. (Murrymom, you and your so-called party doan look so good...)
yeah ,... anyone who has even casually followed her career , knows that plausible deniability is a transparent falsehood , but she'll still use it!!
LOL. Sure seems to be. At least the presstitutes are reporting something, which reminds all of the Clinton corruption stink. This is a good thing...
Not to worry. She's already taken the shredder to the docs and replaced them with new ones.
(If you have ANY mercy in your soul...)
lol
St Hillary of NY meet Joan of Arc
> Never heard that the Dems were salivating over Delay either.
I think the Delay business is only whining and obstruction, just like it was with Cheney and Rumsfeld.
There is no comparison with the trouble Rodham's finance director is in. We are talking 15 years here. "If it was any other senator, it might not be an issue..." Yeah, right.
But the guy (author of the article) is right. I am salivating, and what Freeper is not? :)
It's Bush's and DeLay's fault!
...Never heard that the Dems were salivating over Delay either...
If Tom Delay had benefited to the tune 800K and his campaign finance manger were going on trial for it, do you think the MSM would say that he had nothing to do with it?
Silly question, right?
So, okay. . .no salivating; but we can at least give the Dems credit for doggedly and determedly making a mouthfull of Delay while trying to 'chew him up'; and 'spit him out' in an unrecognizeable form. ;^)
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.