Posted on 05/18/2005 6:55:37 AM PDT by areafiftyone
In a surprise move that shocked even the judge at the trial of Hillary's Clinton's former finance director, David Rosen - prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg announced yesterday that he would not introduce the government's strongest evidence that Rosen was guilty - the Hillary aide's own tape recorded admission implicating him in election fraud.
"The government does not intend to introduce the tape or elicit any testimony from the witness about that conversation," Zeidenberg told Judge A. Howard Matz.
Judge Matz was stunned by Zeidenberg's announcement, and hinted that the Bush prosecutor was throwing away his case.
"You couldn't keep [the tape] out," an incredulous Matz protested. "I wouldn't let you keep it out."
But eventually the Clinton appointed judge relented, saying he said he would allow Zeidenberg to file a "real pithy" argument in lieu of introducing the Rosen tape.
The Bush prosecutor went so far as to trash the Rosen audiotape, arguing that it was "hearsay," and requesting that Judge Matz bar even the defense from referencing it.
The explosive recording, made by Kennedy in-law Raymond Reggie during Sept. 2002 meeting with Rosen at a Chicago steakhouse, substantiated allegations by Rosen's chief accusers, Hollywood mogul Peter Paul and fundraiser Aaron Token, that Rosen deliberately understated the costs of an August 2000 gala fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton.
According to excerpts of the tape mentioned in an FBI affidavit, Rosen acknowledged to Reggie that the concert portion of the event may have cost $1 million or more. Rosen later reported costs to federal regulators of $400,000.
The Reggie tape also reportedly contains bombshell comments by Rosen suggesting that a top Democratic donor supplied prostitutes to "Clinton loyalists" - and even an account suggesting that then-President Clinton wanted to get in on the action.
News that the Bush Justice Department has decided to deep-six it's best evidence against Rosen improves his chances for acquittal - and dramatically lessens the pressure on him to implicate higher-ups in additional crimes.
The Bush administration has a long history of abandoning prosecutions against top Clinton figures. Just last month, Noel Hillman - head of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section - declined to prosecute former national security advisor Sandy Berger for his admitted theft of top secret terrorism documents, some of which he destroyed.
Instead, Berger was allowed to plead guilty to a one count misdemeanor of unauthorized removal of classified material. Hillman recommended that he serve no jail time, and instead pay a $10,000 fine.
Hillman's signature appears on Rosen's indictment.
In 2003, the Bush Justice Department dropped a compelling case against Mrs. Clinton, despite credible allegations that she traded votes in Hasidic enclave of New Square, New York for presidential clemency that was granted to four village leaders.
Though New York's Hasidic community overwhelmingly backed her opponent Rick Lazio in 2000, New Square voted for Hillary by a staggering margin of 1400 to 12.
In 2002, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York dropped an even more compelling case against former first brother Roger Clinton, who was accused of accepting bribes in exchange for presidential pardons.
In its first month in office, the Bush Justice Department struck a deal with Indonesian billionaire Mochtar Riady, who had funneled millions of dollars in illegal foreign donations into Clinton campaign coffers.
Riady was ordered to pay an $8 million dollar fine and perform community service in his home city of Jakarta, where U.S. officials had no jurisdiction to enforce the sentence.
The Bush family has grown increasingly close to Mr. Clinton over the last year - especially since Bush 41 teamed up with Mr. Clinton in tsunami relief efforts. Recent reports claim that President Bush and his brother Jeb now refer to the former president as "Bubba" and "Bro."
In his opening statement in the Rosen trial, prosecutor Zeidenberg promised he would take great pains not to implicate Mrs. Clinton in any wrongdoing, telling the court:
"You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any way shape or form. In fact, it's just the opposite. The evidence will show that David Rosen was trying to keep this evidence from the campaign."
Clintons have always had nuclear bomb on Bush Family and obviously, visa versa.
To these power elites, better to share power, than to mutually self destruct.
Can't a Clinton appointed judge be honest? At least honest enough to not want to be obviously biased. So someone bought and paid for the DA. Go and watch Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys all over this country. After they work against each other in court, they go out for drinks together. They belong to the same club, and their wives and children play together. Just like Democrat and Republican Presidents. Even ones that are patently corrupt hang out with the church going straight lace types. Maybe the corruption runs through them both?
That is a very stupid statement. The WH has nothing to do with this. Peter Zeidenberg is part of the US Department of Justice’s public integrity division and is insulated to some extent from whatever administration is in power.
Re#42 True, however, my skepticism is fueled by the host of Clinton appointees (at the trial court level) that consistently protected the 'Toons, only to be reversed on appeal. We'll see how this one pans out. Unfortunately, due to the lack of coverage, there's not a whole lot of 'expert' opining on the proceedings a la Jacko's trial. Oh well....
There's no appeal if he's let off.
True, but it goes to a jury. Tough to figure but we'll see. Perhaps the DOJ doesn't want to have to turn over the tape to the defense in 'discovery' (although I would think that's already done) and may have enough on Rosen already: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1405198/posts
Weiner Nation KOOK ALERT!!!
The fix has been in since Inauguration Day 2001 when Pres. Bush decided to gloss over the trashing of the White House by the Clinton staff.
And your explanation for this is... what again? Hm. These are the same Republicans that can't bear to assert their rights in Congress and actually force a vote on the floor.
Man, you're easy to please.
One aspect of this story I never see is that if Rosen is found guilty, doesn't that make Hillary Clinton guilty as well?... of receiving stolen property?
Receiving stolen property is a crime whether or not you knew the stuff was stolen when you received it.
Oh yes, does'nt this make you want to to donate your time and money to the GOP campaign in 2006 or what?
Sounds like Hellery has some tapes too...and someone knows that she'll use them if she has to. Obviously, the Justice Dept. is no match for that cut-throat schemer when even the Clintoon judge, who declared her innocent before the trial opened, can't believe his ears when they throw the case. Truly stinky.
Just makes me wanna go out there and open up my penny bank!
One aspect of this story I never see is that if Rosen is found guilty, doesn't that make Hillary Clinton guilty as well?... of receiving stolen property? Receiving stolen property is a crime whether or not you knew the stuff was stolen when you received it.
Tell that to the four or five guys in prison for bribing Bob Torricelli with cash and lavish gifts.
Meanwhile Bob’s busy acting as ombudsman for a $500 million dollar toxic cleanup site in NJ. Bob’s job is to make sure all the financial deals between NJ, the waste management, construction, hauling, and environmental companies are strictly above board. No deals go through without Bob’s approval. He is the final arbiter.
Despite Bob’s shakey ethical past, the Clinton-appointed judge who selected him for the position is confident that Bob will ensure that that half billion dollars is not subject to graft or theft.
In an interesting coinkydink, that judge’s nomination for his position was forwarded to President Clinton by none other than… (suspense builds… bet you can’t guess…) Senator Bob Torricelli.
They operate under entirely different rules than you and I.
THEN, if the Defendant sought to claim that the testimony was not true, the tape would become evidence that the Defendant was lying. In short, this may be a tactic to force the defense to put this tape in, or concede the criminal conversation.
Only if this is that kind of jujitsu move, does it make sense. I need to see a better description than NewsMax has provided here, to know whether that is the case. If so, NewsMax has gotten its knickers in a twist over a trial tactic, rather than a critical evidentiary concession.
Congressman Billybob
The Judge said last week that this trial will not be about Hillary Clinton. We already know she is riding free and clear on this. TYPICAL!
We know only a small part of what is on the tape. What we don't know may be dynamite in another area which will be pursued.
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.