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
Monday, January 3
Idi-otic Idea
by David on January 3, 2005 03:10PM (IST)
Idi Amin: Murderer. Tyrant. Good samaritan?
In one of the more unlikely and misjudged diplomatic interventions of modern times, brutal Ugandan dictator Idi Amin offered in 1974 to act as a peace broker in Northern Ireland, official British records showed on Saturday.
The offer, while privately dismissed as "preposterous" by officials in London, was nonetheless thought to be serious, meriting a formal reply to the negative, according to the newly-released files.
The move by Amin, whose rule over Uganda from 1971 to 1979 saw an estimated 400,000 deaths as well as the expulsion of the country's entire Asian population, came in mid-1974.
At the time, the conflict in Northern Ireland had entered one of its bloodiest periods.
"It appears that the political and security situation in Northern Ireland is becoming worse every passing day without any apparent feasible solution to it in sight," Amin wrote in a letter, now released by the National Archives.
"This serious and regrettable development calls for Britain's best and sincere friends to come to her assistance. Consequently, I avail my good offices at the disposal of the opposing sides in Northern Ireland.
"I suggest that representatives of your Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland as well as representatives of your government come to Uganda, far away from the site of battle and antagonism, for a conference on how to bring peace to their Province."
The letter was signed "General Idi Amin Dada", followed by a series of top British military honours the dictator had conferred on himself.
In a covering note, the British High Commission in Kampala said that while the offer showed Amin's "naive view of world affairs", it was nevertheless "a genuine and sincere effort to be helpful".
In London, Foreign Office officials noted that while they did not wish to spur Amin's "delusions of statesmanship", a polite reply would be necessary.
"As the general's messages go, this is one of his more lucid and, although it is as preposterous as one might expect, the acting high commissioner believes that it was sent with the best of intentions," one official informed Downing Street.
"It would therefore seem appropriate and courteous to return some acknowledgment."
Several briefly fell asleep after lunch during closing arguments. By what I read and saw, they should have had a verdict very quickly.
Re#22 Whose argument? Defense and prosecution or just the one? (Sorry to pester you with questions--d#mn the media blackout)
At one time or another, in both arguments, there were 5 or 6 jurors who dipped their heads and closed their eyes. I think it was mostly right after lunch during the prosecution's performance.
Let's say Rosen is found guilty:
1) Feds squeeze him to fess up or do major time. The wussy squeals like a stuck pig and lays out a perfect paper trail all the way to Hillary.
2) Dem illegal fundraising (the only kind they do) drys up faster than ether in the Mojave desert. Nobody wants to end up like Paul and Rosen.
OK, let's say Clinton-appointee-conflict-of-interest Judge Matz influences the trial and intimidates the jury onto a not-guilty verdict:
1) Feds open new Grand Jury investigation based on results of trial. Since the jury found that Rosen was innocent, and was merely duped by "Higher Ups," which Rosen had claimed all along, we'll supeona him and force him to testify in front of the GJ under penalty of perjury as to WHO the higher ups are, and of course, get the GJ to indict THEM. (Hopefully HILLARY.)
2) Dem illegal fundraising (the only kind they do) drys up faster than....
Rosen will be testifying. So will Hillary. Peter Paul's civil trial is moving forward, and her final effort to avoid it will soon be shut down.
"Seeing is believing, or believing is seeing. Which is it?"
A lot of the Clinton co-conspirators and groupies surely have trouble looking themselves in the mirror.
And we've got to get the TRUTH out by email, word-of-mouth etc. to our neighbors. Print out some of the articles, the Photoshopped cartoons etc. and share them. There will always be those who are in positions of public trust yet refuse to acknowledge or tell the truth, so we have to go around their obstructionism and complicity and get the word out ourselves.
Jim Robinson's deliberately made this site a FREE to help educate, he's not in it for the money.
(THANKS JIM!)
Thanks for the ping!
I only wish I'd known about FR sooner, I'd be more astute politically and more able to contribute to FR. Thanks to Jim for starting FR.
I do my best to get the word out. One friend quit speaking with me for about 6 months after I got on to her for believing "Vanity Fair." She was smarter than that.
Thanks for the ping; Thanks Doug.
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.