Posted on 05/11/2005 4:27:31 PM PDT by AZ_Cowboy
RUSH: You know, there is a trial that started yesterday. I don't know if you people have heard about this, because the media would much rather talk about what's going on with Tom DeLay, but the criminal trial of David Rosen, a former staffer of Senator Clinton began yesterday, but who would know? "Certainly," as the Investor's Business Daily editorial today says, "not a public that's been swamped with news of representative Tom DeLay's troubles. But what laws has DeLay broken and what laws has he been accused of breaking? While it's not possible to answer the former with any degree of certainty, the answer to the latter question is 'none.' What laws has he been accused of breaking? None! David Rosen, on the other hand, is on trial for filing false campaign finance statements. The FBI says he deliberately understated by two-thirds the cost of a glitzy Hollywood fund-raiser to increase the amount of funds available to Clinton's Senate run in 2000. And it's not that the media are ignoring the trial altogether. They're simply not putting as much effort into it as they are in their attempt to smear DeLay. New York Times, for instance, put its Rosen trial preview story on the front of Monday's B section but the paper couldn't be bothered sending its own reporter to California to cover the proceedings, though Clinton represents New York. Instead, the Times relied on an AP report for Tuesday's second-day story."
In fact it's even worse than this, there was only one news truck outside the courthouse. You know who's it was? Fox. Fox News truck was the only trucking outside the courthouse, and the media is making a big deal out of that, showing Fox is bias. There are stories I think in the LA Times: "You know, this shows Fox's bias. They're the only truck there," and the judge in this case, I have to tell you, the judge in this case said Mrs. Clinton is not a target. She's not been a target. She's not going to be a target in this trial. The judge in this trial said if people looking at this as something to do with Mrs. Clinton; there's nothing here on Mrs. Clinton. (interruption) What? Her finance director, campaign finance director, David Rosen, a former staffer! One of her staffers, but it's not going to have a thing to do with her, regardless, doesn't mean anything. Don't look for this to involve Mrs. Clinton. Judge said this from the beginning of the trial yesterday, from the bench.
In fact, the New York Sun has a similar story on it. The judge is Howard Matz and he said, "This isn't a trial about Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or a principal. She's not going to be a witness." He was saying this as lawyers discussed written questionnaires filled out by potential jurors in the case. "Judge Matz said he plans to suggest to the jurors that they aside their views about Mrs. Clinton. 'She's not in the direct loop in any way, and that's something the jury will be told.'" She's not in the loop! I guess the trial is over. I guess the trial is over before it started because the judge has told the jury what's going to happen here in the trial. We can't be critical of the judiciary, folks. We can't do that, because that's not good. We can listen to Ted Kennedy attack the judiciary and Patrick Leahy and Harry Reid or any of the others, but we can't criticize the judiciary.
I goofed up the link title in the referral section. Limgaugh=Limbaugh. The link is good, however. Sorry.
Amazing that the judge was able to say anything with his mouth so obviously engaged....
I believe you are referring to the NewsMax representation of the Sun article.
The Sun article indicates no such thing.
While Matz correctly noted to the lawyers that HRC is not being called (I disagree with his characterization that she's not involved), the jury questionaire is replete with questions on jurors' opinions of her and her spouse.
In addition, the judge declined removing jurors who answered negatively toward about the Clintons.
Furthermore he ruled that the convictions of Tonken and Paul are irrelevent, though the Sun article indicates the prosecution's strategy includes bringing Paul's history forward in order to lay a foundation for Rosen's actions.
Here is the Sun article:
During yesterday's hearing, Judge Matz was unsparing toward Paul, who was extradited from Brazil to face the stock charge. "He's a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established," the judge said. Judge Matz also called Paul "a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual."
This case needs a new Judge!
Judiciary? What judiciary?
Does he mean the Clinton loving toads in black robes?
That, (so called) judiciary?
I didn't say he was unbiased. I said his rulings so far have been fair.
BTW, his description of Paul appears right on the money to me. The man is a convicted criminal. Still, the judge ruled the convictions were not admissable until the prosecution indicated they wanted to bring it up.
These hysterics to have him step aside seem ludicrous to me at this point. If he does something that warrants it, I'll join the hue and cry.
You need to read up on Peter Paul if you think the judge's description is accurate. Who's he been discredited by? Yeah, he's had problems in his past, but you believe he's a "con man" ?
I have. Perhaps you should.
I certainly did not say his testimony isn't important to this trial as you seem to imply. It is. He is a con man. A con man who was cozy with the Clintons and has a story to tell.
Con man? Because he was guilty of a securities violation?
BTW, Paul will not be testifying in this trial. For all intents and purposes he's virtually irrelevant in the Rosen trial. If irrelevant why did Matz bring him up?
Matz didn't bring him up, Rosen's attorneys wanted to enter Paul's (and Tonken's) past into evidence and the judge actually ruled Peter Paul's (and Aaron Tonken's) convictions are irrelevant.
What--you didn't know that?
But the prosecutor said he plans to introduce Paul's unsavory past as part of his strategy.
Oh, you didn't know that either?
Clinton Called Not a Target in Rosen Trial
excerpts:
...Judge Matz said he didn't see the relevance of Paul's and Tonken's prior crimes to the charge against Mr. Rosen.
~snip~
After the judge said he was inclined to keep the criminal records out of the case, the prosecution caused some surprise by announcing that it planned to raise Paul's history during the trial.
~snip~
Paul, once a Florida attorney, was convicted in 1979 for fraud in connection with a complex scheme involving a coffee deal and the national bank of Cuba. That same year he was convicted of cocaine trafficking in an unrelated case. In 1985, he pleaded guilty to trying to enter America from Canada using the identification of his deceased brother. And earlier this year, Paul pleaded guilty to a federal securities fraud charge stemming from the col lapse of a publicly traded company he ran, Stan Lee Media.
By all means, I want to hear his story, but spare me the "Peter Paul is a hero" line, please.
Who said he was a hero? Peter Paul is behaving like a scorned suitor. We can go back and forth about his "trafficking" conviction and his use of his brothers ID to get into Canada. This doesn't qualify him as being a con man. It does say he has had some serious lapses of judgment (which include donated a couple of million $$$ to the Clintons).
Here's the issue-- Matz is a Clinton appointed judge. Any judge with that lineage who states that the trial is not about Hillary and attacks the person who has filed a civil suit against her has crossed the line of impartiality. He should recuse himself.
In any event let's move on from Matz. He's not going to recuse himself whether it's warranted or not.
Why the prosecution wants to bring up Peter Paul's past is an unknown for me. I'm not familiar enough with campaign finance law to know whether convicted felons can contribute to election campaigns or not.
You know?
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.