Another Clinton Courtroom Fait Accompli

Well, that didn't take long:

The former national finance director for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign was acquitted Friday of lying to the government about a lavish 2000 Hollywood fundraising gala.

David Rosen was charged with two counts of making false statements to the Federal Election Commission about the cost of the star-studded gala, which attracted such celebrities as Cher, Melissa Etheridge, Toni Braxton, Diana Ross, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston. The jury deliberated about six hours before reaching its verdict.

DagneyT comments at GOP Bloggers that, "The judge was a Clinton appointee, what did we expect?"

Yes, but the prosecutor was even more pro-Hillary than the judge was. He made a far more vigorous case for her innocence than he ever did for David Rosen's guilt. And that's because he couldn't honestly prosecute Rosen without implicating Hillary, who, as the biggest micromanager this side of her husband, could not possibly have been unaware of all the financial chicanery going on at that Hollywood fundraiser.

What disturbs me is that the Bush Justice Department, in a high-profile criminal case involving the Clintons, conducted itself as if Janet Reno were still running the show.

Something stinks about that, as in "pungent aroma of rotting goat entrails steaming in the early morning stench of a compost pile overun with the leakage from the neighboring sewage treatment plant" stinks.

Or "grab a t-shirt at random from my college roommate's dirty laundry pile" stinks, which would be even worse.

If it's the latter, Bush may have to be impeached for his own good.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton is still ducking the question of whether she'll promise to serve out a second senate term if re-elected, one she can't honestly make if she plans to run for president but one that polls keep showing her New York constitutents want from her:

During an interview on CNN's Inside Politics, Mrs. Clinton was asked point blank: "If you were asked to pledge, at some point between now and next year, whether you will definitely fill out a six-year term in the Senate, what would you say?"

Instead of answering directly, Senator Clinton suggested the question was a diversion:

"I am focused on winning re-election," she told host Judy Woodruff. "That is what I work on every single day, just as I have worked my heart out for the last four years. And I'm going to continue doing that every day, and I'm not going to get diverted."

A Quinnipiac University survey of New Yorkers earlier this month found that by an overwhelming margin - 60% to 30% - they want Clinton to take the full-term pledge and not run for president in 2008. Fifty-one percent don't want her to seek the White House even if she doesn't run for a second Senate term.

I can't believe that this is an issue that's going to cause any real problems for Senator Thunder Thighs next year or in 2008. It's almost like her constituents want to be double-crossed and are setting her up to do just that so that they can revel in the betrayal and flock to the polls to put her in the White House two years later.

On the other hand, I also can't believe that Hollywood isn't going to be in the tank for her, either, and yet, if Robert Novak has it right....

An exception to Senator Clinton's support is Hollywood, where some of the entertainment industry's big givers question her electability.

Of course, Novak also reports that Hillary "has cornered Eastern and Midwestern Democratic contributors, helping to make her the prohibitive early favorite for the 2008 presidential nomination." And if Mrs. Clinton is so awash in cash that she doesn't need Hollywood - which will only guarantee that they'll pursue her, since they certainly will want (and need) the access they had during the first Clinton regime - then this is, for those on the Right who can't wait to take her on, another tempest in a teapot.

Just like the great campaign fundraising trial of 2005.