.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Friday, April 29, 2005

Another Ignored-By-The-MSM Scandal…

Despite what many people dislike about Dick Morris, he’s a good man, and possesses a near-"Rovian" political mind. He helped put Clinton in office, and for some time, was close to the Clintons. He has been around them enough, known them long enough, and worked with them enough that I would consider him an expert on them. Both of his books regarding their memoirs are a scathing indictment of both, and the ends they will go to in achieving their goals.

On Monday, Dick Morris wrote in the New York Post about a new scandal that is about to rock the Clintons. It focuses around David Rosen, the national Director of Hillary’s 2000 Senate bid, and he’s facing federal charges that if found guilty, he could face up to fifteen years in prison. And he really has it hard because Hillary is doing her best to distance herself from this.

The media’s refusal to cover this scandal is typical. They "questioned" Hillary’s motives for taking tougher stances on issues like national security and immigration. They were "amazed" at how many Democrats were following her lead. And they announced her "shift" from liberal to moderate. Their infatuation with this woman is pathetic, and I’d just like to point out something to the MSM: Mainstream America isn’t fooled, you dolts. Those on the right predicted she would have to shift, and while you praise her for her tough and idealistic shift, we know she’s simply blowing bravo-sierra up everyone’s skirts. They won’t cover it as long as there’s a chance it could reflect badly on her.

As Morris has pointed out before, the Clintons take careful note of what they do, how they do it, and when they do it. In other words, they have control over every facet of their lives. That goes double for Hillary. Too many stories over the past twelve years have shown that this woman is a taskmaster, that she is prone to let her very vindictive anger slip, and that she is not above being violent. And the Democrats thought Bolton was bad.

Under the arcane rules of the Federal Election Commission at the time, campaigns could use soft money to pay for fund-raising events — provided the gathering's costs came to 40 percent or less of the total of hard money raised. (Soft money was far easier to raise: Donors could give up to $25,000 of soft money, but only $1,000 of hard money).

Hillary's Hollywood gala that raised $1 million in hard money that August. This meant that the campaign could use soft money to pay for all costs up to $400,000. David Rosen conveniently reported to the campaign treasurer that the event did, indeed, cost $400,000, avoiding the necessity of spending any hard money on the affair.

But the federal indictment of Rosen, FBI affidavits and the testimony of the event organizers — Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin — all confirm that the extravaganza's true cost was at least $1.2 million. Press leaks suggests that the feds may have Rosen on tape acknowledging that he understated the cost of the event on purpose.

Here's why he would have done it: If the real cost of the event were $1.2 million instead of $400,000, the campaign would have had to use hard money to make up the difference. The Hillary Clinton campaign would have had $800,000 less of hard money to spend running TV ads and funding get-out-the-vote operations.
And, at the time of that fund-raiser, Rick Lazio, the GOP candidate, had challenged Hillary to refuse to accept soft money. He found himself awash in hard money — small checks from Hillary haters across the country. But First Lady Hillary Clinton was heavily dependent on large checks from fat-cat donors whom she and the president wined, dined, photographed, and hosted at the White House. And these folks gave a lot more than $1,000 each.

Hillary temporized and delayed, but the handwriting was on the wall. On Sept. 24, the candidates agreed on a soft-money ban. Now she had to pay for it all with hard money. And she was hard up for hard money.

So if Rosen had owned up to the full cost of the fundraiser, the campaign would have had to cough up $800,000 of hard money at exactly the time that it needed the funds the most.

So, we come back to two very important questions. The first is did Hillary know? According to Morris, Tonkin and Paul she did know. And Rosen knows how closely Hillary followed her money in that campaign. She literally knew where every dime was spent. So, why wouldn’t she know about something that saved her $800,000 in hard money donations? I doubt she can play dumb on this end of the scandal. Is it really going to hang her? Possibly, but I think she’s got enough cronies to run damage control for her. When it comes time for her to run—either for the senate or the Presidency—the only way this gains traction is if the bloggers keep digging.

The second question is just how far Rosen is willing to go. She’s already distancing herself from him. He’s no long-term ally to either one of them. And essentially, I’m sure Hillary is hoping he’ll just fall on his sword like a good little expendable crony. Too bad she couldn’t get Raymond Reggie to fall on his. He helped the FBI on the Rosen case.

But what if he doesn’t? He is the key person in the entire investigation, and as of yet, he’s kept Hillary as far as possible. But wait until those JD lawyers start in on him. If he does finally sing, Hillary will probably have some ‘splaining to do.

Publius II


Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product