Posted on 10/08/2005 12:09:57 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
The Washington Post has run an extended whitewash of dishonest conduct in Hillary Clinton’s 2000 campaign for the Senate from New York. The article, “House of Cards,” ran today, 8 October, 2005. The money quote, the one when Tom Sawyer really slaps the white paint on the fence, is in the 14th paragraph:
“ ‘Who knew?’ turned out to be a $1.176 million question. Federal law enforcement officials eventually confirmed that the gala, night of a thousand egos -- when Cher sang 'If I Could Turn Back Time,' the president cried for the cameras and con artists hobnobbed with the most powerful couple in the world -- cost somebody at least $1.176 million to produce. Yet Hillary Clinton's joint fundraising committee eventually reported that the gala cost just $401,419 in donated goods and services.”
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401150.html
In the following paragraph, the reporter, April Witt, attempts to answer the question by noting that David Rosen, “the only person charged with criminal conduct,” was found not guilty. That finding does not establish that neither Hillary Clinton, nor her chief fund-raiser David Rosen, knew about the fraud. For example, does the not guilty verdict for O.J. Simpson mean that he didn’t know who killed his ex-wife?
The reporter spends most of her article savaging the witnesses against Hillary Clinton. But if no one could be found responsible based on testimony of witnesses who have themselves committed crimes, no member of the Mafia would ever have gone to jail. Reporters, like prosecutors, have to take their witnesses as they find them. Sometimes, apparently “bad” people do tell the truth.
Had Ms. Witt done her job competently, she would have found out that both Hillary Clinton AND David Rosen knew about the $716,000 swindle in her campaign, BEFORE the final Report on that campaign was filed with the Federal Election Commission. The papers on Peter Paul’s civil suit against Hillary Clinton and others was served on both her and Rosen, before that final report was filed, under oath, with the FEC. The papers included receipts and copies of checks to prove the real cost of the Clinton Gala, as found as a fact by the FEC.
Both the false FEC report and the court documents including their date of service, are matters of public record. Any reporter, even one from the Post, could have found these documents. And then she could have included them in her story. There are more than a thousand people, me included, who knew these critical facts months ago. They have been all over the blogosphere that long. The reporter would have been clued in had she written about “the truth of the Clinton 2000 campaign,” rather than “colorful con men you might find amusing.”
Not until the fourth page of a five page article does the Post get to the reason why the Clinton Campaign would lie by three-quarters of million dollars about Gala costs. It was to free up that amount of apparent “gains” from the Gala to be spent for all purposes in the critical stage of her Senate race.
The only way to squeeze the truth out of this lengthy Post article is to read the facts from back to front, and ignore all the personal profiles of the colorful characters involved. Buried in this long article is a small but important article, that Hillary Clinton and her cronies knew about and benefitted from the largest fraud in federal election history. It’s a shame that the reporter utterly missed the very story that she was supposedly writing about.
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
"Drudge is on Hitlary's payroll."
But Rush had Drudge substitute for him when he was in the hospital... Are you sure?
Through their prejudice they only take care of their own kind.
"In this case, Hillary's finance director literally worked in my offices and witnessed and enabled all my payments on Hillary's behalf. There has never been a question of "authorizing" my contributions, only of reporting the ones I made, legally."
Thanks for that response.
If the campaign admits that you legitimately made all those expenditures on their behalf and they agree with the amounts, I don't see how they have any defense for reporting a lower numbers.
Do you have anything where they signed off on all those expenses? That would be helpful.
.....What I want to see printed is her Thesis!.....
Want to start a pool?
When will be the most damaging time? March 2006 or say april 2008?
I think it is out there just waiting for the most appropriate moment.
The reporter did not miss the story. The reporter deliberately tried to hide the real story in convoluted screed deliberately designed to confuse the non politically astute. Her objective was to make the average voter confused about what really happened and to thus instill the idea of this is "just politics as usual." This is actually the Washington Posts attempt to put this issue in the past.
I don't see an April Witt on the staff at the Washington Post. At any rate, she was a good girl. There are rewards to be had in painting the Clintons with a favorable brush, and punishments to be rendered should one cross their path too closely.
Two-bit hillbilly thugs at work in the highest places. Who would've thought?
Not the current AG. All anybody needs to do is look at how the U. S. Attorney's office took a dive at Rosen's trial. Toward the ent the gov. atty. even said Hillary didn't benefit from what Rosen did.
Oh boy, who has it? Yes, let's start a pool. Didn't the lady who died on the DC flight on 9/11 have her thesis and if so couldn't her hubby find it?
Peter, In what court will the civil trial be held, and, do you expect a court date before the Nov. 2006 elections?
"Had Ms. Witt done her job competently,"
Congressman, I must beg to respectfully disagree with you. Ms. Witt had half her twits about her and did her job most competently.
Unfortunately, her job was polishing 'RAT droppings, not journalism. She lives in denial if she privately considers herself anything other than a hack and a fraud.
Please reference via "italics" the reply to postings as I have with this one.
It makes it so much easier to reply in a timely fashion. : )
Which Klintoon?...OTOH, Don't answer...chil'ren may be present.
Ihave asked the question several times and never got a satisfactory answer. I think Liz Knows... but she won't tell.:-)
I concluded it is under constant guard by one of the good guys,to be presented at the time and place where it will do the most damage.
I refuse to believe it was destroyed for all time.
Hell Rush had Chris Matthews sub for him, what does that matter.
Lets hope your right!
I didn't know that. That does kind of blow the Drudge argument.
".....What I want to see printed is her Thesis!....."
When will be the most damaging time? March 2006 or say april 2008?
I think it is out there just waiting for the most appropriate moment.
***Hillary Clinton must be defeated in '06 because that will significantly diminish her political leverage for '08. What is just mind boggling is that her NY constituency KNOWS Hillary is powerlusting carpetbagging garbage, and yet they will still vote for her.
'06 NY senate campaign: Support Jeanine Pirro against Hillary Clinton.
It's fun to ridicule the Post reporter over this story. But it accomplishes nothing. It was Gonzales' Justice Department which inexplicably yanked Peter Paul's videotaped evidence which by all accounts would have convicted Rosen for sure. Even the RAT-appointed judge was stunned by this surrender. Like the Sandy Berger wrist-slap for treason/conspiracy, it was yet another disturbing Bush Administration intervention to rescue the Clintons from certain doom. The question is WHY?
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.