Sen. Clinton's Finance Director Indicted

[MisterMike]

Sen. Clinton's Finance Director Indicted

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites)'s former finance director has been indicted on charges of causing false campaign finance reports to be filed with the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites), the Justice Department (news - web sites) said Friday.



The indictment of David Rosen, unsealed in Los Angeles, focuses on his fund-raising for an Aug. 12, 2000, gala for Clinton in Los Angeles. The New York Democrat was still first lady at the time.


While the event allegedly cost more than $1.2 million, the indictment said, Rosen reported contributions of about $400,000, knowing the figure to be false.


The indictment charged that Rosen provided some documents to the an FEC compliance officer but withheld the true costs of the event and provided false documents to substantiate the lower figure.


In one instance, Rosen obtained and delivered a fraudulent invoice stating the cost of a concert associated with the gala was $200,000 when he know that figure was false, according to the indictment. The actual cost of the concert was more than $600,000.


Each of the four counts of making a false statement carries a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines upon conviction.

This is great. So they vote to pass campaign finance and then do this....

 

[PeachMonkey]

All the more reason why running Hillary Clinton as the next Democratic presidential candidate is madness.

Just out of curiosity, though, what does the possibly illegal action of one First Lady's finance director have to do with "their" campaign finance votes? Who are "they"?

 

[Zepp]

This says nothing about Hilary Clinton's character, if that was the intent of the post. It does say something about her ability to judge character however.

 

[rmcrobertson]

If convicted--assumingly that this guy knowingly lied about 400, 000 bucks--deplorable and wrong.

No doubt MM and others will join us in identifying as deplorable and wrong the following:

"...on March 19, 2004, the administration's scandals were reaching the point that The Carpetbagger Report--"Scandal after scandal after scandal"--claimed to be having flashbacks to scandal fatigue ("a conservative buzz phrase from the late 90s"). [6] (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/001421.html)

At the time of that posting, the daily weblog cited no less than twelve "substantive scandals involving the GOP in the last three years":

* Dick Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force was investigated by the GAO and the case is currently pending at the Supreme Court.
* The Homeland and Lilly Protection Act
* The Plame Game is under investigation by the Justice Department.
* Bush's Medicare scam and the circumstances that led the administration to lie to Congress about the cost of the legislation is under investigation by the HHS inspector general's office.
* The massive intelligence failure that led Bush to lie to the world about the Iraqi threat is under investigation by a congressionally-authorized independent commission (which Bush fought the creation of).
* Bribes offered on the House floor to Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) in exchange for his vote on Bush's Medicare plan are under investigation by the House Ethics Committee and the Justice Department.
* Attorney General John Ashcroft was under investigation by the Federal Election Commission for violating campaign finance laws in 2000, and the FEC concluded that Ashcroft accepted $110,000 in illegal contributions.
* An investigation into House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's criminal fundraising schemes in Texas -- which allegedly used corporate funds to help state GOP lawmakers -- is already before a Texas grand jury.
* Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee were investigated for stealing thousands of confidential memos from Dem computers, a matter that has now been referred to the Justice Department for a possible criminal probe.
* Republican Connecticut Gov. John Rowland is under a criminal investigation (and an impeachment investigation) after he lied about prominent state contractors and several government aides paying for refurbishments to his lake-front cottage.
* Former Rep. Bill Janklow (R-S.D.) was under investigation for vehicular manslaughter, a crime for which he was later convicted.
* The Pentagon launched a formal investigation into well-armed evangelist and three-star General William G. Boykin, Bush's pick for deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and his record of extreme religious rhetoric.
* The circumstances that led to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 are under investigation by a congressionally-authorized independent commission (which, again, Bush fought the creation of and then later resisted cooperating with); and subsequently the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
* And honorable mentions should go, of course, to investigations into Halliburton (Dick Cheney's former company) and Enron (George Bush's biggest corporate supporter).

No doubt.

 

[pete]

why is it that when something scandalous is discovered about someone on one's "team", rather than deal with the slings and arrows directly, one is more apt to reach out and grab for players on the other team to take down with one...

kinda like when a practitioner of one art is pictured doing a technique that looks a little flawed, supporters skirt the issue by inferring he could kick yer ****... hmmm subterfuge?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, it's more like countering the weird, reiterated hatred that a lot of fundamentalists and conservatives have for the Clintons--a hatred that runs so deep that they will find anything they can to feed it--by pointing out that over the past couple of decades, Republicans have done far more damage to this country.

A damage that, oddly enough, never seems to get acknowledged as anything serious. A damage that, oddly enough, seems to cause people to be unable to read what plain writing says--which was that Clinton's campaign advisor was of course wrong, and that it seemed odd that such moralism never got employed to criticize, say, Ken Lay. You know--cheat on 400K and you're Satan; bankrupt a company, cheat consumers out of 4-6 billion, screw retirees and middle-aged people out of their savings, take advantage of politicians pandering to crooked corporations, and oh my GOD, why are those liberals always making something out of nothing?

Or, it's kinda like pretending to take the moral high road when you've followed a poster from one website to another, and made a snide reference to another set of posts, rather than actually discussing either this isssue or that one, eh?

It's too bad that you dislike the way some of us write enough to bother with that sort of thing, Pete--especially when it's quite possible we're not very far apart on a lot of things. It's too bad that you haven't bothered to do a bit of research to find out what the two different fusses are. (For example, one wouldn't have said anything about a minor flaw--one was commenting on a fundamental error that would leave somebody disembowled.) It's too bad that you'll probably respond with some other thinly-veiled personal attack.
It's just disagreements, fella. Breathe, just breathe--that's a thinly-veiled ref to another disagreement.

 

[pete]

Actually, it's more like countering the weird, reiterated hatred that a lot of fundamentalists and conservatives have for the Clintons--a hatred that runs so deep that they will find anything they can to feed it--by pointing out that over the past couple of decades, Republicans have done far more damage to this country.

A damage that, oddly enough, never seems to get acknowledged as anything serious. A damage that, oddly enough, seems to cause people to be unable to read what plain writing says--which was that Clinton's campaign advisor was of course wrong, and that it seemed odd that such moralism never got employed to criticize, say, Ken Lay. You know--cheat on 400K and you're Satan; bankrupt a company, cheat consumers out of 4-6 billion, screw retirees and middle-aged people out of their savings, take advantage of politicians pandering to crooked corporations, and oh my GOD, why are those liberals always making something out of nothing?

yep~, just living here in the land of the ny times, etc. well you could say we're pretty much balanced... but i'm not really an overly political kinda guy, but don't like it when "we" succumb to using "their" tactics to level the field.

Or, it's kinda like pretending to take the moral high road when you've followed a poster from one website to another, and made a snide reference to another set of posts, rather than actually discussing either this issue or that one, eh?

i'm not one to take the moral high road either, just an observation. prob'ly less snide than it reads.

It's too bad that you dislike the way some of us write enough to bother with that sort of thing, Pete--especially when it's quite possible we're not very far apart on a lot of things. It's too bad that you haven't bothered to do a bit of research to find out what the two different fusses are. (For example, one wouldn't have said anything about a minor flaw--one was commenting on a fundamental error that would leave somebody disembowled.) It's too bad that you'll probably respond with some other thinly-veiled personal attack.

first, you're wrong: i actually like and enjoy reading what you write Robert, and I have learned a few things in doing so
second, you're right: we do tend to agree on most,
third, you're wrong: i haven't seen the magazine, and do not know the system in question, but haven't read a reasonable explanation by someone who does... that's why the reference is so fitting here.
lastly: thinly veiled personal attacks are not my style, neither is name calling, bullying, or name-dropping. hell, i don't know you personally, why would i attack?

It's just disagreements, fella. Breathe, just breathe--that's a thinly-veiled ref to another disagreement.

touch'e.

 

[kenpo tiger]

<snip>

thinly veiled personal attacks are not my style, neither is name calling, bullying, or name-dropping. hell, i don't know you personally, why would i attack?

Just be very afraid if he does know you personally and launches a full-frontal attack!:mp5: :xtrmshock

Seriously, I can and will gladly vouch for Pete.

You're reading too much into it, Robert.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Probably not, actually.

But considering the genius of the "full-frontal," comment--into which not reading too much, either--enough to drop it.

 

[ghostdog2]

A serious question:

How do you connect Ken Lay with Hillary Clinton's Finance Director? Is this that 6 degrees of seperation people talk about?
Or is it a diversion to draw attention away from what HC's guy did?
Or is it some sort of moral relativism: two wrongs make a right?
Or is there no connection at all between a private businessman in Texas and a
campaign official in California/New York?

Talking about Enron doesn't make what this dude did okay. Does it?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Perhaps--speaking from a superior position--you could show where anybody said that it did.

 

[MisterMike]

Funny how when anyone mentions (yet another) Clinton incident, it's aww, those fundie neo-cons just think they are the debbil.

Amusingly, this was brought out by the AP, not Michael Savage's website (which I decided to check out and really sucks. Did he make that himself?)

No, I think my quote was:

So they vote to pass campaign finance and then do this....

Meaning this finance stuff was passed by both sides of the aisle, championed by Arizonian guy McCain or whoever...

It's just funny who popped up first on the list of violators.

What isn't funny is how the more we turn up on previous administrations, it never matters because they aren't in office any more. It's all Bush's fault.

 

[pete]

sorry kt, but don't need vouchers. you know my kids go to public schools.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, MM, it was brought up from the website of a self-described, "AP writer," if one recalls correctly. Accuracy counts, don't you think?

Let's see if one follows your logic here. You raise--perhaps legitimately, though there's been no trial--the question of campaign finances and Clinton's campaign director playing fast and loose with the present law to the tune of 400 thousand bucks. Not good, obviously. If illegal, fines and the slammer await.

However, you do not raise--and never have--little things like, say, Tom deLay's upcoming indictment and insane gerrymandering/bullying; Bush's lying about, well, a whole war; several of his close friends and associates (like Ken Lay) stealing literally billions/sinking a major company/screwing tens of thousands of retirees...and the list just goes on. These things, in fact, you deny or shrug off.

Moreover, you repeatedly, loudly, insistently assert that Capitalism Is Perfect, and complain about the crybabies who don't worship the Almighty Dollar and His Prophet, the Free Market. And given our insane way of believing that money and free speech are the same things in this country, shouldn't you be complaining that we have any campaign finance laws at all?

So pardon a little dubiousness about this non-partisan, just interested in the truth pretense.

 

[MisterMike]

Actually, MM, it was brought up from the website of a self-described, "AP writer," if one recalls correctly. Accuracy counts, don't you think?

Let's see if one follows your logic here. You raise--perhaps legitimately, though there's been no trial--the question of campaign finances and Clinton's campaign director playing fast and loose with the present law to the tune of 400 thousand bucks. Not good, obviously. If illegal, fines and the slammer await.

Not for Hillary - what a shame. But then, she probably knew nothing about it, right??

However, you do not raise--and never have--little things like, say, Tom deLay's upcoming indictment and insane gerrymandering/bullying; Bush's lying about, well, a whole war; several of his close friends and associates (like Ken Lay) stealing literally billions/sinking a major company/screwing tens of thousands of retirees...and the list just goes on. These things, in fact, you deny or shrug off.

Well, with enough of you and all the other Ken Lay fans, it seems there's really nothing left for me. Tell me, are there any more 8X10's available? Actually, I haven't denied anything of the sort, so the little conversational switchbacks do not shake the essence of my post. To your credit, perhaps, you are the only one who has since acknowledged the Clinton incident exists.

Moreover, you repeatedly, loudly, insistently assert that Capitalism Is Perfect, and complain about the crybabies who don't worship the Almighty Dollar and His Prophet, the Free Market. And given our insane way of believing that money and free speech are the same things in this country, shouldn't you be complaining that we have any campaign finance laws at all?

So pardon a little dubiousness about this non-partisan, just interested in the truth pretense.

Moreover, snoreover, I've never said it was perfect or complain about anyone who fails to worship money. Truth be told, most commie nations worship it just as much as we do. And as far as campaign finance laws, yup, I am against it. But had I supported it, I'd a tried to follow it. The "senior" NY senator couldn't.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. So you really posted to make a point attacking, "Hillary," (uh...old-fashioned manners, one guesses, but, "Senator Clinton," is the traditional form of address), and you really don't care about anything else;

2. Could you perhaps inform us as to exactly where it is on this forum that you waxed wroth--or in any way acknowleged--little things like george trumping up a war, or george's odd military past, or george's creative financial history, or george's associates' little (OK, billions, but who's counting?) deals, or george's...see? the whole first name basis thing, it's kind of needlessly insulting.

3. "Commie," should've gone out when Strom Thurmond died...and by the way, look your boy up. You might wanta get acquainted with the guys on your team. But be that as it may, your ideology insistently supports capitalism and the free market. Which is how to excuse guys like Ken Lay. So, when capitalism and the free market produce money-grubbing politicians...

 

[MisterMike]

1. I posted because being in the minority on Martial Talk, (ooh - do I qualify for some sort of program?) I knew nobody else would.

2. Your current President isn't the topic.

3. Commie should have been left to history books when your buddies Stalin and Marx died. But there will always be those who want the dream to live on.

 

[Ray]

He was indicted. Let him be tried in a court...if found guilty he can be punished; if not then he can pay his attorney fees and go his merry way. Until then, we're all just gossips.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Ah yes--the fantasy of the picked-upon, "minority," white guy. Yep, you and our current President.

2. But campaign finance--which President Bush has repeatedly blocked--is. And so is the scale of illegalities. And if we're going to kvetch about not really sticking to the topic that's the topic that's bothering you...

3. Yes, those happy days in Leningrad...Josef, Karl and I, plotting the overthrow of all that's decent. Seriously, folks--you have a very skewed sense of who your enemy is.

4. So...you don't actually have anything to say, eh? Just a quick snipe at Senator Clinton...look, attack the woman's voting record, politics, ideas, whatever...but these snipings a la Michael Savage...man, start thinking for yourself, eh? 'Cause all one's reading is a straight reiteration of whatever's on Rush's mind this week...and when exactly was it that, "Dittohead," became a good thing?

 

[pete]

He was indicted. Let him be tried in a court...if found guilty he can be punished; if not then he can pay his attorney fees and go his merry way. Until then, we're all just gossips.

amen!
i first thought the thread was going in a "well, everybody does it so let's not talk about it like someone is actually doing something wrong" direction... but perhaps i was mistaken. the more i read it looks more like "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"... lotsa glass houses out there!