Archive for September, 2007

Did Hillary Fix the Rosen Trial to Hide Her Culpability in Campaign Frauds?

Sunday, September 23rd, 2007

After six years of sleep-walking through the biggest maze of corruption, obstruction of justice and abuse of power ever witnessed by a jaded government “insider”, the clouds parted and a clap of thunderous realization struck this observers consciousness. What has been glaring on the face of the public record , mirrored in a kaleidoscope of witnesses, investigations and evidence , suddenly revealed itself in a Where is Waldo epiphany.

The Justice Department (DOJ), in tandem with a federal judge appointed by the Clintons and defense counsel directed by Clinton alter egos, used the Clinti-Vellian indictment and prosecution of Hillary’s low level campaign functionary with the high faluting title of “National Finance Director” to “immunize” the Clintons from legal and public accountability for egregious violations of the law orchestrated in plain view of democrat political leaders, A-List Hollywood and the American media.

The Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity prosecutors got away with indicting Hillary Clinton’s finance director, David Rosen, in a sealed indictment in 2003, for hiding from Hillary’s Senate campaign the $1.1 million cost of Hillary’s largest fundraiser (Event 39)? The government charged Rosen with the sole criminal culpability for causing Hillary’s Committee Treasurer to file three false FEC reports between October, 2000 and July, 2001 that hid the origin and expense of more than $700,000 of the cost of Event 39 donated by Peter Paul. Yet all interested political observers of the 2000 campaign were apprised that Hillary and her Senate Campaign Committee knew the very same information the DOJ charged Rosen with hiding from them, and they knew it long before they filed the first “criminal” false FEC report Rosen was indicted for uniquely causing. The world was apprised of Hillary and her committee’s knowledge of David Rosen’s “secret” information regarding the true $1.1 million plus cost of Event 39 when Hillary’s personal and campaign spokesman Howard Wiolfson confirmed to Washington Post gossip columnist Lloyd Grove on August 17, 2000, that:

“As for the rest of the estimated $1 million-plus cost, “it was an in-kind contribution . . . and not a check,” Wolfson said.

No one, including donor Peter Paul, ever publicly challenged the clearly ersatz indictment based on that “quote” because of the success of the Clinton “spokespieces” in diverting attention from the real issues surrounding the FEC frauds directed by Hillary with Bill as her agent.

Somehow the Clintons managed to execute an elaborate charade to hide Hillary and Bill’s illegalities in inducing and coercing Peter Paul to donate more than $1.2 million for Hillary’s Senate campaign, and then misreporting those contributions in false FEC and IRS reports? It involved the apparent complicity of a Los Angeles federal Judge A. Howard Matz they appointed and the Chief of the DOJ Office of Public Integrity (Noel Hillman) who directed his lead prosecutor, Peter Zeidenberg, to act in concert with the Judge to produce the greatest legal rope-a-dope on record? Was the Rosen trial fixed by the Clintons to hide in plain view, and thereby avoid, their own accountability for serial felony violations of federal laws that generated Hillary’s largest contributions of money and endorsements to ensure her victory over Rick Lazio in 2000, and continue the obstruction through false reports in 2006 that assured Hillary’s re-election.

The possibility of a collusion directed by Hillary and/or her agents to cover-up her illegal role in the matter comes strictly from the public record of the facts surrounding the investigation, indictment and prosecution at trial of David Rosen. Judge A.Howard Matz (appointed by co-presidents Bill and Hillary Clinton to the federal bench in 1998) blatantly ignored the Judicial Canons of Ethics, before any evidence was presented or any opening remarks were made, in tainting the jury with false public statements he knew or should have known were false. The fact that Judge Matz’ unethical conduct was not immediately challenged by the prosecutor raises the spector that more than misfeasance or incompetent lawyering may have been afoot.

First of all, Judge Matz began the trial by stating to the media unequivocally that “This isn’t a trial about Senator Clinton.” “Senator Clinton has no stake in this trial as a party or principal.” “She’s not in the loop in any direct way, and that’s something the jury will be told. ” Judge Matz’s statements violated the Judicial Canon of Ethics in making prejudicial public statements relating to a case at bar, and were factually false in that Senator Clinton had a tremendous stake in the trial- as both a party and a principal because of the ramifications of exposing her personal illegal actions, conspiring not only with Rosen, but with President Clinton as well, to illegally solicit and then hide Peter Paul’s contributions- the largest of her campaign.

The video evidence that the US Attorney from NY withheld from the FEC, FBI and Inspector General investigations clearly shows that Hillary was not only personally “in the loop” directly and through her White House employee Kelly Craighead, contrary to the Judge’s assertions, but the video clearly shows Hillary admitting to acting as a talent coordinator for the fundraiser, soliciting illegally excessive in kind contributions of the professional performing services of Cher, which Hillary used to generate more than $1 million in hard money donations to her campaign through “ticket sales” based in larges part on Cher’s performance.

While the government prosecutors ensured that Rosen alone took the heat from their ersatz indictment for victimizing Hillary Clinton’s campaign by hiding the truth about Peter Paul’s donations and expenditures and thereby causing false reports by Hillary’s campaign to the FEC, Judge Matz ensured Rosen would never be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the jury because of the Judge’s own declarations to the jury. Immediately after telling the Jury that Hillary was not involved in any way in the matter, the Judge proceeded to declare publicly and to the jury that Peter Paul was “a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual. He’s a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established.” The Judge did this knowing that the government’s case was based largely, according to the New York Times, on Paul’s allegations and that Rosen’s defense was that Paul conned him by hiding the true information about his $1.1 million plus contributions from Rosen.

“The federal government’s criminal case is largely built around the claims of Peter Paul. .. who turned on the Clintons after producing a lavish Hollywood fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in 2000… the defense is expected to argue that Mr. Rosen had no way of knowing that the figures he reported were wrong because he had relied on information provided by Mr. Paul and others who arranged the event. ” Political Drama Abounds in Trial Involving Mrs. Clinton’s Hollywood Fund-Raiser - by Raymond Hernandez, New York Times, May 9, 2005

Instead of objecting to the Judge’s prejudicial actions on the spot- and calling for the judge to recuse himself or declare a mistrial, the prosecutor proceeded to tell the jury that the Judge was correct in his assertion that Hillary Clinton had no role in the case (even though the Justice Department was withholding video taped evidence to the contrary) and that Hillary was a victim herself, implying that she was victimized not only by the defendant by also by Paul.


The most glaring problem with the case, brought exclusively against Rosen was to divert attention from the role of Hillary and her agents in illegally soliciting and coordinating more than $1.2 million in contributions from Peter Paul, and then lying about it to the voters and the FEC to win two Senate elections. Hillary admitted in a taped conversation with Paul regular briefings were given to her by the designated White House staff liaison with Paul, Kelly Craighead. But most compelling about the government’s contrived and illegal indictment of Rosen for allegedly hiding from Hillary’s campaign the true donation/expenditure of $1.2 million from Paul, was the campaign’s own public statements after the Gala.

Not only did the DOJ prosecutors know from the Washington Post that Hillary and her campaign were officially on record as knowing that Event 39 cost more than three times what they reported to the FEC and IRS from October, 2000 through January, 2006, but they knew from evidence presented and subpoenaed from the donor, Peter Paul, himself, and those who worked for him, that many agents of Hillary were fully aware that the reports made to the FEC hid most of Paul’s $1.2 million plus expenditures.

The career DOJ prosecutor who made opening and closing remarks to the Rosen Jury, Peter Zeidenberg, also performed that function in the false statement trial of Lewis Scooter Libby. Zeidenberg’s statements to the Rosen jury were carefully crafted to assure Rosen’s acquittal for causing the false reports made by Hillary Clinton and her campaign to the FEC about serious violations of the federal election law. Interestingly, Mr Zeidenberg’s statements to the Libby jury were carefully crafted to assure that Libby was convicted of making false statements to the FBI in connection with conduct with the media that was adjudged to be a perfectly legal.Zeidenberg never objected to the Clinton appointed judge unethically destroying all credibility of his principal witness, Peter Paul, to the jury, thereby assuring he could never call Paul to the stand, but he never called for a mistrial because of the judge’s prejudicial statements that effectively proved Rosen’s defense of being conned by Paul was reasonable.

Then, when Mr. Zeidenberg began to explain the case to the jury starting with how the events unfolded, his statements to the jury on the origin of Event 39 conflicted with the testimony of his own witnesses. By misstating that Rosen and Paul alone concocted the fundraiser after Paul went to Rosen to volunteer his funding and production contributions, the prosecutor again immunized Hillary’s liability for a felony violation of the federal election law based on the testimony of Clinton agen Jim Levin and others who recalled that Event 39 was the brainchild of Hillary’s agents Craighead and Levin in Chicago on June 23, 2000, after a Hillary attended fundraiser. than Hillary’s agents Kelly Craigehad and Jim Levine who then solicited Paul to produce and pay for it. The prosecutor’s actions all seemed surgical in their efforts to excise Hillary and Bill Clinton’s illegalities from being revealed while laying the blame on a functionary who could never be convicted.

With the recent release in April, 2007 by the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY of a smoking gun video of an illegal fundraising phone call from Hillary Clinton to Peter Paul in July, 2000 (a tape that was withheld from the DOJ, the FEC and the Rosen Grand Jury investigations into Hillary’s largest fund raising event) , Peter Paul’s attorneys are preparing a request to the new Attorney General to open a new investigation of the role Hillary, and the US Attorney she supervises as Senator from NY,played in obstructing all investigations that improperly exonerated Hillary Clinton for lack of any evidence linking her personally to the matter.

The Jury was first deceived by the Judge when he stated Mrs. Clinton played no role in the Gala, which was at the heart of the case against Rosen. This judicial deception supported the government’s first objective, to deflect Hillary’s accountability by blaming her underling for hiding information he exclusively had from Hillary and her campaign about Paul’s contributions.

Then Judge Matz ensured that after Rosen took the heat during the trial for unilaterally victimizing Hillary Clinton in hiding the truth about the false information reported by her campaign to the FEC about Paul, Rosen would never be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the jury by virtue of the Judge’s own declarations to the jury. After telling the Jury, before any evidence was presented, that Hillary was not involved in any way in the matter, the Judge proceeded to declare publicly to them that Peter Paul was “a thoroughly discredited, corrupt individual. He’s a con artist. The fact that he is, is already established.” The Judge did this knowing that Paul was a principal witness against Rosen, and that Rosen’s defense was based on discrediting Paul.

Since Rosen’s entire defense was based on the argument that Rosen was a dupe and victim of Mr Paul, who hid all information on what he was spending for Mrs Clinton, when the judge began the trial with the unprecedented and highly prejudicial statement about Paul being a con man, he effectively told the Jury that the Defense’s case was credible and therefore as a matter of law they could never legally conclude there was not reasonable doubt to allow them to find David Rosen guilty!

Normally, a judge’s actions that violate the integrity of a prosecution in this overt and unmitigated way would be challenged by the prosecutor- because the judge has rendered the entire trial moot before it began. But here the Prosecutor himself joined in assuring the jury that Hillary was in fact a victim in the case, and there would be no evidence of her involvement in any way. Rather than stopping the sham proceeding from being conducted by a judge who violated his oath of office to conduct trials fairly and objectively, the prosecutor proceeded to carefully lay out evidence that would protect Hillary so that she could point to her personal exoneration in the trial as definitive evidence of her lack of any culpability for the largest campaign finance fraud on record and thereby avoid accountability in the FEC and Senate Ethics Committee investigations launched by Peter Paul’s allegations.

Its all in the public record - all the public needs to do is read it and weep- that Hillary Clinton’s power to subvert our constitutional processes has become so great, she can preempt every branch of government’s ability to hold her accountable to the Rule of Law in plain view for all to see and fear.

Hillary’s “I Am Not A Crook Defense” in Paul v Clinton Judicial Hearing Sep 7

Thursday, September 6th, 2007

Hillary Clinton is making history yet again. On Friday September 7, Hillary’s defense attorney, David Kendall, will appear before a three judge panel in Los Angeles Appellate Court to defend his client, the leading Democrat contender for the office of Chief Law Enforcement officer and defender of the Rule of Law, from evidence presented by her largest donor, Peter Paul,  of various felony violations committed by Hillary and Bill to win her seat in the U.S. Senate.

The historical significance of a presidential candidate defending herself, in the midst of a presidential campaign, from videotaped evidence capturing felony violations of federal law has been lost on the Mainstream Media. They have consistently refused to report on this case since the California Supreme Court denied the Clintons’ appeal to dismiss the faud and coercion case.

The additional significance of substantiated allegations of a conspiracy with the then President of the U.S. to assist Senate candidate Hillary Clinton in violating various federal statutes, and obstructing  numerous federal investigations into those violations, has further escaped the interest of the media.

The political future of the most powerful woman in the world, and of our Republic that is now threatened by her lust for power,  is now in the hands of the three California jurists who have within their power the ability to adjudicate Hillary Clinton as a felon and thereby finally disqualify her from attaining the office of President of the United States that she plans to usurp and abuse.