Yet Another Clinton Scandal - But Will It Matter?
And the old Clinton slime machine is revving up anew:
New York Senator Hillary Clinton's media friends have fired the first journalistic salvo in their bid to discredit accuser Peter Paul, whose testimony and documentation helped the feds put together an indictment of her 2000 Senate campaign finance director last month.
Up till now the Clintons have remained mum on Mr. Paul's accusations - with their scandal lawyer, David Kendall, dismissing inquiries about the case as much ado about nothing.
But that changed on Wednesday, with a nearly two-thousand word report in the New York Times trashing Paul as a "troubled" character with "a checkered past" who turned on Bill and Hillary in a bid to extricate himself from prosecution.
In fact, the Times report spent more time trying to undermine Mr. Paul's credibility than it did explaining the evidence against Senator Clinton - and went out of its way to portray her campaign finance director, David Rosen, as someone who was victimized by the "desperate" witness anxious to save his own skin.
Obviously, a Los Angeles grand jury saw things differently, when it filed a four count indictment against Rosen over a year ago [it was unsealed Jan. 10], accusing the top Clinton aide of failing to report most of the $1.2 million Paul spent to produce a gala Aug. 2000 fundraiser for Hillary's Senate campaign.
Reading the Times report, however, one never learns that Mr. Paul has directly implicated Mrs. Clinton in Rosen's alleged bid to hide campaign cash.
"Hillary Clinton personally called the producer of the concert part of this event," Mr. Paul told the Fox News Channel's Eric Shawn late last year. "She asked him to lower the fee that he was charging of $850,000 at my request. So I don't understand how she could possibly say that she didn't know" about the true costs of the event.
Paul's legal team, Judicial Watch, says he "wrote [Senator Clinton] a letter in 2001 telling her that the FEC forms from her campaign were false."
"Hillary Clinton knew Peter was paying for the event and was personally involved in negotiating the production fee for the event," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told NewsMax in January.
But rather than mention inconvenient details like these, Wednesday's Times report adopted the attack strategy perfected by the Clinton White House during the impeachment scandal.
The Times describes Paul as "a smooth operator with myriad connections and a troubled past . . . a well-connected figure with a checkered past . . . [whose] his law license was suspended after he pleaded guilty to cocaine possession."
In a bid to further discredit the troublesome witness, the Old Grey Lady even invokes another Clinton accuser, Aaron Tonken - who was also involved in the August 2000 event, and who has given reams of damaging testimony against both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
But in a surprising quote, Tonken told the Times, "I know David Rosen personally and he is a good person. [Peter] Paul knew that he had to give up Mrs. Clinton to save himself."
Tonken, however, is anything but a Clinton defender, as the Times well knows. Still, the paper of record apparently couldn't find room for his previous comments on his involvement in the case.
"I'm a star witness against President and Mrs. Clinton," he told attorneys in an unrelated civil case two years ago. "I'm a star witness in New York in the grand jury regarding the Marc Rich pardon and regarding the fund-raising activities that I've done on behalf of the Clintons."
In a proposal for his book, King of Cons, released just two months ago - Tonken claimed he was a White House guest seven times during Bill and Hillary's last three months in office, that he handed out checks to "certain pols" that were "illegal" and that he personally witnessed a "brown bag" stuffed with cash going "someplace it shouldn't."
No wonder Hillary's media friends are spinning so furiously.
Boy, it has all the old ingredients, doesn't it? The Clintons, a number of shady associates and underlings, protestations of ignorance and/or convenient lapses of memory from on high, mutual betrayals, and Big Media functioning as the Clintons' PR shield and smear apparatus. Ah, memories.
Will this Clinton scandal follow the usual life cycle of its predecessors (i.e. will Hillary get off scot free)? Well, probably, in the sense that she'll never be indicted or prosecuted. That's why the Clintons always keep a supply of shady associates and underlings on hand - as political kevlar. Will this affect her senate re-election bid? Probably not, since she's in a dyed-in-the-wool "blue" state, and why else did she pick New York to begin with? Heck, a Sienna College poll showed her leading even Rudy Giuliani by nine points. No other potential Pachyderm is remotely as close.
But the real question, and difference with all previous Clinton scandals, is will this keep her out of the White House, as opposed to her husband getting thrown out?
Well, timing is everything, and as usual serendipity is working in Hillary's favor. This fundraising flap is breaking at least a year too early for it to have any measurable impact on her senate campaign. And that campaign is the prerequisite for her planned presidential run.
Will there be fresh scandals by the time 2008 rolls around? Does Mrs. Clinton have the political teflon that her hubby did? Most likely, yes and yes.
The bottom line lesson on the Clintons, with which we in the "VRWC" would all do well to refresh ourselves, is that the conventional rules of politics do not apply to them. They are a law unto themselves, employing audacity and chutzpah that would leave Janet Jackson in open-mouthed stupefaction. They say and do things that nobody else would ever dare, and then dare their pursuers to do something about it. And usually their pursuers either don't bother or are too busy fighting off the media jackals to spare the time. "Catch me, catch me, if you can; but you can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man!"
The last line of defense? "But can Hillary Clinton actually win a single "red" state"?
You wouldn't think so.
But as the lyrics from Eric Bischoff's entrance music proclaim, "Never count me out is one thing you can count on..."
I could go on at considerable length, but I'll be doing plenty of that a few years from now. Might as well pace myself for the ordeal ahead.
New York Senator Hillary Clinton's media friends have fired the first journalistic salvo in their bid to discredit accuser Peter Paul, whose testimony and documentation helped the feds put together an indictment of her 2000 Senate campaign finance director last month.
Up till now the Clintons have remained mum on Mr. Paul's accusations - with their scandal lawyer, David Kendall, dismissing inquiries about the case as much ado about nothing.
But that changed on Wednesday, with a nearly two-thousand word report in the New York Times trashing Paul as a "troubled" character with "a checkered past" who turned on Bill and Hillary in a bid to extricate himself from prosecution.
In fact, the Times report spent more time trying to undermine Mr. Paul's credibility than it did explaining the evidence against Senator Clinton - and went out of its way to portray her campaign finance director, David Rosen, as someone who was victimized by the "desperate" witness anxious to save his own skin.
Obviously, a Los Angeles grand jury saw things differently, when it filed a four count indictment against Rosen over a year ago [it was unsealed Jan. 10], accusing the top Clinton aide of failing to report most of the $1.2 million Paul spent to produce a gala Aug. 2000 fundraiser for Hillary's Senate campaign.
Reading the Times report, however, one never learns that Mr. Paul has directly implicated Mrs. Clinton in Rosen's alleged bid to hide campaign cash.
"Hillary Clinton personally called the producer of the concert part of this event," Mr. Paul told the Fox News Channel's Eric Shawn late last year. "She asked him to lower the fee that he was charging of $850,000 at my request. So I don't understand how she could possibly say that she didn't know" about the true costs of the event.
Paul's legal team, Judicial Watch, says he "wrote [Senator Clinton] a letter in 2001 telling her that the FEC forms from her campaign were false."
"Hillary Clinton knew Peter was paying for the event and was personally involved in negotiating the production fee for the event," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told NewsMax in January.
But rather than mention inconvenient details like these, Wednesday's Times report adopted the attack strategy perfected by the Clinton White House during the impeachment scandal.
The Times describes Paul as "a smooth operator with myriad connections and a troubled past . . . a well-connected figure with a checkered past . . . [whose] his law license was suspended after he pleaded guilty to cocaine possession."
In a bid to further discredit the troublesome witness, the Old Grey Lady even invokes another Clinton accuser, Aaron Tonken - who was also involved in the August 2000 event, and who has given reams of damaging testimony against both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
But in a surprising quote, Tonken told the Times, "I know David Rosen personally and he is a good person. [Peter] Paul knew that he had to give up Mrs. Clinton to save himself."
Tonken, however, is anything but a Clinton defender, as the Times well knows. Still, the paper of record apparently couldn't find room for his previous comments on his involvement in the case.
"I'm a star witness against President and Mrs. Clinton," he told attorneys in an unrelated civil case two years ago. "I'm a star witness in New York in the grand jury regarding the Marc Rich pardon and regarding the fund-raising activities that I've done on behalf of the Clintons."
In a proposal for his book, King of Cons, released just two months ago - Tonken claimed he was a White House guest seven times during Bill and Hillary's last three months in office, that he handed out checks to "certain pols" that were "illegal" and that he personally witnessed a "brown bag" stuffed with cash going "someplace it shouldn't."
No wonder Hillary's media friends are spinning so furiously.
Boy, it has all the old ingredients, doesn't it? The Clintons, a number of shady associates and underlings, protestations of ignorance and/or convenient lapses of memory from on high, mutual betrayals, and Big Media functioning as the Clintons' PR shield and smear apparatus. Ah, memories.
Will this Clinton scandal follow the usual life cycle of its predecessors (i.e. will Hillary get off scot free)? Well, probably, in the sense that she'll never be indicted or prosecuted. That's why the Clintons always keep a supply of shady associates and underlings on hand - as political kevlar. Will this affect her senate re-election bid? Probably not, since she's in a dyed-in-the-wool "blue" state, and why else did she pick New York to begin with? Heck, a Sienna College poll showed her leading even Rudy Giuliani by nine points. No other potential Pachyderm is remotely as close.
But the real question, and difference with all previous Clinton scandals, is will this keep her out of the White House, as opposed to her husband getting thrown out?
Well, timing is everything, and as usual serendipity is working in Hillary's favor. This fundraising flap is breaking at least a year too early for it to have any measurable impact on her senate campaign. And that campaign is the prerequisite for her planned presidential run.
Will there be fresh scandals by the time 2008 rolls around? Does Mrs. Clinton have the political teflon that her hubby did? Most likely, yes and yes.
The bottom line lesson on the Clintons, with which we in the "VRWC" would all do well to refresh ourselves, is that the conventional rules of politics do not apply to them. They are a law unto themselves, employing audacity and chutzpah that would leave Janet Jackson in open-mouthed stupefaction. They say and do things that nobody else would ever dare, and then dare their pursuers to do something about it. And usually their pursuers either don't bother or are too busy fighting off the media jackals to spare the time. "Catch me, catch me, if you can; but you can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man!"
The last line of defense? "But can Hillary Clinton actually win a single "red" state"?
You wouldn't think so.
But as the lyrics from Eric Bischoff's entrance music proclaim, "Never count me out is one thing you can count on..."
I could go on at considerable length, but I'll be doing plenty of that a few years from now. Might as well pace myself for the ordeal ahead.
posted by JASmius at 10:48 AM
<<< Home