Posted on 05/26/2005 8:35:01 PM PDT by doug from upland
11- $2,000 Returned, We Keep the 2 Mil, Meet Bill on AF One with More
12 – Hillary’s Laundromat at 88 3rd Avenue, Brooklyn, NY
13 - How Is David Rosen Like Sally Field?
NOTE: This is the 14th episode in a series of stories regarding the events surrounding Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Hollywood fundraiser, and the business relationship of entrepreneur Peter Paul, the impeached William Jefferson Clinton, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, perpetrator of the largest campaign finance fraud in the history of Western Civilization.
I almost felt badly for defense attorney and long-time Democrat Kool-Aide drinker Paul Sandler. After all, his client really had no defense, but Sandler had to try to create one out of thin air. Perhaps he could have claimed a wardrobe malfunction. That would have been more believable than what was heard in court.
Some of Sandler’s comments and anecdotes in his summation were almost laughable. He had to use anecdotes or he would have been able to use only about 10 minutes of the 90 allocated to him. Sandler spoke of the prosecution’s “BS,” explaining that it wasn’t the BS of which you are thinking. In this case, it was beef stew. If you take a bite of beef stew and it is rancid, you don’t go poking your fork into the beef stew trying to find a good bite. You throw out all the beef stew.
Sandler tried to convince the jury that all of the testimony of Ray Reggie and Jim Levin was beef stew and must be thrown out. They were convicted felons, made a plea deal, lied on the stand, and nothing of what they said could be believed. All the BS must be thrown out. Prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg made sure, however, that the jury understood both Reggie and Levin would lose their plea deals with the government if they were not truthful in their testimony. They had no reason or motive to lie. Rosen clearly had every reason to lie. He wants to share his bedroom with Melissa, not some tatooed and pierced guy nicknamed Mad Dog.
When Reggie reads the transcript, I wonder if he will be amused with Sandler's characterization of him as "So low he could crawl under the belly of a snake wearing a tophat." It wasn't explained, but I presumed that Reggie, not the snake, was wearing the tophat. I guess that makes more sense.
There was indeed a big load of beef stew which chef Sandler himself tried to serve up to the jury. He used it throughout the trial. It was a chart he created to fool the jury. It cannot be stated any other way. It’s purpose was to fool the jury. Oh, all right. It can be said another way. Its purpose was to deceive the jury. How's that?
Rosen had an interesting defense. He might have made a few mistakes or errors in judgment, but he didn’t do anything wrong, at least not intentionally. He was misled about the costs of the fundraiser. Everyone was deceiving the poor naïve David, described by his counsel as "courageous." No reasonable person could expect him to be a supersleuth or a Sherlock Holmes. Yep, Sandler really did say that.
Come on, maybe we should lighten up and cut Rosen some slack. It's not as though the guy had the experience of someone who had put on 90 campaign events in a senatorial campaign. Oh, wait a minute. He did.
When they heard Sandler tell the jury, “You could see Mr. Rosen’s credibility and demeanor on the stand,” it almost looked as if prosecutors Zeidenberg and Daniel Schwager had to bite their lips to avoid bursting out into unrestrained laughter. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA in the court room would not have pleased Clinton-appointed judge A. Howard Matz.
I almost lost it when Sandler pointed at his client and said, with a straight face and not as a punch line, "If this country looks for leaders and heroes, there is one." He was so proud that his client had the courage to take the stand and answer every question.
Although Rosen told a plethora of lies and half truths, what the defense attorney did as an officer of the court was perhaps more egregious. The defense created an organizational chart that showed Stan Lee as the host of the fundraiser. In the next level, among others was Peter Paul. The next level had other peripheral players.
The beef stew Sandler was dishing out was that Stan Lee himself was the host and underwriter. And since Bretta Nock was the one working for Stan Lee (actually, she worked for Aaron Tonken) she had all the details of the budget. That was her job. Rosen really relied on her, and she and others deceived the poor defendant. According to Rosen, if he had taken time to pay attention to all these expenses, he would have no time for fundraising.
Time after time, citing unreported expense after unreported expense, Zeidenberg asked the defendant if wondered about an expense. Did he ask anyone about the expense? Was he even curious about the expense? The answers were no, no, and no.
One of the big lies told by Rosen was a double Whopper with cheese, bacon, and loads of extra mayo. The former general counsel of SLM was David Madden. Madden testified that he, Paul, and Rosen met in Paul’s office and Madden made it absolutely unambiguous to Rosen that neither Stan Lee Media nor Stan Lee was underwriting the event. They were paying none of the costs. This was Paul’s deal. Madden, of course, had absolutely no motive to lie. Rosen denied on the stand that such a meeting ever took place. "Absolutely not!" he said as he doth protesteth too much. (Did I expresseth that correctly?)
Sandler put the chart up again in closing arguments, expecting the jury to still believe his great lie. Like the relative you can’t convince to leave or perhaps even better, like the Saturday Night Live episode with Bill Murray and Garrett Morris in which Idi Amin wouldn’t leave, the phony chart would not leave.
Seven witnesses and many documents were at odds with Rosen's testimony. Everyone is lying except the poor campaign finance director whose job is to determine the costs and income from an event so they can be reported to the compliance officer for transmission to the FEC.
It really is time, Mr. Sandler, to throw out your rancid, beef stew. It is covered with flies and maggots and is stinking up the place. They wouldn't even eat it on Fear Factor. The jury will go get takeout, thank you. Perhaps takeout from Wolfgang Puck at Spago. You know, Mr. Sandler, Spago? That is where Peter Paul paid 27 grand for an event that was never declared by your client.
Virtus
5-26-05
Doug from Upland
Heard you on Tony Snowe this morning.
Great job as usual....only wish you had more time but you managed to score a lot of points in the time you had.
I havaen't been following this, but it seems to me that a Clinton-appointed judge would have a conflict of interest.
Tony was going to give me some more time, but he ran out of time.
Ping time.
That having been said, the judge should not have earlier released him from the third count. It could be significant. The judge said the government had no basis to tie Rosen to the final amended report. If they didn't use Rosen's false info, whose info did the judge think they used? Why that may be sigificant is that, prior to the final amended filing on July 30, 2001, Peter Paul had served several defendants, providing copies of checks for the expenses. There was no way that they could claim they didn't know.
Ping time.
Larry Elder makes it clear that his name is not spelled like Joycelyn Elders.
Awesome, Doug!
Tony Snow would cringe. Spelling his name like RINO Olympia Snowe. :) (I promise not to tell Tony)
Do you listen to Tony's show in the morning?
Yes, I try to listen most mornings.....I prefer Tony's show to all the others.
Doug and we freepers may see this fraud situation clearly, but the judge and others don't.
Seeing is believing, or believing is seeing. Which is it?
Great summary, Doug. How did the jury look during Rosen's cross-exam and the defense counsel's closing? Any smirks or shaking heads to be noticed? In any event, we'll see--probably today before lunch. Thanks for all you do...
You're not only thorough, you are entertaining! Go Doug go!
Although at first I wanted to see Hillary's name involved in this, it was important to keep her out. That would have made it political and could have influenced jurors. The focus for the prosecution is on and had to be on Rosen.
Thanks - much appreciated!
That can be good. Based on the evidence I saw here, your anecdotal reports and human nature, methinks that the prosecution did a good job whereas the jury may have felt insulted by the defense. We'll see...
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.