Never would have seen this coming...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director has been indicted on charges of filing fictitious reports that misstated contributions for a Hollywood fund-raising gala for the senator, the Justice Department said Friday.

The indictment, rare for a political campaign, was unsealed in Los Angeles charging David Rosen with four counts of filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission. The charges focus on an August 12, 2000, dinner and concert supported by more than $1.1 million in "in-kind contributions" -- goods and services provided for free or below cost. The event was estimated to cost more than $1.2 million.

The FBI previously said in court papers that it had evidence the campaign deliberately understated its fund-raising costs so it would have more money to spend on her campaign. The indictment refers to Clinton only as "Senator A."

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 he provided some documents to 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 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.

Rosen's attorney, Paul Mark Sandler, did not return a call asking for comment. Mrs. Clinton's lawyer on campaign finance matters, David Kendall, had no immediate comment.

The businessman who hosted the event, Peter Paul, has told federal authorities that it cost more than $1 million and that he had been surprised when he saw that most of the contributions were not reported.

The money raised at the fund-raiser went to Mrs. Clinton's campaign, the Democrats' national Senate campaign organization and a state Democratic party committee.

The joint fund raising made the rules more complicated, because the gala raised both "hard money" -- funds given to candidates subject to federal limits -- and unlimited "soft money" that was unregulated and unlimited under the former campaign finance law.

If the the cost of the event was underreported, the committee would have spent less of the coveted hard money, contributions that unlike soft money could be used to cover Clinton's campaigning costs.

Federal law governing such joint fund-raisers was designed to prevent joint committees from circumventing restrictions on the contributions given directly to candidates.

Most allegations of campaign finance irregularities are handled administratively through the FEC, although the Justice Department has investigated such matters in the past.

During President Clinton's administration, a Justice Department campaign finance task force charged more than two dozen individuals and two corporations with fund-raising abuses from the 1996 election cycle. Many of the charges involved Democratic fund raising.

In addition to his Clinton effort, Rosen has raised money for several other high-profile Democratic candidates, including former presidential hopeful Wesley Clark. Most recently, he was named to the fund-raising team of Donnie Fowler, a candidate for the Democratic National Committee chairmanship.

_____________________________________________________________



This is obviously a concerted effort by the Republicans "dirty tricks" team to again slander the patron saint of the Democractic Party. No?

Well, it certainly shows that unfortunately there are few politicians that are squeaky clean.

The Clintons being quite notorious.

I guarantee you that a group of Democrats is behind this. I wonder why Kerry suddenly went to Iraq?

What?

--PunkDavid

That wouldn't surprise me, although everyone knows when it comes to being devious and sneaky, the right-wing has mastered it.

Do I really have to explain all this?

Yeah I think you do. You seem to be implying that because Hillary Clinton's campaign manager under reported her contributions that the entire Democratic Party is corrupt. I'd like you to back that up.

--PunkDavid

Ill go one farther and indict our entire government for fraud, and luckily I have some free time so I'll back that up.

Here is a taste of how our tax dollars are allocated in Congress:

Top four for Pork in 2004-

1.Ted Stevens R - Alaska: Chair of the Senate Appropriations committee secured $524 million in 2004 for his state, including $95 million to research "heating of the ionosphere" and has been quoted suggesting that NYC cops give up thier overtime to help finance the Iraq War.

2. Robert Byrd D - West Virginia: The first person to accumulate over $1 billion in pork over his career, nearly all of which has been used for federally funding the 37,000 miles of hillbilly highway his home state is now using.

3.Danniel Inouye D - Hawaii: Hit up Congress for $494 million in 2004 alone. Notable exploits include $220,000 to study the abundance of green algea, burning up $2.3 million researching brown tree snake control, and allocated over half a million dollars to monitor pineapple and papaya crops.

4. Anthony Williams D - Washington D.C.: Racked up an impressive $181 million dollars in 2004 for a city with a population of just over half a million people (this is in addition to the federal funding which covers national monuments, the Smithsonian, government offices/agencies etc.) Much of this pork is being used to lure the Montreal Expos to D.C. and he is hoping the City will find it in thier hearts to spend $300 million for a new stadium.

But its not only these jackasses who are guilty, all of these programs were APPROVED by the 108th or 9th Congressional Legislature:

2.9 million for 32 programs that teach abstinence over sex ed.
Seriously what the fuck?

$330 BILLION dollars allocated to the welfare state.
The democrats want to take money from defense to buy votes in the from the welfare programs.


$456 BILLION for defense programs
Republicans want to take money from the welfare state to finance thier toys so they can play with thier new toys in the sand....

$2 million Dollars for the First Tee initiative in St. Augustine which teaches gamesmanship in the sport of Golf
I dont think it is possible to justify this expenditure, ever.

$1.2 BILLION dollars to bail out Amtrack ($25 BILLION since 1975).
Amtrack is essentially a government subsidized transportation agency.

Seriously the list is endless and has very, very few exceptions. I think satement that "the republicans are better at being sneaky blah blah blah" is, quite simply, horseshit. These sides work toghether to violate the rectums of us all, partisan politics in this area is not only irrelevant, it completely ignores the simple facts that surround it. Remember none of this money could be allocated without a MAJORITY vote somewhere in the halls of congress.

This is something I find particularly appropriate:

The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. – Tacitus

Where do you get that from. What I am saying is, is that the Democrats haven't learned a damn thing since 2000. They are not united, they have no common causes, and there is a brutal internal power struggle taking place within different factions of the party. You basically have four aspects to this power struggle: Moveon.org, the Dean factor, The Clintonista's, and Kerry.

Here you have Kerry, he almost beats Bush. So since he ALMOST won, he feels that in 2008 he should be considered a legitimate contender for the precidency. His main competition is Hillary. Again, the main problem that exists is this complete lack of unity among the Democrats to back an agenda like the did under Clinton. There's infighting. Don't you find it funny that you heard nothing from Kerry for two months, and then suddenly out of nowhere he's over in Iraq bashing Bush again like it's October 2004?

Here's what I think transpired in both Clinton/Kerry camps. Hillary seemed to think that she was going to be the candidate backed for 08', that the party would step forward and unite behind her in order to regain some power and clout in our government. But she didn't keep a close eye on Kerry. Kerry sat back, bided his time, found out his friends were, and is now going to try and undermine Hillary's election run into 2008. If he can delegitimize her early, then I think he feels that people will point to him as being the only eligable Democrat for the 08' election.

The Democrats haven't learned a damn thing since November. This party is in turmoil, and I love it. Now keep in mind that in 06' I believe there are two southern senate seats up for election, including one in Florida. Those two seats are known targets of the Bush Administration. If we win those seats...the Dem's are in serious trouble. Losing senators like Tom Daschle should be an eye-opener for the Democratic party, but instead, you just have this mess.

Good luck in the next four years anti-Republican folks.

Some of this stuff I actually don't have a problem with. These guys are sent to Congress to represent their state. The Hawaii stuff doesn't sound unreasonable to me--their bread and butter is stuff like pineapples and papayas. DC? It's a metropolis. What exactly are "hillbilly highways?" Are they just regular highways like every other state has, just with people you consider hillbillies driving on them?
Like I said, I don't think all of it is called for, but these guys are trying to do right by the folks that elect them if they want to keep their jobs.

Well as long as we're indicting everyone, I'm all for that. It's making it partisan like this is confined to one party or the Clintons that is unfair.

--PunkDavid

From this statement:






That's very nice. What does John Kerry have to do with this again?

--PunkDavid

John Kerry's people are behind this...they're attacking Clinton because she is the major opponent to his future in politics.

Doesn't matter, not like anything will ever come of this. It's just a smear campaign more than anything.

I actually might be inclined to agree with you on this, I know its thin but its not without a certain degree of logic.

Here's my predicition:

Neither John Kerry nor Hillary Clinton will ever be President. No brainer there, I know.

Further, neither of them will be the nominee in 2008. If one of them becomes the candidate, it will confirm all suspicions that the Democratic and Republican Parties are actually in cahoots to have Republicans fully take power with the Democrats designed to be a permanent opposition party.

--PunkDavid

I'm with this guy.

[/quote]

Where do you get that from. What I am saying is, is that the Democrats haven't learned a damn thing since 2000. They are not united, they have no common causes, and there is a brutal internal power struggle taking place within different factions of the party. You basically have four aspects to this power struggle: Moveon.org, the Dean factor, The Clintonista's, and Kerry.

Here you have Kerry, he almost beats Bush. So since he ALMOST won, he feels that in 2008 he should be considered a legitimate contender for the precidency. His main competition is Hillary. Again, the main problem that exists is this complete lack of unity among the Democrats to back an agenda like the did under Clinton. There's infighting. Don't you find it funny that you heard nothing from Kerry for two months, and then suddenly out of nowhere he's over in Iraq bashing Bush again like it's October 2004?

Here's what I think transpired in both Clinton/Kerry camps. Hillary seemed to think that she was going to be the candidate backed for 08', that the party would step forward and unite behind her in order to regain some power and clout in our government. But she didn't keep a close eye on Kerry. Kerry sat back, bided his time, found out his friends were, and is now going to try and undermine Hillary's election run into 2008. If he can delegitimize her early, then I think he feels that people will point to him as being the only eligable Democrat for the 08' election.

The Democrats haven't learned a damn thing since November. This party is in turmoil, and I love it. Now keep in mind that in 06' I believe there are two southern senate seats up for election, including one in Florida. Those two seats are known targets of the Bush Administration. If we win those seats...the Dem's are in serious trouble. Losing senators like Tom Daschle should be an eye-opener for the Democratic party, but instead, you just have this mess.

Good luck in the next four years anti-Republican folks.

You do realize that nothing you have stated here is actually based on facts, right? When asked to prove a point, its best to not rely on statements that begin "Heres what I think happened" or "I feel"

Yes, its simply his opinion. If you would like the facts about corrupt financial practices refer to my previous posts.