|
May 10, 2005
Peter Paul and Pardon
Amidst the huge stories involving local (Philadelphia) corruption, it's a wonder the LA Times report on the Rosen trial ever made its way into today's Philadelphia Inquirer: LOS ANGELES - A former finance director for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign will go on trial in federal court today on charges of lying about the cost of putting on a star-studded fund-raiser for the senator's 2000 campaign, a case being seized upon by some of Clinton's political enemies.Why would Rosen lie about the cost of the event? Apparently, to cover up the real source of unreported money which went into it. The LA Times story supplies a few hints: The indictment against Rosen contends that he falsely reported spending about $400,000 to put on the extravaganza while it actually cost more than $1.2 million, including $1.1 million worth of in-kind contributions of goods and services.There's an important word which does not appear anywhere in the article: P-A-R-D-O-N. Peter Paul claims that he poured money into this event to help get Hillary elected to the Senate, and that he was later he was promised a presidential pardon. If this is true (does anyone still remember Pardongate?), the assertion that "they turned against him in the venture after learning about his criminal past" would seem a bit disingenuous. According to this account, the Clintons turned against Paul only after the Washington Post had prepared a story about his criminal past: Mr. Paul personally put up $2 million to finance the California gala at Stan Lee's ranch, Verney said. As part of the deal, Clinton was promised an additional $15 million in Stan Lee stock.The Pardongate connections to this story won't go away. Here's the Washington Post in October, 2004: The Justice Department is trying to secure the cooperation of an indicted businessman as it pursues Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign for possible fundraising violations, according to interviews and documents.(There are also plenty of juicy allegations Paul has made in litigation against the Clintons, with more documents here.) I'd love to know all the facts, because the more I look into this case, the more fascinating it gets. For example, here's noted conservative spokesman Paul Weyrich on Peter Paul: I have considerable interest in this case because I know Peter Paul. I met him through the children of Clifford Heinz, a former Director of the Free Congress Foundation. Paul subsequently was in touch with me on a number of occasions. He seemed to indicate he wanted to help conservatives, but later he got close to the Clintons.Dick Morris has also weighed in on this case, saying that Rosen would be a fool to take the fall for Hillary: Did Hillary know? Paul and Tonken say she did, and it seems obvious that she must have: Hillary followed every dime in her campaign, personally calling donors for most of it. How could she possibly not have known of a decision that saved her $800,000?While it's true that "there is no Clinton in the White House to pardon him," that could change. There are a lot of factors for Rosen to weigh as he contemplates the "life ahead of him." UPDATE: Writing in today's New York Post, Dick Morris has much more: The New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported on a transcript of a Sept. 4, 2002, audiotape of a dinner between Rosen and Ted Kennedy in-law Raymond Reggie, who was wearing a wire. Most news accounts have left out the fact that Rosen implicated himself with each bite of steak.Read the whole thing. And while you're at it, read Redstate.org. Here's the conclusion: Bob! Get on the phone and hold that order for 500 Hillary '08 stickers! Do it quick!Similar optimism by Democrats led to Ronald Reagan. posted by Eric on 05.10.05 at 09:24 AM
Comments
Biased? Of course I'm biased! I do try to say what I think. I also disclose who I am, and I allow comments from people who don't. (And while it's not my call, I do think "blogesota" has a less biased ring than "instafaggot.") Eric Scheie · May 10, 2005 12:28 PM Does blogesota really think that those who complain about biased media deny that the media ever prints a fact? And that the citation of the printing of a fact constitutes refutaton of the bias complaint? That's quite imaginative. byrd · May 10, 2005 02:01 PM But how do you know if the LA Times is giving you the facts? They just might be making it up? How do you know?! Be more paranoid! Instafaggot · May 11, 2005 07:41 AM Good point Instafag. On some level, we do just have to take it (or reject it) on faith. Our first-hand knowledge is vanishingly tiny and insignificant--no matter who we are or what we do. But however true that may be, you can't live your life that way. You have to be satisfied with gathering what information you can and hoping your bullshit meter sifts out some semblance of accuracy. byrd · May 11, 2005 12:40 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I see that liberal bias at the LA Times again. What? No comment? How liberally biased of the LA Times to report the facts of a story. Even a story that makes a certain liberal look like a criminal! I guess this puts the lie to your canard that the "Media" is "biased". Actually, I think it's you who are biased. You just can't stand it when someone tells the truth and the facts without the talking points.