PDA

View Full Version : Clinton Crime Family Member goes to Trial



Hell To Pay
05-08-2005, 07:07 AM
How funny is this? Times-Picayune Article (http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1115447139105270.xml)

Kennedy Crime Family member rats out Clinton Crime family.

Bubba Crin-ton wants some Ho's

Unindicted co-conspiritor Hillary scrambles to cover her fat ***.

Hell To Pay
05-08-2005, 02:55 PM
Found this today, It just gets worse and worse.

Your article in the New Orleans Times Picayune May 7, 2005http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index
.ssf?/base/news-3/1115447139105270.xml

I take issue with the following quotes:

"As his civil case loses ground in court, Paul has seen his legal problems mount."

..a meritless civil suit brought by Peter paul, and have succeeded in having most of that suit dismissed."

If you will review the narrative on www.hillcap.org, you will see the facts surrounding the progress of Paul v Clinton contradict the supposition you have reported based on David Kendall's misleading analysis.

My legal problems have been diminishing since the government finally allowed me to return to the US in September, 2003. The charges filed against me in california were dismissed in January, 2005, and the charges in NY were greatly diminished in a superseding indictment filed by the govcernment in May, 2004. There was no $50 million stock fraud, there was only a violation of SEC Reg 10(b)5 in the way I traded my own stock in accounts I legally held at Merrill Lynch.My allocution, prepared by the government, and the superseding indictment confirm that. So in fact my legal problems have been diminishing dramatically after I first blew the whistle on the Clintons in March, 2001.

David Kendall is parroting his mantra that my civil suit, Paul v Clintons et al, is meritless and most of it has been dismissed. First, he is insulting the integrity and capability of the California judiciary, which listened to his arguments at the trial level, the appellate level and then at the California Supreme Court - and they all agreed that the first ever suit alleging a President and Senator conspired with others to defraud a business associate had sufficient merit to proceed on its substantive charges! That shows that the entire California judiciary believes the suit has sufficient merit to cause a President and Senator to prepare for trial. David Kendall owes an apology to those jurists who thought his arguments to throw out the case against his clients had no merit.

The civil case, as a result, is now primed for discovery, which will demonstrate through evidence and witness testimony that Hillary Clinton orchestrated the biggest campaign finance fraud in US history, for which she is allowing her functionary, former finance director David Rosen, face a first ever trial for election fraud, committed at her behest. For any legal questions on this suit, feel free to talk with Robert Levy, public interest lawyer and 1st amendment litigator in Los Angeles, (phone number redacted.)

In the future, I would hope you make the rudimentary journalistic effort to at least give the appearance of impartiality and professionalism, and that you make a minimal effort to obtain some response from a principal in your story before you report subjective conclusions based on a clearly biased mouthpiece for the malevolent parties.

Peter Paul

http://e.1asphost.com/garity/188936.jpg

Hell To Pay
05-13-2005, 12:51 AM
This is even in the New York Times, where you commies get your marching orders from, exerpted. Of course the Crin-tons had no idea they hired criminals. The Secret Service must have just made an oopsy, huh donkey brained Crin-ton lovers?

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/nyregion/13clinton.html?)

LOS ANGELES, May 12 - Add one to the odd cast of criminal characters haunting the trial of David F. Rosen, who is facing felony charges in federal court here in connection with his fund-raising for the senatorial campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. ...snip...

Mr. Levin also testified that on Monday he had entered into a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in Chicago under which he could face as much as 20 years in prison on charges involving conspiracy, bribery or fraud. But he is hoping a sentencing judge will look favorably on him because of his cooperation in Mr. Rosen's case, he said. ....snip...

In their defense, Mr. Rosen's lawyers have contended that Mr. Rosen was himself hoodwinked by two other men who worked on the event with him and Mr. Levin.

One is Aaron Tonken, who is serving five years, three months in federal prison after pleading guilty to fraud involving fund-raising for charities. The other is Peter F. Paul, who has an extensive criminal record and is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to securities fraud. ..snip...

Someone who is expected to testify, Raymond Reggie, pleaded guilty last month to federal charges in New Orleans stemming from a scheme to defraud banks.

Hell To Pay
05-17-2005, 05:45 PM
'Dear, dear friend of the president' admits to knowledge of Hillary fund-raiser scam (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44319)

An associate and friend of Bill Clinton has testified in court he knew about the campaign-finance fraud involving a Hillary Clinton fund-raiser, raising further questions about what the president and then-first lady knew about the scam.

An associate and friend of Bill Clinton has testified in court he knew about the campaign-finance fraud involving a Hillary Clinton fund-raiser, raising further questions about what the president and then-first lady knew about the scam.

David Rosen, a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, is on trial in Los Angeles for allegedly lying about the true cost of a 2000 Hollywood gala event attended by the candidate and then-President Clinton. .........

.......Tom Fitton, president of government watchdog legal group Judicial Watch, was present for Levin's testimony on Thursday and called it "devastating for the Clintons.".....

...In his testimony, Levin discussed a Chicago meeting that included himself, longtime Hillary aide Kelly Craighead and Rosen.

According to Fitton, Levin testified Rosen said at the meeting: "We didn't hear that; you didn't tell me that" while discussing the true cost of a Chicago fund-raiser involving Olivia Newton John.

Noted Fitton: "They're all talking campaign-finance fraud!" .....

..."Levin largely confirmed everything [former Judicial Watch client] Peter Paul had been saying about the escalating cost, Peter's constant complaints about it and Rosen's refusal to deal with it."

Paul, a former Hollywood Internet entrepreneur and partner of "Spiderman" creator Stan Lee, says he spent nearly $2 million to produce the Hollywood gala and was repeatedly assured that his expenses would be reported to the Federal Election Commission, according to Judicial Watch....

...."Despite the government's efforts and the judge's efforts to keep the Clintons out of the trial, it is about the Clintons," Fitton told WND. ...

... "Rosen is being hung out to dry," he said.

Rosen's trial resumed today and is expected to take two weeks to complete.

Hell To Pay
05-18-2005, 08:49 PM
Raymond Reggie tape won't be used against David Rosen (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/46791.htm)

The fix is in. Someone threatened with Arkancide or an Arkcident.

http://e.1asphost.com/garity/Stamp_Image_Liberals_I_Want_You_to_Move.jpg

Hell To Pay
05-18-2005, 09:43 PM
Planner says ex-Hillary Clinton aide hid costs of fundraiser (http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=3364319)

LOS ANGELES The trial of Hillary Clinton's former national finance director continued today in Los Angeles with an event planner testifying she was ordered by David Rosen to obtain a fake invoice connected to a Hollywood fundraising gala.
Bretta Nock told jurors that Rosen told her to get a 200-thousand dollar invoice for the concert portion of the celebrity bash, when the actual costs were much higher.

Rosen has pleaded not guilty to three charges of filing false financial statements connected with Clinton's 2000 Senate run. He's accused of under-reporting donations from the event, which drew such stars as Cher, Diana Ross and Brad Pitt.

Hell To Pay
05-19-2005, 07:53 PM
Sen. Kennedy relative testifies in Clinton fundraising case (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-fundraisi0519may19,0,2045595.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork)

LOS ANGELES -- A brother-in-law of Sen. Edward Kennedy testified in federal court Thursday against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former national finance director, who is accused of lying to regulators about the cost of a lavish Hollywood fundraiser.

Exerpt--Read more at Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-fundraisi0519may19,0,2045595.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork)

http://e.1asphost.com/garity/Bumper_Sticker_Democrat_Party_Corrupt_Criminal_Ent erprise.jpg

Zen Curmudgeon
05-19-2005, 10:43 PM
Prosecutors: Rosen Panicked and Lied About Hillary Fundraiser

NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, May 12, 2005

LOS ANGELES - A former aide to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign panicked when costs for a star-studded Hollywood fundraiser soared and contributions exceeded $1.1 million, prosecutors say, then he lied to the government to conceal it.

It was David Rosen's job to raise money for Clinton's campaign and to keep track of how much was spent, prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg said in opening statements Wednesday.

But "you will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any way shape or form," Zeidenberg told jurors. "In fact, it's just the opposite. The evidence will show that David Rosen was trying to keep this evidence from the campaign."

Clinton has not been charged in the case against her former finance director, and the New York senator was not expected to testify.

What's also informative is the Senate vote approving the nomination of the federal judge presiding over this case, Judge Howard Matz, who was approved with no "nay" votes by the Senate on June 26, 1998. Senators who voted "Yea" included:

Allard (R-CO), Ashcroft (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Campbell (R-CO), Frist (R-TN), Gramm (R-TX), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Helms (R-NC), Hutchison (R-TX),Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Santorum (R-PA), Thurmond (R-SC).

Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Wayne Allard, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Rick Santorum like this judge. Liberal bias, huh?

Except for poor hiring decisions, maybe Ms. Clinton's blameless here, despite the wishes of some.

Take Care -

ZC

Hell To Pay
05-20-2005, 12:59 AM
How niavely foolish of you to believe Hildebeast is blameless.

This trial is about convicting one of the Clinton Crime Family members, Rosen, not the Crin-tons, and that is just what the prosecuter in this case is going to accomplish. The Crin-tons will have to testify in another upcoming case.

Peter Paul, who has an upcoming civil case vs. the Clintons, has had over a million dollars stolen from him by the criminal Clintons. Hillary Clinton has her signature on this DEMAND LETTER (http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=13) from Paul dated on 7/16/2001 before the crooks even filed their fraudlent FEC statement. Obviously she knew about the cost.

There is another smoking gun as well. Hildebeast personally called the concert portion producer and asked him to lower his fee for his service by $50,000, from $850,000 to $800,000. She knew how much it cost and how much her campaign had. She was about to go bankrupt and lose the election. She is the one who decided to commit election fraud, and to steal Peter Paul's money.

Either you leftists believe your commie hero is a CRIMINAL, or you leftists who lack critical thinking and reading skills can assume she's just a completely incompetent idiot.
http://e.1asphost.com/garity/356074.191133.gif

Zen Curmudgeon
05-20-2005, 02:08 AM
Hell to Pay said, "The Crin-tons will have to testify in another upcoming case."

OK, provide references, specify "another upcoming case" so we all can see it. Be sure to explain how you know that subpoenas will be issued.

Do you know the names of the process-server companies, their telephone numbers, the names of their lawyers, and who they send out as servers for their subpoenas?

Or are you just in the methane-production business for any one even named "Clinton" in some future trial that you have yet to identify?

Look, I'm open to new info that doesn't involve personal attacks on people you've never met, Hell to Pay. So gimme some FACTs, HtP.

Do you have a real case, or do you have the same sort of pinhead prejudice that once thought the earth was flat and the Pope was correct in imprisoning astronomers?

Is there some thought behind your rants, or are you merely another Internet troll?

I'm betting your response will be a a series of personal attacks on people you've never met.

So, prove me wrong, Hell to Pay, stand on your own 2 feet. Back it up, or be another mealy-mouthed pussilianimous pissant.

Fact, Fiction, or Fantasy. Pick one and back it up.

And do take care - really -

ZC

Hell To Pay
05-20-2005, 04:17 AM
Read (prove that you can for a change) it and weap (http://www.hillcap.org/pp_complaint_022504.pdf) for your commie heros.

They are the DEFENDANTS. That means they have to go to TRIAL, just like the California Supreme Court ruled. Get it yet?

This link to this and other documents were provided earlier in the thread, but you would rather spout your lies, (Conservative news source agrees; Hillary blameless---when they said no such thing, just that the prosecutor would not introduce that evidence in ROSEN'S criminal trial), get angry at the truth, as is typical with condesending leftists, and attack the messenger, (Personally, you hypocrite.) without actually reading what was posted.

If you want to call me Right -Wing, go ahead, I promise I won't take it personal and whine about it.

But if you can't deal with the truth, then stay off this thread.

http://e.1asphost.com/garity/democrybaby.jpg

Zen Curmudgeon
05-20-2005, 10:25 AM
Thanks for the link. But it's to Hillcap - I'd like something a little more objective. Even Fox News recognizes the bias:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155425,00.html

Web Sites Target Hillary Clinton's Ambitions
Wednesday, May 04, 2005

By Liza Porteus

"The Web site launched Tuesday night, www. Hillcap.org, is a joint effort between former Clinton fund-raiser Peter Paul and the self-confessed conservative group U.S. Justice Foundation, who are calling it the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project "

Hillcap relies heavily on the dubious word of one Peter Paul. His criminal career seems to adversely effect his credibility, don't you think? From Fox again:

"Paul, however, does have legal tangles of his own. In March, Paul, co-founder of Stan Lee Media Inc., pleaded guilty to securities fraud. The charges arose from Paul's leading role in a scheme to manipulate the price of Stan Lee Media common stock; prosecutors said the scheme resulted in approximately $25 million in losses. Paul was originally indicted in June 2001, but fled to Brazil, where he was arrested by Brazilian authorities in August 2001 and extradited to the United States in July 2003.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, according to the Justice Department, Paul could face up to 10 years imprisonment, a maximum fine of $5 million and restitution to be determined by the court. This is Paul's second guilty plea. In 1979, he pleaded guilty to cocaine possession and trying to defraud Fidel Castro's government out of millions of dollars. He served 30 months in prison, according to news reports."

And there's that lawsuit mentioned on Hillcap - Mr. Paul claims he has documentary evidence of wrongdoing by both the former President and Senator Clinton - but even the Bush Department of Justice isn't interested. Fox again:

"A spokesman for the Justice Department, Bryan Sierra, told The New York Times in February that Sen. Clinton was not a subject of the investigation that led to the indictment and no one else had been accused of any wrongdoing arising from the accusations against Rosen."

Mr. Paul can't seem to get anyone to buy his story, except for those folks at Hillcap, of course.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rosen20may20,1,879537.story?coll=la-headlines-california

"Rosen's defense lawyers say he was kept in the dark about the actual price tag by businessman Peter Paul, who underwrote the costs in a bid to curry favor with the Clintons; and by Paul's protege, Aaron Tonken, who specialized in recruiting Hollywood celebrities for charity events.

Since the Clinton fundraiser, Paul has been convicted of defrauding investors in a now-bankrupt Internet company he co-founded with Spider-Man creator Stan Lee. It was his third felony conviction. Tonken is serving a five-year prison term for defrauding some of the charities he represented. The prosecution has opted not to call either man to testify."

And then the guy who wore the wire - Raymond Reggie - pleaded guilty last month to federal check kiting and conspiracy charges.

Well, the prosecution plans to rest its case today, and the defense will have its turn. Maybe the outcome has already been predicted. Mr. Tonken, Mr. Paul's felonious protege.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/09/politics/printable694054.shtml

"'David (Rosen) I don't think deserves to go to jail,' co-organizer Aaron Tonken said in a recent interview from prison, where he is serving 63 months for unrelated charges of defrauding charities of hundreds of thousands of dollars. "

Take Care -

ZC

Hell To Pay
05-20-2005, 11:54 AM
The California Superior, Appellate, and Supreme Courts must all be biased too, huh?

After all, they have consistently ruled Paul's case has merit and must proceed to trial. How biased of them. How dare Peter Paul have documented evidence of the Crin-ton's theft and election fraud.

Are you surprised that the Crin-tons surround themselves with criminals? Did you just fall off of a turnip truck?

http://e.1asphost.com/garity/EyeLies.gif

Zen Curmudgeon
05-20-2005, 01:54 PM
In re: the criminal proceedings that began this thread:

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/19/230036.shtml

NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, May 20, 2005

...Prosecutors say Rosen, panicked over mounting expenses, intentionally caused forms to be filed with the Federal Election Commission that underreported "in-kind" contributions used to pay for the event by about $800,000.

Rosen's attorney Paul Sandler has said the costs were hidden from Rosen by event organizers, and emphasized Thursday that the Clinton campaign didn't benefit from the underreporting...

Rosen has pleaded not guilty to three charges of filing false statements with the government. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, plus fines.

Clinton, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, has not been charged or linked in court to any wrongdoing. Neither Clinton nor former President Clinton are expected to be called to testify.

And regarding the civil suit HtP has linked to, there is very little news, except a May 3, 2005 report in the NY Times quoting the Clinton attorney, "Responding to Mr. Paul's latest endeavor, David E. Kendall, a lawyer for the Clintons, called Mr. Paul's character into question. 'Peter Paul is a man with an impressive record of felony convictions, currently in federal custody,' he said. 'Most of his civil suit has already been dismissed and the remainder has no merit.'"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1396013/posts

Oh, and the US Justice Foundation and its president Gary Kreep (really, I wouldn't make up a name like that) that has assumed representation of Mr. Paul, is asking for donations from the public to help pay for the case. They'd like a million dollars.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404926/posts

Well, who wouldn't? :)

Take care -

ZC

Hell To Pay
05-20-2005, 04:49 PM
Your link to FreeRepublic.com links to a New York Times Article which reports on the Times-Picayne Article posted on the very first post of this thread.

In the 2nd post on this thread Peter Paul responded in a letter to the Times-Picayne:


Found this today, It just gets worse and worse.

Your article in the New Orleans Times Picayune May 7, 2005http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index
.ssf?/base/news-3/1115447139105270.xml

I take issue with the following quotes:

"As his civil case loses ground in court, Paul has seen his legal problems mount."

..a meritless civil suit brought by Peter paul, and have succeeded in having most of that suit dismissed."

If you will review the narrative on www.hillcap.org, you will see the facts surrounding the progress of Paul v Clinton contradict the supposition you have reported based on David Kendall's misleading analysis.

My legal problems have been diminishing since the government finally allowed me to return to the US in September, 2003. The charges filed against me in california were dismissed in January, 2005, and the charges in NY were greatly diminished in a superseding indictment filed by the govcernment in May, 2004. There was no $50 million stock fraud, there was only a violation of SEC Reg 10(b)5 in the way I traded my own stock in accounts I legally held at Merrill Lynch.My allocution, prepared by the government, and the superseding indictment confirm that. So in fact my legal problems have been diminishing dramatically after I first blew the whistle on the Clintons in March, 2001.

David Kendall is parroting his mantra that my civil suit, Paul v Clintons et al, is meritless and most of it has been dismissed. First, he is insulting the integrity and capability of the California judiciary, which listened to his arguments at the trial level, the appellate level and then at the California Supreme Court - and they all agreed that the first ever suit alleging a President and Senator conspired with others to defraud a business associate had sufficient merit to proceed on its substantive charges! That shows that the entire California judiciary believes the suit has sufficient merit to cause a President and Senator to prepare for trial. David Kendall owes an apology to those jurists who thought his arguments to throw out the case against his clients had no merit.

The civil case, as a result, is now primed for discovery, which will demonstrate through evidence and witness testimony that Hillary Clinton orchestrated the biggest campaign finance fraud in US history, for which she is allowing her functionary, former finance director David Rosen, face a first ever trial for election fraud, committed at her behest. For any legal questions on this suit, feel free to talk with Robert Levy, public interest lawyer and 1st amendment litigator in Los Angeles, (phone number redacted.)

In the future, I would hope you make the rudimentary journalistic effort to at least give the appearance of impartiality and professionalism, and that you make a minimal effort to obtain some response from a principal in your story before you report subjective conclusions based on a clearly biased mouthpiece for the malevolent parties.

Peter Paul



The seemingly never ending criminal acts perpertrated by the Crin-tons are nothing more than an afront to the dignity of all Americans, no better than the Crin-tons leaving a giant stinking turd in your living room.

It seems to me that you are wandering up to that turd and sniffing it like it doesn't stink, perhaps on the pretext of eating it down.

So I ask you ZC, Do you believe Hildebeast to be a completely incompetent idiot who didn't have any idea about the theft and election fraud?, ie, Do you eat turd?

Or do you agree that she is probably guilty of the fraud also?

Hell To Pay
05-23-2005, 12:13 AM
Hard to talk with a mouthful probably.

For the others following this case, here is a summary of the testimony on day 7 from the NY Post. (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/46909.htm)

What should astound most people is the fact that the weasel Harold Ickes didn't burst into flames as he placed his hand on the bible for swearing in.

http://e.1asphost.com/garity/hillaryflag4.gif

Hell To Pay
05-25-2005, 04:51 PM
Clinton fundraiser says he never had event costs altered
By Laura Wides
ASSOCIATED PRESS
4:39 a.m. May 25, 2005

LOS ANGELES A former fund-raiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton denied telling anyone to hide $700,000 in costs for a lavish Hollywood party and portrayed himself as the victim of others.

"The costs were concealed from me" by the people who put on the event, David Rosen testified Tuesday at his federal court trial.

"I am 100 percent innocent," Rosen said.

Testimony in the three-week-old trial was expected to conclude Wednesday.

Rosen, 38, had pleaded not guilty to three counts of making false statements to the Federal Election Commission, which oversees campaign contributions. Earlier Tuesday, however, U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz threw out one of those charges for lack of evidence.

Each remaining count carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Prosecutors have said Hillary Clinton was unaware of any wrongdoing.

Rosen was national finance director for Clinton's New York Senate campaign. Prosecutors contend that Rosen arranged to underreport the cost of an August 2000 dinner and concert that raised $1 million. The event, held at a 112-acre Brentwood estate, attracted celebrities including Cher, Diana Ross and Muhammad Ali.

Rosen testified that he was focused on speaking with potential donors rather than planning the event.

"Most of what I did was raise money," he said.

Rosen said he relied on an outside group run by Peter Paul and Aaron Tonken that was organizing the event to calculate and document the costs. The figures were then reported to the federal government as part of campaign finance statements, he said.

Paul, a three-time convicted felon, pleaded guilty in March to unrelated securities fraud charges. Tonken is serving a 63-month prison sentence for unrelated charges of defrauding charities of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Rosen's case is unusual not only because of the celebrity wattage of the event and political power of its beneficiary but also for the fact that it went to trial at all: most FEC allegations are settled out of court.

Assistant U.S Attorney Peter Zeidenberg has told jurors it was Rosen's job to both raise money for Clinton's campaign and track how much was spent. He told jurors Rosen deliberately lied to regulators by claiming "in-kind" contributions of $401,000 for the Hollywood fund-raiser when he knew their value exceeded $1.1 million.

Prosecutors have said Rosen was trying to duck federal financing rules so the campaign would have more money to spend on the Senate race.

During Rosen's cross-examination Zeidenberg suggested that at a time when Clinton was under scrutiny in the press for receiving so-called "soft-money" contributions, it would not have looked good to report the high in-kind donations that went into producing the event.

In other testimony Tuesday, TV producer Gary Smith said the cost of producing entertainment for the fund-raiser was nearly $600,000, but he said he never discussed that amount with Rosen.

Hell To Pay
05-26-2005, 12:23 PM
The Jury heard closing arguments, Rosen hasn't ratted out Hildebeast yet.

Prosecutors attack David Rosen's credibility (http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=3391700")

LOS ANGELES Hillary Rodham Clinton's former national finance adviser says he may have used bad judgment when he failed to report allowing a donor to pay a ten-thousand-dollar Beverly Hills hotel bill and loan him use of a Porsche.
But David Rosen says he never tried to hide anything.

Rosen said on the stand this morning that he thought use of Aaron Tonken's Porsche while he was in Los Angeles to help organize a lavish 2000 gala with Hollywood stars was a personal gift.

Rosen said, "I didn't think there was any campaign expense....if I executed poor judgment in that decision, I made a mistake but I certainly didn't intend to hide anything."

Use of the Porsche and hotel expenses were paid by Tonken, who was one of the organizers of the fund-raiser.

The federal prosecutor then asked Rosen whether it had occurred to him that someone giving a ten-thousand dollar gift would want something from him.

Rosen replied: "No."

Hell To Pay
05-27-2005, 11:14 AM
Too bad the prosecutor didn't play the FBI undercover tape for the Jury. Unbelievable.

Zen Curmudgeon
05-27-2005, 12:01 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=710&e=2&u=/usatoday/20050527/pl_usatoday/pollmajoritysaytheydbelikelytovoteforclinton

Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton

By Susan Page, USA TODAY Fri May 27, 9:22 AM ET

For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for
Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

Chuckie
05-28-2005, 02:13 PM
That won't last. I remember when she ran for her senate seat the first time. Her opponent (I forgot his name) ate her for lunch and made her look like a buffoon every time she opened her mouth. If it wasn't for the fact that she was in New York, and don't think she didn't plan that, and had the press covering for her she would never have been elected.

Come time for the presidential election the press will have a much harder time making her look good because it will be more national coverage. I believe that the press will find that it was easier to make Kerry look good than it will be to make Hillary look good.

Zen Curmudgeon
05-28-2005, 04:38 PM
That won't last. I remember when she ran for her senate seat the first time. Her opponent (I forgot his name) ate her for lunch and made her look like a buffoon every time she opened her mouth. If it wasn't for the fact that she was in New York, and don't think she didn't plan that, and had the press covering for her she would never have been elected.That was Congressman Rick Lazio, who stepped in after Rudy Guliani dropped out over news of his health problems and mistress created some concerns.

You may be right about Ms. Clinton's future problems, but some folks think it's possible the Republicans are losing a little momentum. That could make the next election cycle interesting. Remember, the President was appointed to his first term, and won the second only by a 3 percent margin. If the Presidential race is any indication (and there's a good argument that it is), the numbers don't necessarily add up to a walk in the park for the next candidates of either party.

Take Care -

ZC

large
05-28-2005, 07:34 PM
Not a pundit by any means, but, whoever runs will probably end up pandering the Hispanic vote on the immigration issues, and whoever is the most sucsessful, will win by probably a 3-5% margin . . . That's one of the biggest reason no one Politician wants to go near the issue! If the Repubs pull off the "Amnesty deal' They Win . . no contest . . th' Dems have no ideas or plans currently on anything . . Hillary can't carry it by herself . . And they can't offer anything if they continue to lose seats in Congress . . and they're gonna, even though the Repubs are dumber than rocks . . .