Redstate

I heard some guy on the radio talking about this story, and I even went to www.hillcap.org and glanced around. But I am still trying to figure out how this sticks to Hillary.

Can you boil this down for me?

Is the idea that David Rosen could flip and say that she personally directed him to underreport the cost of the fund raiser? What if he holds his mud? Is she clear as long as he does?

A rising chorus of questions continue to dog the embattled Mrs. Clinton as reports multiply concerning fraudulent reports allegedly filed by her 2000 Senate campaign.

What did Hillary know, and when did she know it?

The Clinton campaign's finance director, David Rosen, goes on trial this week in Los Angeles, where he faces up to fifteen years in prison for fraudulently understating the costs of a gala Hollywood fundraiser co-hosted by thrice-convicted felon Peter F. Paul and his wife, Andrea.

Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign has denied taking any contribution from the pair, was captured shooting daggers out of her eyes at Mrs. Paul in a photograph published on the web here.

The photograph of Mrs. Clinton shooting daggers out of her eyes at Mr. Paul, at another fund-raiser hosted by the Pauls at the posh Hollywood eatery Spago, can be seen at the bottom of the page here.

The dreaded "gate-word"

As Mrs. Clinton's troubles deepened, columnist Will Malvin coined the term "Galagate" to describe the growing scandal, adding yet another "gate" word to the Clinton legacy which already includes "Filegate," "Monicagate," "Travelgate," "IRSgate," and "Pardongate." The addition of the 'gate' suffix alerts the public that a scandal is brewing, and that the Clintons are trying to get out of another piece of messy business in which people are going to jail left and right all around them, while they pleaed innocence and ignorance of the whole thing.

More on the Way

Mr. Paul's civil lawsuit against the Clintons and Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign organizations is now set for trial, following rejection of appeals by the California Supreme Court of Clinton attorney David Kendall's motions to have the case thrown out. That case is now ripe for discovery, permitting Mr. Paul to subpoena Mrs. Clinton's correspondence from the voluminous files seized by the FBI from Mr. Rosen's residence following his arrest.

Oto desu

In a related development, photographs have surfaced of Mr. Tendo Oto, a Japanese national, seated directly behind Mr. and Mrs. Clinton at the Hollywood Gala event, at what Mr. Paul has referred to as "garrot distance from the President of the United States." Since the Secret Service would never have cleared such an individual to even enter the building, let alone sit behind the president, questions immediately arose as to whether the Clintons themselves intervened on his behalf.

Records show that Mr. Oto paid $27,000 to attend the event. Contributions from foreign nationals are prohibited, so question have started to swirl, dog, and bark at Mrs. Clinton concerning whether her campaign accepted, and failed to report, a contribution from a foreign national.

What would you say if I told you that Mike Wallace of CBS News has known for months that Mrs. Clinton herself negotiated the price with the producer of the event, and that this amount was by itself far larger than the $354K her campaign reported.

I don't know what I would say if you said such a thing. Are you saying it? Couldn't Hillary then argue "hey, I negotiated a price of $345k with so and so. I can't be held accountable if someone else caused budget overruns".

Even still, these technical violations leave me flat. The whole thing (that is, the world of campaign finance regulations) is a hopelessly tangled web of absurdity.

Couldn't Hillary then argue "hey, I negotiated a price of $345k with so and so.

Not without being contradicted by multiple witnesses. If she said $800K or so, she could avoid that. But then she'd be admitting that she knew it cost at least $800K, and not the $345 she reported. That was just the producer's fee anyway. That didn't count the performers, the stage, the guys that work the stage, the sound, the lights, etc.

Even still, these technical violations leave me flat. The whole thing (that is, the world of campaign finance regulations) is a hopelessly tangled web of absurdity.

I agree. That's why I think the campaign's reports to the IRS will have more impact. People understand under-reporting income to the IRS. This FEC stuff leaves them cold.

Doesn't leave the courts cold, though. Rosen can go to jail here, even if it leaves you flat. If it can be shown that Hillary knew how much it cost, she could go to jail, too. Let's hope nothing happens to Mike Wallace.

Am I the first to think this, or only the first to say it? This will be a big yawn to the American people. The total cost of a fundraiser was underreported? This is what you think will generate a scandal that will neutralize Hillary Clinton? I don't think so. And I'm surely not a fan.

You don't get it. This will not play out in the media. This will play out in courtrooms. There will be indictments; trials. People will go to jail.

The media cannot protect the Clintons from what's going to happen here. It's not a popularity contest.

However, Joel's comment here might be applicable.  If the media or just the right-of-center blogosphere starts refering to her as the "embattled" Senator from NY.  Or sentences begin, "Senator Clinton, who has yet to resign, ..."

These things have a funny way of getting out of hands when you least expect it.

You are right.

I wish people would stop trying to beat the Clintons through scandals. Even if you accept everything from the Clinton era as true (Whitewater, travelgate, Ron Brown, Vince Foster, Monica, etc, etc, etc) apparently the American people aren't buying it.

If you want to defeat Hillary, then produce better candidates with better ideas. If you can't do that, then don't expect to beat her with charges like this.

FWIW, I hope she doesn't run. The country needs to get past the Bush/Clinton era. At the end of the current term, we will have had 20 consecutive years where the President came from one of two families. Time to get some fresh people into the mix.

I wish people would stop trying to beat the Clintons through scandals.

We don't get to vote on it. Any citizen, even a convicted felon, may seek to have his grievances adjudicated in our courts. When these grievances involve prominent politicians or celebrities, they will generate news coverage; not much we can do about that.

Paul v Clinton has been meandering through the California courts for years. David Kendall has apparently hit a brick wall in his efforts to perpetually delay the case, and Mr. Paul has in the meantime arranged for different, and hopefully better, representation.

So the case is once again moving forward and the discovery phase is about to begin.

Armed with the power of subpoena that comes with discovery, Mr. Paul becomes a very dangerous man to Hillary Clinton. He knows where there are many skeletons, and he even knows some of the skeletons personally. He knows who else was there when certain things were said. He remembers who had the video camera out when this or that happened. And he has more than a few pictures, cancelled checks, and videos of his own. In fact were we inclined to conspiracy theorizing, we would worry that he might begin to engage in Arkancidal ideation, and perhaps act on those ideas.

I don't think this is going to be the usual Clinton scandal. For one thing, it's going to be a fairly quiet scandal. Most of the next year will be taken up with various (and boring) motions and counter-motions as the two sides jockey for position. "Well, nothing came of that" will, I am sure, become a common perception.

But there are 'smoking guns' here. I think you will be surprised. It will take time — more than a year — for them to come out at the glacial pace at which courts operate. But come they will.

At the end, the Justice Department will have sufficient slam-dunk evidence that they may indict Hillary Clinton for fraud without fear of being charged with a political prosecution. Like Rostenkowski and Traficant, she will be caught in a snare of her own making; one so clear-cut that only the most rabid partisans will complain when she is arrested and charged.

The Smartest Woman In The World® screwed up big-time here. There are too many paper records, too many witnesses, in too many places, for her to get out of this. It took a lot of people, and a lot of money, to put on the Clinton Gala. It all left a lot of tracks. And, she got a little out of her league and started playing with people who have their own favors in life and do not need the ones that she might grant. That was a mistake.

the article itself says there is no evidence tying hillary to the scandal.  so why exactly is this relevant?

the article itself says there is no evidence tying hillary to the scandal

The article itself says nothing of the kind. so why are you trying to sell us this?

ok, what is it?

i didnt think so.