Clintonista's Indictment Kept Secret for a Year

NewsMax.com ^ | 1/08/05 | Carl Limbacher

[kattracks]

Though Hillary Clinton's former finance chairman David Rosen was actually indicted in 2003, the Bush administration kept it secret till the indictment was unsealed late Friday, a move that spared the former first couple and the Democratic Party significant embarrassment during the height of the 2004 presidential campaign.

"The indictment was handed down more than a year ago," the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.

Citing "sources familiar with the probe," the Times said the Bush Justice Department decided that any criminal charges would not be made public until after last fall's presidential election for fear they would be seen as a politically tainted vendetta by the Bush Administration."

While under secret federal indictment, Rosen was able to continue working for top Democrats throughout the long presidential campaign, eventually joining the campaign staff of Clinton protege, Gen. Wesley Clark, who launched his own presidential bid on the advice of the former first couple.

The decision to keep the politically awkward indictment under wraps allowed Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to assume high profile roles attacking President Bush on the Iraq war, as well as a whole range of domestic issues, without having to answer questions about their role in Rosen's case.

In Sept. 2003, Mrs. Clinton went so far as to accuse the White House of corruption, saying Bush officials had deliberately covered up unhealthy air quality at Ground Zero in the days after the 9/11 attacks.

In a measure of the extraordinary sensitivity with which Bush officials handled the Clinton-related case, the Times said the Rosen probe was "being directed by federal prosecutors with the Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department's headquarters in Washington, who specialize in this type of case."

Although the 10-page indictment does not indicate whether others, including the Clintons, were suspected of wrongdoing, Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra told the Times, "All we can say is that there are no additional subjects at this time."

But a key witness in the case has alleged that Hillary Clinton had guilty knowledge of concealed campaign contributions for an Aug. 12, 2000 fundraiser on behalf of her Senate campaign, which formed the basis for Rosen's indictment.

Hollywood producer Peter Paul, who funded the star-studded Los Angeles gala, has claimed that Mrs. Clinton personally negotiated "the largest payment for the event that I underwrote."

Paul and the his lawfirm Judicial Watch have maintained since 2001 that Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign deliberately undereported nearly $2 million in in-kind contributions he made to cover expenses for the Aug. 2000 event.

Celebrity fundraiser Aaron Tonken, another key figure in the probe, has also suggested that Mrs. Clinton may face legal trouble because of his testimony about work he did for the former first couple.

In a soon-to-be released book that covers his relationship with the Clintons, Tonken says he handed out checks to "certain pols" that were "illegal." And he personally witnessed a "brown bag" stuffed with cash going "someplace it shouldn't."

In 2002 deposition in an unrelated case, Tonken testified: "I'm a star witness against President and Mrs. Clinton. . . . regarding the fundraising activities that I've done on behalf of the Clintons."

[kattracks]

the Bush Justice Department decided that any criminal charges would not be made public until after last fall's presidential election for fear they would be seen as a politically tainted vendetta by the Bush Administration."

Which is exactly how the MSM would have portrayed it.

The decision to keep the politically awkward indictment under wraps allowed Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to assume high profile roles attacking President Bush on the Iraq war, as well as a whole range of domestic issues, without having to answer questions about their role in Rosen's case.

As if anyone, especiially the MSM would have asked these questions,

[drt1]

While I guess I don't really care - What ever happened to simply disclosing the indictment when it comes down, in the normal course. ANY interference by anyone in the process is wrong, whether it is to rush it or delay it for political or other advantage.

[drt1]

IMO that is.

[MamaLucci]

Hopefully, Sandy Burglar will be next............

[Askel5]

Aw ... how kind, how clever!

What a blessing it is to have the Liberal Press to blame for such moves.

Reminds me of the time the GOP Senators "split their consciences" and passed the Schumer Amendment 87-13 lest Gore get any good press coverage for breaking what they would have has us believe was gonna be a "tie".

Don't know that I'll stick around to read the comments on this thread. I'm not one who enjoys listening to the abused defend their abusers ... particularly where concerns the enabling of objective "Evil" sorts like the Clintons.

What a pathetic joke.

[investigateworld]

later read

[robertpaulsen]

"Although the 10-page indictment does not indicate whether others, including the Clintons, were suspected of wrongdoing, Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra told the Times, "All we can say is that there are no additional subjects at this time."

Hmmmm. Methinks his nickname is Bravo Sierra.

[handy old one]

Dang if you do and dang if you don't!!

[TommyDale]

How many people think the DemocRATS would have acted similarly, if the situation had been reversed?

[robertpaulsen]

"Although the 10-page indictment does not indicate whether others, including the Clintons, were suspected of wrongdoing, Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra told the Times, "All we can say is that there are no additional subjects at this time."

Hmmmm. Methinks his nickname is Bravo Sierra.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Unlike the DemonRats, who engaged in a full-court press to taint Bush's election. The got Hollywood to make bogus documentaries, they spun all news events to appear as negative as possible, they engaged in document forgeries, the list goes on and on.... It sure says a lot about both campaigns and their supporters, doesn't it?

[Mo1]

Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra told the Times, "All we can say is that there are no additional subjects at this time."

At this time???

Kind of makes a person go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

BRING ON THE POPCORN!

[sofaman]

I'm sure that the Democrats would have handled this with the same discretion. (/sarcasm)

[Askel5]

=== former finance chairman David Rosen was actually indicted in 2003, the Bush administration kept it secret till the indictment was unsealed late Friday


Perhaps this is just timed so that the Moral Party's loosening of its own standards in order to wipe the slate clean for Delay won't appear quite so hypocritical.

[cardinal4]

Hopefully, Sandy Burglar will be next............

Me, too. His treachery was caught on tape..

[sofaman]

You got in first, you sneaky thing... ;-)

[woofie]

BRING ON THE POPCORN!

Its Hollywood....I want milk-duds

[Askel5]

=== It sure says a lot about both campaigns and their supporters, doesn't it?


Yes it does but I'm not sure you're getting the message yet if you're still pleased as punch to be a member of the "Stoopid Party"

[kattracks]

What a blessing it is to have the Liberal Press to blame for such moves.

As opposed to some people who would rather ALWAYS blame the Republicans or President Bush.

Don't know that I'll stick around to read the comments on this thread.

Believe me, you won't be missed.

[COUNTrecount]

Do you think Berger the Burlar is secretly indicted too ?

[woofie]

dittos

[F16Fighter]

Though Hillary Clinton's former finance chairman David Rosen was actually indicted in 2003, the Bush administration kept it secret till the indictment was unsealed late Friday, a move that spared the former first couple and the Democratic Party significant embarrassment during the height of the 2004 presidential campaign.

The obvious question:

Why has the President been treating the Clintons with courtesy and kid gloves (or even velvet gloves) after all the back-biting, criticism, and innuendo these two creeps have heaped upon him?

[TommyDale]

There are a lot of great minds on this site!

[cyncooper]

What ever happened to simply disclosing the indictment when it comes down, in the normal course.

Maybe they wish to obtain a conviction and didn't want it spun as a political move by the Bush DOJ.

I say "maybe" sarcastically as it is patently clear that is why it was just unsealed. They must be ready for "showtime" (aka "the trial").

[cyncooper]

Translation, please.

(I'm not in the mood to parse out what you just said there)

[tjg]

This was a smart political move on the part of the Bush admin. During impeachment, the Clintons effectively turned themselves into martys. Any legal action taken against Hillary will be portrayed as such by her staff, the democrats and the MSM.

Expect similar treatment of Sandy Burger. THere is no political profit for the GOP in pursuing this stuff.

[cyncooper]

All reports are there was no tape of Berger.

Having said that, I'm confident he'll be indicted eventually, too.

[Czar]

"Why has the President been treating the Clintons with courtesy and kid gloves (or even velvet gloves) after all the back-biting, criticism, and innuendo these two creeps have heaped upon him?"

1. "New tone in Washington..."

2. "Compassionate conservatism..."

[Mo1]

Good Point!

Here ya go

[rodguy911]

Tonken says he handed out checks to "certain pols" that were "illegal". And he personally witnessed a "brown bag" stuffed with cash going "someplace it shouldn't."

Sounds like business as usual for the Clintonistas.

Was Paul the guy that wound up in jail in S.America? Anyone know?

[woofie]

It might be a simple clear cut court proceeding will yield the most results

[woofie]

I think Paul is the guy

[woofie]

I will also need a coke

[Arkie2]

There's got to be a liberal spin to this about how Bush manipulated this. I'm waiting to hear it. I'm sure we'll get the talking points on how it's Bush's fault on tomorrows talk shows.

[sgtbono2002]

I have wondered the same thing. I seem to remember when George H. Bush ran against Clinton he had information on Bubba's drug use and info on the Brother himself and also Gennifer Flowers. he refused to let us know what an awful prick Clinton was, It got him defeated. Nice guys usually finish last and GWB would have finished last too if the Swiftees hadnt stepped up and told the truth.

[cardinal4]

I assumed that there would cameras in a viewing area where people go to look at classified documents. So much for security and safekeeping of classified documents!

[F16Fighter]

"1. "New tone in Washington..."

2. "Compassionate conservatism..."

3. 900 missing FBI files

4. (adjusting tinfoil hat) As per NWO "instructions"

[digger48]

Why has the President been treating the Clintons with courtesy and kid gloves

In Politics, timing is important. This would have been ignored pre-Nov 2, and '06 and '08 are far enough away for the memories to linger.

Hopefully, this will go to trial around March-April '06 and put a taint on the already odoriferous Swillary's reelection

[Mo1]

Would ya like me to pour it for ya too??? :0)

[woofie]

Wow ...Thanks so much

[rodguy911]

I used to listen to Judicial Watch on their syndicated Sat.show but it was dropped. Tom Fitton was just on FNC about an hour ago making this case.

But for me it is confusing a hell. I keep hearing disparaging comments on fr about Judicial Watch. Sometimes it's hard to separate the straight shooters from the rest.

[Arkie2]

Bush knows how to play poker. He's been holding a winning hand and now it's time to play it?

[tjg]

Why has the President been treating the Clintons with courtesy and kid gloves (or even velvet gloves) after all the back-biting, criticism, and innuendo these two creeps have heaped upon him?

The exact right question and MHO: There is no politcal upside for the President to go into the Clinonistas criminal operations. He's thrashing them quite soundly on the issues. Why complicate it with the pursuit of criminal activities that will be defended vigourously by themesleves, the media, and the entire democratic party?

He has an agenda and that stuff will not help him achieve it. I really think it's that simple.

[cyncooper]

It won't be mentioned on any shows until they are forced by a trial or something they cannot ignore. This they'll ignore.

[kattracks]

I'm sure we'll get the talking points on how it's Bush's fault on tomorrows talk shows.

No need to wait until tomorrow. If it's Bush bashing you're expecting, just read some of the comments on this thread.

[Samizdat]

OMG! What else is Bush hiding on behalf of the crinton crime family?

[tjg]

Why has the President been treating the Clintons with courtesy and kid gloves (or even velvet gloves) after all the back-biting, criticism, and innuendo these two creeps have heaped upon him?

The exact right question and MHO: There is no politcal upside for the President to go into the Clinonistas criminal operations. He's thrashing them quite soundly on the issues. Why complicate it with the pursuit of criminal activities that will be defended vigourously by themesleves, the media, and the entire democratic party?

He has an agenda and that stuff will not help him achieve it. I really think it's that simple.

[JohnG45]

Hopefully, Sandy Burglar will be next...........

Why is the Justice Department sitting on this?

Why didn't the FBI arrest him immediately?

And all on Bush's watch!!!!!

[_Jim]

Though Hillary Clinton's former finance chairman David Rosen was actually indicted in 2003, the Bush administration kept it secret till the indictment was unsealed late Friday,

Wow - "Double secret probation" for a whole year ...

[F16Fighter]

"I seem to remember when George H. Bush ran against Clinton he had information on Bubba's drug use and info on the Brother himself and also Gennifer Flowers. he refused to let us know what an awful prick Clinton was, It got him defeated."

Hear ya...(see my post #37 -- especially point #4)