Posted on 05/25/2005 2:16:39 PM PDT by Libloather
Prosecutors attack David Rosen's credibility
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."
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.
Rosen takes the stand as the victim bump...
I am 100 percent innocent," Rosen said.
Decimal point is in the wrong place.
LMAO, Rosen sure is making me laugh.
Hey can i Borrow the 100,000 Ferarri for the weekend, and you pay for my hotel while i organize some fundraisers? /Sarc
Watching people trying to not act as stupid as the whole world know now them to be priceless!
I thought prosecutors indicated that they would not be presenting any evidence that Hillary was guilty of wrongdoing - big difference.
The whole World protecting 'Her Thighness', the Victim's victum!
it's ye olde "I don't know nothing about nothing"
judge, I'm just a stupid hick, aw shucks, just call me Forrest Gump Rosen, stupid is as stupid does......really I'm surprised a smart lady like Mrs. Clinton even hired a bumpkin like me.........LOL
Nothing to see here; he has the luxury of a California jury, and will walk.
For INFO:
"Rosen, 38, had pleaded not guilty to three counts"
I hate how the media writes this - as if Rosen is saying he's not guilty. Why can't the media explain that when a person is charged with a crime .. they are required to enter a PLEA - the plea is "guilty" - NO TRIAL .. however if the plea is "not guilty - THEY GET A TRIAL BY JURY. So even the worst criminal can enter a plea of "not guilty" and take their chances with a jury trial instead of having a judge impose a sentence.
The "PLEA" has nothing whatsoever to do with the guilt or innocense of the person being charged. I wish the media would clarify this because the way they explain it is so deceptive.
The Clinton News Network continues to black out coverage.
Hillary Clinton simply can raise too much money for a Presidential bid. The media is waiting to sell lots of campaign ads with all the Clinton money raised from campaign contributions.
The media knows Hillary will raise money for both Democrats and Republicans. The media knows they will get lots of that money in return for political advertisements.
Hillary has lots of experience: Travelgate, Whitewatergate,
Missing File Gate, Fostergate, Monicagate etc. She probably has this gate locked too!
I just can't remember the last time I spent $600,000 on behalf of someone else and failed to account for it. What a convenient arrangement. Conveniently criminal.
With the Clintons you have 2 choices: 1) rollover; 2)or be dead.
Ahhh - you left out one - you left out the most disasterous one, ie. Chinagate - - - Hill and Bill inviting all those Communist Chinese agents into the White House: Charlie Trie, John Huang and Johnny Chung and of course the Kingpins of Chinagate, Hill & Bill's treasonous pals - Mochtar Riady & his son James Riady! And because of Hillary & Bill Clinton, all, with emphasis on all - - All of our nuclear secrets went to Communist China
Now hmmm, what did that full page FreeRepublic.com ad in the Washinton Times entail back in 1999? Hmmmm....seems it listed many of the treasonous crimes of the Clinton's and the DNC.
And where did the facts in that full page ad come from? Oh yes - the top right hand cornor of our U S Congressional Record for the date of: June 23rd, 1999 - U S Senator James Inhofe: "The Clinton National Security Scandal and Coverup"
| Earlier Tuesday, however, U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz threw out one of those charges for lack of evidence.
Put another way, this judge just ruled that when it came to the final report, "it was fraudulent, but somebody else did that one." So this leaves the government in the position of having proved that a crime was commmitted, but they have not yet charged the correct perp. If Rosen did not direct the filing of the third and final fraudulent report on July 30, 2001, who did?
|
Thanks for the ping.
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.
Folks, don't overlook this seemingly minor detail. What the judge ruled specifically was that there is no evidence tying Mr. Rosen to the third and final report. Note in particular that the judge did not rule that the government had failed to prove that the third report was fraudulent...