Prosecutor: Hillary a Victim

Newsmax ^ | 5/12/05 | unknown

[beyond the sea]

In his opening statement in the trial of Hillary Clinton's finance director David Rosen, Justice Department prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg seemed to spend as much time insisting that Mrs. Clinton was an innocent victim as he did laying out his case against her underling.

"You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved [in Rosen's crimes] in any way, shape or form," Zeidenberg told a U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz on Wednesday.

"In fact, it's just the opposite," the prosecutor insisted, in quotes picked up by the Associated Press. "The evidence will show that David Rosen was trying to keep this evidence from the campaign."

Aides to Mrs. Clinton, who might have discovered that Rosen had underreported a $1.2 million contribution by Hollywood mogul Peter Paul, were likewise conned by the bespectacled 40-year-old, he said.

According to Zeidenberg, Rosen "lied directly to the compliance officer of the Clinton campaign" about the full amount Paul spent to cover expenses for a star-studded Aug. 2000 gala fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton.

Zeidenberg didn't explain, however, how Mrs. Clinton's then-spokesman, Howard Wolfson, seemed to have knowledge of the event's true costs at a time when senior Clinton campaign officials were supposedly in the dark.

Speaking to the Washington Post five days after the Aug. 12 event, Wolfson acknowledged that Mr. Paul had contributed "$1 million" - far more than the $400,000 Rosen would later report.

Wolfson also seemed to know specific details about the underreported contribution, telling the Post: "It was an in-kind contribution . . . and not a check."

Paul told NewsMax last month that Wolfson's comments show that senior Clinton campaign officials "knew there was an issue about my involvement and they knew there was an issue about how much it cost" well before Rosen filed false reports with the FEC.

[beyond the sea]

"You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved [in Rosen's crimes] in any way, shape or form," Zeidenberg told a U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz ---

This will be the perverted, protective, biased attitude about her by the old media going up to the 2008 election day. Look out.

[kingattax]

yes indeed.....we are seeing a preview.

[kingattax]

hey doug...you following this farce ?

[beyond the sea]

"I think for me, the sickest and scariest kind of rage is the Hillary Clinton kind of rage. You know, the perpetual permafrost smile she wears that's hiding a well of fury deeper than Barry White's voice during a bout of pneumonia." -- Dennis Miller

****

The old/lying lefty media will be calling her "perpetual permafrost smile" the sweet, understanding, and kindly smile of Donna Reed.

The old Dem./liberal/socialist media is America's most ruthless, relentless, and destructive enemy.

[I still care]

After watching Kerry get whitewashed throughout the 2004 campaign, you know they are going to pull out all the stops for Hillary.

Nothing bad has ever touched her, or ever will. The MSM will protect her with every ability they have.

[Nick Danger]

For all you folks who slept through civics class, a word about trials:

This is a criminal trial. It is referred to as 'US v Rosen.' That means that some guy named 'Rosen' has been charged with a crime, and they are going to hold a trial to decide whether he, i.e. Rosen, is guilty.

In the United States, criminal trials are not detective agencies. They are not wide-ranging Searches For Truth where the object is to find out 'who done it.' They are very narrow proceedings in which very specific charges are brought against very specific individuals. Within that trial, nothing does not bear on the guilt or innocence of the accused is relevant.

This means that it is not the purpose of this trial to find out whether Hillary Clinton did it.

It is not the purpose of this trial to determine the guilt or innocence of Hillary Clinton.

This trial is about whether David Rosen "caused to be filed materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements."

Stop waiting for Hillary Clinton to be convicted in this trial. It is not going to happen. It is not supposed to happen. A conviction of Hillary Clinton is not a possible outcome of a case called US v Rosen.

Now cool yer jets and watch the show.

US v Clinton comes later.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Nothing bad has ever touched her

Then how do you explain Chelsea? :)

[dokmad]

"Prosecutor: Hillary a Victim"

Who did'nt see this coming?

[Joe Boucher]

How about Bill?
You know he's bad personified.
I don't think he is the devil though, just the devils husband.

[beyond the sea]

US v Clinton comes later. ---

How much later?

;-)

[leprechaun9]

It is interesting that the 'Persecutor' only named Hillary as a person who the jury would not hear any evidence against. Of course, the trial is about Rosen!

But why didn't the 'Persecutor' say that no evidence would be heard about Billy (her companion), Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Harry Reid or Sen Dud (CT) the 1996 co-bagman for the Democrat Party or the other perpetrators?

I believe the primary objective of the 'Persecutor' in this case is NOT TO CONVICT ROSEN, but to provide a VICTIM DEFENSE FOR THE SMARTEST WOMAN THAT EVER LIVED!

[SkyPilot]

Y'all listen to Nick on this.

[wastoute]

What did she know and when did she know it!

[Nick Danger]

But why didn't the 'Persecutor' say that no evidence would be heard about Billy (her companion), Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Harry Reid or Sen Dud (CT) the 1996 co-bagman for the Democrat Party or the other perpetrators?

Thank you for sharing. It is always disappointing to hear from someone who expects a trial about David Rosen to throw the kitchen sink at a bunch of other people instead.

I believe the primary objective of the 'Persecutor' in this case is NOT TO CONVICT ROSEN, but to provide a VICTIM DEFENSE FOR THE SMARTEST WOMAN THAT EVER LIVED!

That's the beauty of America. You have every right to believe that. The rest of us are powerless to pound any sense into you.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

If she's so innocent then why even mention her at all?

[nuke rocketeer]

"Department prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg seemed to spend as much time insisting that Mrs. Clinton was an innocent victim as he did laying out his case against her underling."

Yeah, riiight! Ms. Control Freak did not know what underling was doing.

[The Electrician]

In any criminal trial, when establishing a motive, doesn't the prosecutor present evidence about who benefited from the crime? In this case, who benefited from Rosen's alleged actions? Isn't it clear that Hillary Clinton benefited from Rosen's actions? By contrast, can anybody explain how Rosen may have benefited from Rosen's own actions?

[beyond the sea]

doesn't the prosecutor present evidence about who benefited from the crime?

Apparently........... NOT this one!

;-)