Skip to comments.(re: Peter Paul) ROSEN DEFENSE TO ARGUE HE WAS DUPED BY "CON MEN" (BWAHAHAHAHAHA)
Posted on 05/06/2005 4:15:57 PM PDT by doug from upland
A top fund-raising official on Senator Clinton's campaign, David Rosen, plans to defend himself against federal felony charges by arguing that he was tricked by two "self-confessed 'con men'" involved in planning an August 2000 fund-raiser. Mr. Rosen, a Chicago political consultant, faces trial in Los Angeles next week on an indictment alleging that he caused the filing of false campaign finance reports that understated the cost of the star-studded gala by $500,000 or more. In a motion filed Tuesday, Mr. Rosen's lawyers disclosed that they plan to claim that their client was deceived by a businessman who was the event's main financial backer, Peter Paul, and by a promoter of Hollywood fund-raisers, Aaron Tonken.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Disbelief that it is this weak, I hope.
This is gonna get interesting! Is Ted Kennedy's con man brother-in-law (Reggie), the one that wired up for the Feds, going to be a witness for the prosecution?
I promise to shave.
Sorry, I should have picked a different name. :)
I would suspect we will see Reggie in an L.A. courtroom.
Weak, indeed. David knows there are documents. David is so screwed.
Yes, poor Rosen was duped. He was duped by Hillary into thinking he could get away with a crime.
>>>>you had better turn on Hillary or you are going to have a big ugly hairy cellmate named Rocky who thinks you are a pretty boy.<<<<<<
Better a hairy cell mate named Rocky than a trip to Fort Marcy park. He wont turn on Hillary.
"David, you had better turn on Hillary or you are going to have a big ugly hairy cellmate named Rocky who thinks you are a pretty boy."
I missed something. I don't understand your last sentence.
Rosen didn't know, my butt. (And, Rosen didn't know my butt.)
"Ignorance is NO EXCUSE for breaking the Law"?
I know I've heard that personally from Judges in the past. (They might as well have said: "My give a damn is busted.")
Ignorance is not the case here. Rosen knew. The problem is that Hillary had a hard money problem. If they reported accurately, here campaign faced insolvency.
But then again, maybe it is in the article where I have to register and didnt and wont.
Peter Paul demand letter to Hillary Clinton
July 16, 2001
Senator Hillary Clinton
Via Hand Delivery
It is with profound regret and extreme disappointment that I am forced to write this letter to you reminding you of your responsibility as a Federal elected official to comply with the laws and regulations of the United States that you have sworn to defend and protect, and as a citizen, the same laws and regulations that govern your individual conduct.
As you are personally aware, in May, 2000, I was induced by your National Campaign Finance Director, David Rosen, your friend Jim Levin and your volunteer Hollywood talent coordinator and fundraiser, Aaron Tonken, to become the largest individual contributor to your Senatorial campaign in an effort to begin building a closer relationship with your husband in anticipation of his departure from public service to the private sector.
As you recall, I hosted a private fundraising luncheon for you at Spago, and a fund raising tea at Mrs. Gershmans Beverly Hills Estate on June 9, 2000, and paid certain expenses in connection with that event in addition to making a commitment to contribute $150,000 in stock to your campaign. I subsequently committed to produce and underwrite the largest fundraiser of your campaign, which was also a Hollywood farewell tribute to the President, on August 12, 2000, at the Brentwood estate of our mutual friend Ken Roberts. Rather than make an additional contribution to your campaign, I was induced to underwrite all the expenses of the reception, concert and private dinner so that David Rosen could galvanize your faltering fundraising momentum and generate much needed hard money contributions net of any and all expenses. In good faith I fulfilled that commitment, even as the expenses skyrocketed from a projected $500,000 to well over $2 million!
No expense was spared to produce a poignant and historic evening when the luminaries of the entertainment industry shared their love and appreciation for the contributions made by the President and yourself during the previous eight years of the Clinton Administration. As you requested, I hired your friend Gary Smith to produce the concert part of the event, which he did superbly through his lend out company Black Ink Productions. Although Garys unconscionable fee of $850,000 for the concert was reduced at my request by $50,000 due to your personal intervention, you should know that Gary subsequently tacked on another $75,000 for his personal production fee which I was not made aware of until the day before the event. Further, Gary demonstrated the most egregious unprofessionalism in the way he sabotaged my script for Stan Lees introduction and the activities of his film crews that were charged with documenting the event. To add insult to injury, he fabricated additional expenses that Ken Roberts chastised him for, for which he held hostage the tapes of the event for three months. In addition, $20,000 is unaccounted for as a final withdrawal that is not documented from the segregated event bank account I am attaching a statement for.
I enjoyed your warmth and friendship during this period from June through August, 2000, when you and the President made my wife and I feel like family. Your warm letters and phone calls, your embraces and kisses when we met, the meals and events we shared together, and especially your and Chelseas heartfelt introduction of my wife to Barbara Streisand, led me to believe that we had succeeded in forging a real family friendship. Unfortunately these feelings were, at best, short lived.
Starting with your campaign spokesmens Judas Strategy, employed when they twice disavowed me, and my contributions to your campaign, to the Washington Post, thereby lying to the people and the media, I witnessed that side of your personality that I had always believed was an invention of your political enemies. I continued with the erroneous assumption that it was only political expediency for your Senate campaign and the national Presidential campaign, that required less than honest candor in acknowledging our relationship because of the sensitivities generated by my anti-Communist misjudgments a quarter century ago. I even believed David Rosens and Jim Levins reassurances that after the election we could resume our budding friendship.
Just a few days after the events in Los Angeles I was forced to ignore your campaigns gutless and insulting decision to return the $2,000 check I gave you as part of the June 8, luncheon commitment, and the insensitivity of your statements that you would not accept ANY contribution whatsoever from me. This statement was made only days after you received the largest individual campaign contribution to a single candidate ever recorded in American history! So, a month later when David Rosen begged me to further contribute $55,000 to an abortion rights group that you had committed to based on my commitment relating to the Spago lunch, I ignored my better judgment and the more than $1.5 million I had already contributed on your behalf, so that your word would not be compromised.
Thereafter, from November, 2000, I was preoccupied with the business and market issues that all internet related companies were dealing with, as well as more insidious and nefarious issues relating to actions taken by company management and others intent on ruining me and the company I founded. When your promised support for the first global broadcast of the Hollywood Christmas Parade we produced did not materialize, and the invitations offered to dinners and gatherings were withdrawn, and after making the final contribution on your behalf at David Rosens direction in October, the only communication I received from you, the President, or your intermediaries, was an irate e-mail from Jim Levin in November protesting my failure to make a $250,000 payment to the Clinton Library as I had committed to do in August.
Thereafter, the dot com meltdown of the last quarter of 2000, resulted in my company, Stan Lee Media, along with more than 230 others, going into bankruptcy and the usual fingerpointing between management and others regarding whose fault it was. In my case, because of the Washington Post articles about my Cuban and cocaine convictions from the late 1970s, I became a vulnerable scapegoat by all those wishing to avoid responsibility for their willful misconduct.
Thus, in late February, after I had made numerous calls for several months to David Rosen about how you were going to report my contributions to the FEC to ensure their legality, I was shocked to discover through internet access to your campaign filings, that all my contributions to you and your campaign were not reported, that the only report, relating to the Hollywood Gala, was false as to the identity of the donor and the amount donated, and that you had thereby made me a co-conspirator with you and others in violating various Federal statutes and regulations.
This was the fatal blow to any vestiges of friendship and respect that I may have retained towards you and the President, and it is this final betrayal that has precipitated my new adversarial posture towards you both, and your co-conspirators. I am now required by my conscience and sense of fair play to demand that you abide by the laws you swore to defend and uphold, which includes the requirement set out in Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations that you return all illegal contributions within 30 days of determining the illegality.
The accounting provided in the attached copy of my Federal Election Commission complaint shall also serve as my notice to you and your Senate Campaign Committee, of the amount of the direct, in-kind contribution I made to you and your Senate campaign, and no other, and of the statutory requirement you have to return such monies, which statute you have been in violation of since March 1, 2001, thirty days after the amended filing of your FEC report which through their false reports made my contributions illegal de jure.
Rather than perpetuating the signature Clinton ethic of denial, semantical and rhetorical responses to valid requests and questions, and stonewalling, it is time to accept your responsibility as a Federal elected official and do the right thing according to the letter of the law, the position your campaign spokespeople have taken, and natural laws of right and ethical conduct, and return the contributions I made, which you have by your collective actions, made illegal. Please direct your refund to my counsel at Judicial Watch.
Govern Yourself Accordingly,
Peter F. Paul
True - but in order to be 'tricked', he would've had to be either ignorant of the actual law,or ignorant of the intent of those who supposedly tricked him.
It usually comes down to ignorance with the Clintons somewhere. That's where they try to convolute the record in an attempt to make the situation appear to be extremely complex, as if anyone could "fall into the same circumstances". Not without initial criminal intent, you couldn't.
The last sentence means that Rosen had better testify against Hillary to stay out of prison or he is going to have a cellmate who wants to him to be his regular date.
When do we get to see Her Heinous doing the perp walk? That's what I'm hoping for.
Thank you for the explanation.
So, how does she get out of this one?
I don't expect jail time for her. But I hope it keeps her out of the White House.
(Sorry - slipped into George Raft mode there. With her it's so easy...)
Rosen's Arkancide, that is.....
If there are tapes, recordings and witnesses that will obliterate this defense, they need to have been found admissible in court or they walk on these charges.
Not saying evidence against them wouldn't be admissible, but would say don't be surprised of things are not allowed to be presented. What if this gets before a liberal Democrat elected and leaning judge?
Could any of these possibilities manage to keep things covered up as has been the consistently done so in the past DFU?
Does the prosecution and witnesses 100% have their evidence truly lined up and ready to go?
I don't know what is going on in the prosecutor's office. But as I said before, nothing like this has ever happened before. People simply pay fines. Not this time.
Well, things go before judges and the system, so my concerns are the Judge, what is allowed in court as admissible to use against this guy, and so forth.
Caught you on Hannity the other day, you gave me Putnam guest appearance flashbacks with you. Nice job, good times. :-)
Thanks. Glad you heard Hannity. Peter was actually even better with Tony Snow yesterday. There is more to come.
|don't be surprised of things are not allowed to be presented. What if this gets before a liberal Democrat elected and leaning judge?
You don't get it. Hillary wants this guy to go to jail. She needs for him to become a "convicted felon," so that if he ever turns on her, she can squirt slime on him to make him go away.
Secondly, she'll say, "See that? David Rosen was convicted of that. It had nothing to do with me." Which will sound like an iron-clad defense to the media and the rest of her adoring fans.
Rosen is so screwed.
But .. since personal destruction is Hillary's specialty - I guess Rosen figures Hillary will supply him with plenty of dirt to smear the "con men".
Poor thing, David has no idea Hillary will not have anything to do with him.
Your theory has THIS hole in it, if he is convicted over this, it would be over a Hillary issue.
She'd have to say that he can't be trusted because he was involved in a felony connected to being associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign. OUCH...doesn't work, she bleeds to death from paper cuts.
If he's screwed and convicted, she is hurt by it, that is not IMO the benefit she would wish for.
If he died in this process which maybe she would arrange, THAT would be more helpful. So they better be guarding this fellow night and day.
|he was involved in a felony connected to being associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign. OUCH...doesn't work, she bleeds to death from paper cuts.
No deeper cuts than the McDougal cuts, the Web Hubbell cut, the Cisneros cut, and too many more to count. The Clintons leave a trail behind them of people going to jail. One more is nothing.
With the connections I heard expressed on Hannity between this guy, Bill and Hillary... I think it's harder to escape from.
Where I fear they get a pass is that for the sake of pride in America and to protect our history, I can't see there being much taste for convicting the Clinton's in our lifetime.
They deserve it, but historically, we always try to give a pass to those and their families that have served as President and first family. I've never seen a couple either more corrupt or stupid than these two in constantly trying to take advantage of the PEOPLE'S good will. That said, because of tradition and respect for the office of President, I don't see the Clintons EVER getting nailed on anything.
I do think this can help prevent her to be elected in both NY and as President.
I hope Rudy runs for her NY job in 2006.
As a Presidential candidate for office, she has no chance to win, in addition she brings so much negatives to a run by her that she could increase Republican office holders across the country by 25%, and that my friend is a good thing.
|As a Presidential candidate for office, she has no chance to win
I prefer to make sure. I think a nice criminal indictment would go a long way towards that. Even if, as you say, they get off... the stink will not.
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.