Did The Clinton Appointed Judge Intentionally Throw the Rosen Trial To Protect Hillary?
Did Clinton-appointed federal Judge Matz, intentionally unchallenged by the DOJ prosecutor, throw the David Rosen criminal case to protect Hillary Clinton?
Hillary Clinton’s campaign finance director, David Rosen, was acquitted in his criminal trial in Los Angeles in May of 2005. The lead prosecutor was a 20-year veteran of the Justice Department, Peter Zeidenberg, chief trial attorney for the Office of Public Integrity responsible for all DOJ prosecutions of political cases .
Zeidenberg was, coincidentally, the prosecutor who gave a very forceful closing statement in the criminal trial that saw Lewis “Scooter” Libby convicted for lying under oath about a matter that was not a crime. He also effectuated OPI Chief Noel Hillman’s decisions on how to not prosecute Sandy Berger for destroying original irreplaceable National Security Council documets with annotations by Bill Clinton about not killing Osama Bin Laden.
The conduct of the judge and prosecutor during the criminal case of Rosen has raised the legitimate question of whether the unnecessary trial of Rosen (because the government knew that his indictment was spurious in that Rosen did not have any unique information he hid from Hillary’s campaign causing the false FEC reports it made to be filed) was part of an elaborate plot to protect the political future of Hillary Clinton.
Now that the Norman Hsu fundraising scandal has forced the media to re-focus attention on Hillary and Bill’s notoriously unethical, and sometimes criminal, fund raising practices, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press has for the first time in two years commented on the historic developments in the Paul v Clinton civil fraud and coercion case pending in California.
With the recent release in April, 2007 by the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY of a smoking gun video of an illegal fundraising phone call from Hillary Clinton to Peter Paul in July, 2000 (a tape that was withheld from the DOJ, the FEC and the Rosen Grand Jury investigations into Hillary’s largest fund raising event) , Peter Paul’s attorneys are preparing a request to the new Attorney General to open a new investigation of the role Hillary, and the US Attorney she supervises as Senator from NY,played in obstructing all investigations that improperly exonerated Hillary Clinton for lack of any evidence linking her personally to the matter.
The most egregious possible example of a collusion directed by Hillary to cover-up her illegal role in the matter relates to the way that her judicial appointee, Judge A.Howard Matz (appointed by co-presidents Bill and Hillary Clinton to the federal bench in 1998) publicly “threw” the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director, David Rosen.
In an action that was more brazen than that of the infamous Chicago “Black” Sox team when they threw the world series, Judge Matz had no qualms about starting the Rosen trial with unprecedented prejudicial public statements by the Judge made to the jury that not only ensured an absolute acquittal of the defendant, but were patently false.
First, Judge Matz stated unequivocally that “This isn’t a trial about Senator Clinton.” “Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or principal.” “She’s not in the loop in any direct way, and that’s something the jury will be told. ” Judge Matz’s statements were patently prejudicial and false in that Senator Clinton had a tremendous stake in the trial- as both a party and a principal because of the ramifications of exposing her personal illegal actions, conspiring not only with Rosen, but with President Clinton as well, to illegally solicit and then hide Peter Paul’s contributions- the largest of her campaign.
The video that the US Attorney from NY withheld clearly shows that Hillary was not only personally “in the loop” directly and through her White House employee Kelly Craighead,contrary to the Judge’s assertions, but she was captured on video admitting to acting as a talent coordinator for the fundraiser, soliciting grossly excessive in kind contributions of the professional services of Cher, which she used to generate more than $1 million in hard money donations to her campaign through “ticket sales” for Cher’s performance.
The Jury was first deceived by the Judge when he stated Mrs. Clinton played no role in the Gala, which was at the heart of the case against Rosen. This judicial deception supported the government’s first objective, to deflect Hillary’s accountability by blaming her underling for hiding information he exclusively had from Hillary and her campaign about Paul’s contributions.
Then Judge Matz ensured that after Rosen took the heat during the trial for unilaterally victimizing Hillary Clinton in hiding the truth about the false information reported by her campaign to the FEC about Paul, Rosen would never be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the jury by virtue of the Judge’s own declarations to the jury. After telling the Jury, before any evidence was presented, that Hillary was not involved in any way in the matter, the Judge proceeded to declare publicly to them that Peter Paul was “a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual. He’s a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established.” The Judge did this knowing that Paul was a principal witness against Rosen, and that Rosen’s defense was based on discrediting Paul.
Since Rosen’s entire defense was based on the argument that Rosen was a dupe and victim of Mr Paul, who hid all information on what he was spending for Mrs Clinton, when the judge began the trial with the unprecedented and highly prejudicial statement about Paul being a con man, he effectively told the Jury that the Defense’s case was credible and therefore as a matter of law they could never legally conclude there was not reasonable doubt to allow them to find David Rosen guilty!
Normally, a judge’s actions that violate the integrity of a prosecution in this overt and unmitigated way would be challenged by the prosecutor- because the judge has rendered the entire trial moot before it began. But here the Prosecutor himself joined in assuring the jury that Hillary was in fact a victim in the case, and there would be no evidence of her involvement in any way. Rather than stopping the sham proceeding from being conducted by a judge who violated his oath of office to conduct trials fairly and objectively, the prosecutor proceeded to carefully lay out evidence that would protect Hillary so that she could point to her personal exoneration in the trial as definitive evidence of her lack of any culpability for the largest campaign finance fraud on record and thereby avoid accountability in the FEC and Senate Ethics Committee investigations launched by Peter Paul’s allegations.
Its all in the public record - all the public needs to do is read it and weep- that Hillary Clinton’s power to subvert our constitutional processes has become so great, she can preempt every branch of government’s ability to hold her accountable to the Rule of Law in plain view for all to see and fear.