just4funnc
01-12-2005, 04:06 AM
Don't get your feathers ruffeled
Is Hillary the Real Target of the Feds?
By Carol Devine-Molin
January 10, 2005
I'm just your typical political enthusiast, which, of course, means that I notice and think about things that the average person wouldn't waste a scintilla of brain-power on. That said, in recent weeks I was wondering why both Bill and Hillary Clinton were exhibiting moments of blatant vitriol toward President George W. Bush - moments that were really counterproductive and didn't reflect well upon the former president or his wife, the Senator from New York. For political pros, they were getting sloppy.
In the aftermath of John Kerry's defeat, I expected Bill and Hillary to be elated with the stage cleared for Hillary's 2008 presidential run. But the Clintons had clearly been thrown off-kilter, which managed to affect their usual politically-savvy selves of late. And, the former first couple has exhibited signs of being ticked-off at President Bush. But why? I was just trying to figure out what was brewing. Now, the answer seems evident. Given the announced indictment against Senator Hillary Clinton's former campaign fundraiser on January 7, I think the Clintons have been stewing in their own juices. They had to know what was coming down the pike. And perhaps they surmise that the Justice Department has another agenda up its sleeve, which involves investigation of Senator Hillary Clinton herself. Frankly, the Justice Department has to do its job unencumbered, and let the chips fall where they may. It's not President Bush's fault if Hillary Clinton has perpetrated any malfeasance that has come to the attention of the Justice Department.
Let's backtrack to the days immediately following Christmas: While overseas, Clinton hogged the limelight at the BBC and took an unwarranted swipe at President George W. Bush who, by the way, was in the midst of assiduously working on a multi-national tsunami relief effort. Former president Clinton knew better than to carp about President Bush at that juncture. A lot was in the works - Clinton had been told by White House staffers to coordinate with them before issuing any public statements on the crisis situation, but he simply chose to ignore that directive. Clinton advised the BBC, "It is really important that somebody takes the lead in this (tsunami crisis)", which was patently churlish and insulting toward President Bush. The implication was that the president was just hanging out and vacationing in Crawford, Texas, failing to provide necessary leadership while the world was going to hell in a hand-basket. What a cheap shot! Bill Clinton, being the consummate politico, should have realized that his grandstanding was not going to earn him brownie points with the American people.
And when President Bush graciously turned the other cheek and asked Bill Clinton, along with Papa Bush 41, to lead up fundraising efforts for tsunami victims, Clinton's previous "jump-ugly on Dubya" tactic appeared even more unseemly. Mind you, this past year President Bush has treated the Clintons superbly, notably at the unveiling of the Clinton portraits at the White House in June, and then again at the opening of the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas, in November.
Now let's examine Senator Hillary Clinton's unconscionable participation in the "Boxer Rebellion" on January 6, 2005, a politically motivated event aimed at delegitimizing the results of the 2004 presidential election and President Bush's victory. Heaven knows Hillary Rodham Clinton has always been a Leftist - will always be a Leftist - and will never get my vote. But in her zeal to win the Oval Office in 2008, I was originally confident that she would successfully create the impression of repositioning herself as a political centrist. Well, I'm not so sure about that, anymore. Mind you, I never envisioned a true reinvention of Hillary Clinton borne of self-actualization. That's not going to happen. Hillary's "conversion" to a more mainstream stance would have been a crock, put out there solely for the purpose of winning the presidency. She and her hubby Bill love to fool and manipulate the public whenever possible. They're the two biggest phonies around. Bill's lip-biting and teary-eyed "I feel your pain" look has always been pure theater for me and other Republicans. And Hillary's ostensible shock and dismay over Bill's sexual dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was only calculated to win sympathy and help her poll ratings. Hillary really doesn't care who Bill "dates".
However, unlike Bill, Hillary has consistently demonstrated political discipline over the years. Up until now, that is. Hillary did the unthinkable on January 6. She publicly aligned herself with the conspiratorial kooks and fringe of the Democratic Party. Wouldn't it have been more prudent for Senator Clinton to continue to dissociate herself from the political hard left in America? Unfortunately, she's spouting gobbledygook along with those other moonbats. Bad political move, Hillary.
Cattlegate, Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Troopergate, Chinagate and Monicagate are just some of the scandals that have plagued the Clintons over the course of years. Now we have Fundraisergate, triggered by FEC false filings and a four-count indictment that stem from a Hollywood fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's 2000 senate campaign. And it's a scandal that will undoubtedly continue to haunt her. Will this new scandal destroy Hillary Clinton's political career, which has been on an upward trajectory from the get-go? Well that remains to be seen. The question is whether Senator Clinton can be directly implicated in criminal wrongdoing. The Clintons always insulate themselves from prosecution by utilizing layers of minions to do their dirty work. To date, the Clintons have been astonishingly adroit at sidestepping disaster. Believe it or not, many Republicans are betting on Hillary Clinton to persevere. Not because they support her. In fact, they vehemently oppose her. It's really a testament to the keen political and legal capabilities of the Clintons that are widely acknowledged. Some Republicans jokingly liken the Clintons to Damien of the Omen series. Invariably, everyone surrounding Damien falls on their sword while the corrupt one continues onward.
In short, the Justice Department's four-count indictment alleges that David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's former campaign finance director, filed fraudulent documents that benefited Mrs. Clinton's campaign coffers. According to the Washington Times: "The four-count indictment said the finance director, David Rosen, understated the costs of an Aug. 12, 2000, fund-raising gala in Los Angeles by nearly $500,000, filing fraudulent documents with the FEC to increase the amount of funds available to Mrs. Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign...Two of the event's organizers were Hollywood producer Peter F. Paul and charity fundraiser Aaron Tonken".
Well, a four-count indictment is certainly powerful stuff, and could be construed as leverage to turn state's evidence on an even bigger fish such as Senator Clinton. The pivotal question is this: To save his own hide, will David Rosen be willing to provide authorities with damaging testimony concerning Senator Clinton? Who knows! Of course, Rosen would then incur the wrath of the Clintons. However, Hillary Clinton seems to think that Rosen will be cleared of all charges.
Reportedly, both Peter Paul and Aaron Tonken are singing like canaries to the feds and imputing Hillary Clinton in the process. Personally, I would take all talk floating about with a grain of salt until it could be determined whether the feds actually have enough evidence to move against Senator Clinton. Tonken has already pled guilty to federal charges of diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars (for his own use), which were skimmed from a variety of fundraising events. He plans to write a book on his fundraising escapades with the Hollywood and Washington elites. Peter Paul, a client of Judicial Watch, is still facing stock fraud charges.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA
Is Hillary the Real Target of the Feds?
By Carol Devine-Molin
January 10, 2005
I'm just your typical political enthusiast, which, of course, means that I notice and think about things that the average person wouldn't waste a scintilla of brain-power on. That said, in recent weeks I was wondering why both Bill and Hillary Clinton were exhibiting moments of blatant vitriol toward President George W. Bush - moments that were really counterproductive and didn't reflect well upon the former president or his wife, the Senator from New York. For political pros, they were getting sloppy.
In the aftermath of John Kerry's defeat, I expected Bill and Hillary to be elated with the stage cleared for Hillary's 2008 presidential run. But the Clintons had clearly been thrown off-kilter, which managed to affect their usual politically-savvy selves of late. And, the former first couple has exhibited signs of being ticked-off at President Bush. But why? I was just trying to figure out what was brewing. Now, the answer seems evident. Given the announced indictment against Senator Hillary Clinton's former campaign fundraiser on January 7, I think the Clintons have been stewing in their own juices. They had to know what was coming down the pike. And perhaps they surmise that the Justice Department has another agenda up its sleeve, which involves investigation of Senator Hillary Clinton herself. Frankly, the Justice Department has to do its job unencumbered, and let the chips fall where they may. It's not President Bush's fault if Hillary Clinton has perpetrated any malfeasance that has come to the attention of the Justice Department.
Let's backtrack to the days immediately following Christmas: While overseas, Clinton hogged the limelight at the BBC and took an unwarranted swipe at President George W. Bush who, by the way, was in the midst of assiduously working on a multi-national tsunami relief effort. Former president Clinton knew better than to carp about President Bush at that juncture. A lot was in the works - Clinton had been told by White House staffers to coordinate with them before issuing any public statements on the crisis situation, but he simply chose to ignore that directive. Clinton advised the BBC, "It is really important that somebody takes the lead in this (tsunami crisis)", which was patently churlish and insulting toward President Bush. The implication was that the president was just hanging out and vacationing in Crawford, Texas, failing to provide necessary leadership while the world was going to hell in a hand-basket. What a cheap shot! Bill Clinton, being the consummate politico, should have realized that his grandstanding was not going to earn him brownie points with the American people.
And when President Bush graciously turned the other cheek and asked Bill Clinton, along with Papa Bush 41, to lead up fundraising efforts for tsunami victims, Clinton's previous "jump-ugly on Dubya" tactic appeared even more unseemly. Mind you, this past year President Bush has treated the Clintons superbly, notably at the unveiling of the Clinton portraits at the White House in June, and then again at the opening of the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas, in November.
Now let's examine Senator Hillary Clinton's unconscionable participation in the "Boxer Rebellion" on January 6, 2005, a politically motivated event aimed at delegitimizing the results of the 2004 presidential election and President Bush's victory. Heaven knows Hillary Rodham Clinton has always been a Leftist - will always be a Leftist - and will never get my vote. But in her zeal to win the Oval Office in 2008, I was originally confident that she would successfully create the impression of repositioning herself as a political centrist. Well, I'm not so sure about that, anymore. Mind you, I never envisioned a true reinvention of Hillary Clinton borne of self-actualization. That's not going to happen. Hillary's "conversion" to a more mainstream stance would have been a crock, put out there solely for the purpose of winning the presidency. She and her hubby Bill love to fool and manipulate the public whenever possible. They're the two biggest phonies around. Bill's lip-biting and teary-eyed "I feel your pain" look has always been pure theater for me and other Republicans. And Hillary's ostensible shock and dismay over Bill's sexual dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was only calculated to win sympathy and help her poll ratings. Hillary really doesn't care who Bill "dates".
However, unlike Bill, Hillary has consistently demonstrated political discipline over the years. Up until now, that is. Hillary did the unthinkable on January 6. She publicly aligned herself with the conspiratorial kooks and fringe of the Democratic Party. Wouldn't it have been more prudent for Senator Clinton to continue to dissociate herself from the political hard left in America? Unfortunately, she's spouting gobbledygook along with those other moonbats. Bad political move, Hillary.
Cattlegate, Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Troopergate, Chinagate and Monicagate are just some of the scandals that have plagued the Clintons over the course of years. Now we have Fundraisergate, triggered by FEC false filings and a four-count indictment that stem from a Hollywood fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's 2000 senate campaign. And it's a scandal that will undoubtedly continue to haunt her. Will this new scandal destroy Hillary Clinton's political career, which has been on an upward trajectory from the get-go? Well that remains to be seen. The question is whether Senator Clinton can be directly implicated in criminal wrongdoing. The Clintons always insulate themselves from prosecution by utilizing layers of minions to do their dirty work. To date, the Clintons have been astonishingly adroit at sidestepping disaster. Believe it or not, many Republicans are betting on Hillary Clinton to persevere. Not because they support her. In fact, they vehemently oppose her. It's really a testament to the keen political and legal capabilities of the Clintons that are widely acknowledged. Some Republicans jokingly liken the Clintons to Damien of the Omen series. Invariably, everyone surrounding Damien falls on their sword while the corrupt one continues onward.
In short, the Justice Department's four-count indictment alleges that David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's former campaign finance director, filed fraudulent documents that benefited Mrs. Clinton's campaign coffers. According to the Washington Times: "The four-count indictment said the finance director, David Rosen, understated the costs of an Aug. 12, 2000, fund-raising gala in Los Angeles by nearly $500,000, filing fraudulent documents with the FEC to increase the amount of funds available to Mrs. Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign...Two of the event's organizers were Hollywood producer Peter F. Paul and charity fundraiser Aaron Tonken".
Well, a four-count indictment is certainly powerful stuff, and could be construed as leverage to turn state's evidence on an even bigger fish such as Senator Clinton. The pivotal question is this: To save his own hide, will David Rosen be willing to provide authorities with damaging testimony concerning Senator Clinton? Who knows! Of course, Rosen would then incur the wrath of the Clintons. However, Hillary Clinton seems to think that Rosen will be cleared of all charges.
Reportedly, both Peter Paul and Aaron Tonken are singing like canaries to the feds and imputing Hillary Clinton in the process. Personally, I would take all talk floating about with a grain of salt until it could be determined whether the feds actually have enough evidence to move against Senator Clinton. Tonken has already pled guilty to federal charges of diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars (for his own use), which were skimmed from a variety of fundraising events. He plans to write a book on his fundraising escapades with the Hollywood and Washington elites. Peter Paul, a client of Judicial Watch, is still facing stock fraud charges.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA