Posted on 05/19/2005 12:17:22 PM PDT by QwertyKPH
A key prosecution witness testified Wednesday that she was instructed by the national finance director for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to falsify costs for a star-studded fundraiser held on the eve of the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles.
Gretta Nock, a professional event planner, said she did not think it was her place to question Clinton Finance Director David Rosen and went along with the alleged scheme.
Rosen is charged with causing the Clinton Senate campaign to underreport more than $800,000 in expenses to the Federal Election Commission.
As a result, the campaign was able to spend more "hard" money on direct advocacy in the closing days of the New York Senate race, according to Justice Department lawyers.
They say the Democratic senator was unaware of any wrongdoing.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Heat is getting closer to Hitlery. Hehehehehe!
LA Times?!? Must have been on page 412
Except I guess for the hand delivered letter to her weeks before the final filing telling her that it was her constitutional duty to correct the filing to reflect the actual costs. It spelled out to her what the costs were and reminded her that it was a Federall crime to under report the costs. But I guess perhaps PIAPS, the smartest woman in the world didn't understand what that meant!
An off the record denal ?
Anyone notice how quiet the Beast has been recently, with the filibuster and all going on.
I told you!!! We should have taken him to the party with Vince!!!!
Anyone notice how quiet the Beast has been recently, with the filibuster and all going on.
OH SENATOR, any comment... Yes, I'm going to keep my mouth shut until this blows over.
I don't know about that...an interesting tidbit I found in an article earlier (we now know this informant was Ted Kennedy's Brother-in-law, but didn't when this was published):
While the informant's work for the FBI on Mr. Rosen's case dates back to 2002, the agency continued to work closely with the witness through the end of 2004, court documents indicate. The November 2004 filing indicates the FBI was planning to use the informant in an investigation of "a prominent political figure who may be involved in illegally soliciting foreign nationals to contribute to national political campaigns." The target of the inquiry was suspected of "funneling illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals to individuals running for federal office."
There is no indication in the documents whether the "prominent political figure" who may have been soliciting illegal gifts from foreigners is the same person to whom the informant is related.
The same unidentified informant was also being asked to record phone calls with targets of an investigation into alleged political corruption in Louisiana, the court filing late last year said. That scheme involved a state senator and a "fraudulent contract worth five million dollars," prosecutors asserted.
Note: The NY Sun requires registration, so I pulled this from another site that had the whole article, even FR didn't publish this part of the story, only an excerpt.
Could there be another trial coming up for Hillary concerning foreign donations? Could it have something to do with Tendo Oto, a foreign national contributing to this gala and attending it? Inquiring minds would like to know... : )
If she could be brought down on a more serious foreign donations charge, it would explain why they are not persuing her in this particular case.
Yo raving,
I hope you're correct on this matter.
This is too good an opportunity to hobble Hillary. She is a fomidable political oponent and 2008 is not that far off.
The campaign was given complete info by Peter Paul along with cancelled checks prior to their final amended FEC filing of July 30, 2001. Of course they knew. They all knew. They thought all it would lead to was a big fat fine. So what? They pay that out of contributor funds. A fine is meaningless when we are talking about a senate seat.
Something prosecutors could not possibly know. We may see a change in their view when the defendant is given the opportunity to reduce his sentence.
On the contrary, prosecution told the jury that they would be hearing no evidence of Hillary's involvement. Now, they have graduated to a blanket statement that she knew nothing about any of it. My best guess is that prosecution just wants some political cover during the trial. It's just possible that following conviction, Rosen may roll over on her in exchange for sentencing consideration. Since he's got a rap sheet, he would be looking at more time behind bars than he might want to spend.
Even if nobody, including Rosen, is willing to rat out Hillary, the mere fact that her campaign people are exposed as liars and crooks for months on end is enough to put some significant mud on her -- at least, in the public eye, and that's what counts in an election.
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.