What's Wrong with this Picture?
The judge has made it clear that Hillary Clinton is not on trial in the trial of her 2000 senate campaign's finance director, David Rosen. Okay, I understand that. And the US Attorney has made it clear that he's only prosecuting Mr. Rosen, not Mrs. Clinton. Okay, I understand that.
Well, I don't, really, but let's take that at face value for the moment.
I don't think my ability to understand this stuff is going to stretch this far.
The prosecution is claiming that Mr. Paul's past convictions for stock manipulation and cocaine possession make him a less than credible witness, a claim I could take seriously if they weren't so obviously hell-bent upon protecting Mrs. Clinton at the same time. Indeed, the latter appears to be a priority even over building the best possible case against Mr. Rosen. That case, in the absence of Mr. Paul's testimony, could very well founder for lack of evidence precisely because a full-scale prosecutorial effort couldn't avoid implicating Mrs. Clinton, as Mr. Paul asserts.
The question at this point is day-glo obvious: Why is the Justice Department prosecuting David Rosen at all? It's becoming increasingly clear that they can't bag him without impacting Hillary's 2008 coronational processional, and they're willing to shred their own professional credibility and torpedo their own case rather than cause the latter to happen.
And never let it be forgotten that this is the Bush DOJ we're talking about. I don't care if the judge and entire prosecutorial team are Clinton appointees, the latter ultimately answer to the President, and it seems to me that their bending over backwards to this ludicrous an extent rather than just prosecuting the case in an even routine fashion has to imply that the White House is aware of this case and is signing off on this extraordinary leniency.
The increasing chuminess of the Clintons and the Bush family has been gaining more notariety of late. If that's being taken to the extent of subverting the criminal justice process, then the "New Tone" has officially crossed over from aggravating nuisance to full-fledged scandal.
Well, I don't, really, but let's take that at face value for the moment.
I don't think my ability to understand this stuff is going to stretch this far.
The prosecution rested yesterday in the trial of Hillary Clinton's former finance director David Rosen, without calling several key witnesses in the case - a move that some say was a bid to avoid implicating the former first lady.
"They're the elephants in the room," an attorney familiar with the trial told the New York Sun. "The jury may ask: 'Where were they?' That's the risk," he added, requesting not to be identified.
Among those not called to testify is Peter Paul, the man whose allegations spurred an FBI probe four years ago into a Hollywood gala fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign. Mr. Paul underwrote the bulk of the event's $1.2 million cost, a figure Mr. Rosen allegedly underreported to federal regulators by $800,000.
While prosecutors have bluntly stated that Mrs. Clinton had nothing to do with allegations against Rosen, Mr. Paul charges in a separate civil lawsuit that both Senator Clinton and her husband committed a variety of crimes in connection with the same fundraiser.
The prosecution is claiming that Mr. Paul's past convictions for stock manipulation and cocaine possession make him a less than credible witness, a claim I could take seriously if they weren't so obviously hell-bent upon protecting Mrs. Clinton at the same time. Indeed, the latter appears to be a priority even over building the best possible case against Mr. Rosen. That case, in the absence of Mr. Paul's testimony, could very well founder for lack of evidence precisely because a full-scale prosecutorial effort couldn't avoid implicating Mrs. Clinton, as Mr. Paul asserts.
The question at this point is day-glo obvious: Why is the Justice Department prosecuting David Rosen at all? It's becoming increasingly clear that they can't bag him without impacting Hillary's 2008 coronational processional, and they're willing to shred their own professional credibility and torpedo their own case rather than cause the latter to happen.
And never let it be forgotten that this is the Bush DOJ we're talking about. I don't care if the judge and entire prosecutorial team are Clinton appointees, the latter ultimately answer to the President, and it seems to me that their bending over backwards to this ludicrous an extent rather than just prosecuting the case in an even routine fashion has to imply that the White House is aware of this case and is signing off on this extraordinary leniency.
The increasing chuminess of the Clintons and the Bush family has been gaining more notariety of late. If that's being taken to the extent of subverting the criminal justice process, then the "New Tone" has officially crossed over from aggravating nuisance to full-fledged scandal.
posted by JASmius at 11:22 AM
<<< Home