May 8, 2005 – A tape secretly recorded for the FBI by Sen. Ted Kennedy’s brother-in-law has Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raiser admitting that a Hollywood gala may have cost way more than her filings said, it was reported yesterday.
Clinton fund-raiser David Rosen told Kennedy in-law Ray Reggie over dinner that a donor is claiming “he spent $2 million on an event that raised $1.4. . . . He may have,” The Times-Picayune of New Orleans reported.
Reggie — whose sister Victoria married Kennedy in 1992 — wore an FBI wire and taped what prosecutors call an “incriminating” chat with Rosen over dinner in Chicago in 2000.
I bet the government-controlled CNN and junk don’t pick up on this… yeah yeah yeah heheheh.. heheheheh… Americans in an iron curtain of ignorance… yeah yeah…
No need to search Fox News – the NYPOST is a Rupert Murdoch (FOX News) mouthpiece, and Orin is hardly an ojective journalist. She was shamelessly partisan in trashing Clinton during impeachment, and it’s no surprise to find her doing all she can to discredit Hillary. Deborah Orin is basically a GOP shill.
It cracks me up how Hillary has all you guys so terrified.
I am not so much terrified of her, on my own behalf, as for her positions on abortion. Then again, that’s true of far too much of Congress… both houses.
Whether Deborah Orin is partisan or not, does that actually change the facts? How different is this from when an obviously partisan source says something about Bush and you posting it here and then defending it? I notice that you only trash the journalist and source, and don’t really speak to the facts here.
I’m not taking sides politically here. I’m just honestly curious, as a 3rd party observer, how you reconcile these positions. Because, honestly, it really just looks like a matter of “I’ll say anything to make your guy look bad, and spin anything said that makes my guy look bad.” It makes me less inclined to give your points credibility, and instead tends to make me say “Oh, it’s that Bush-hating guy again..yada yada” and gloss over your posts.
Of course, that could just be me. I do the same for any obvious propaganda-looking source, be they democrat or republican, so I’m not just picking on you because i’m a Republican or something (which I’m not).
It doesn’t change the facts – no. But my post was in response to this:
He says that he couldn’t find the story with a Fox News search thereby suggesting it isn’t a right-wing attack piece. He suggests a “vast left-wing conspiracy” mocking Hillary’s claim about the right-wing conspiracy. I was pointing out that his search of Fox News meant nothing since the NYPOST is basically a mouthpiece for Fox News owner, Rupert Murdoch, (Who also owns the NYPOST). Like Rupert Murdoch, Deborah Orin is seriously biased and it does bring the validity of the story into question. I certainly wouldn’t trust her or Rupart to present the truth. Personally I will look for corroboration from other sources before I’m convinced. But I don’t have much at stake in this case one way or the other – I was just helping the lads to keep it all in perspective.
He says that he couldn’t find the story with a Fox News search thereby suggesting it isn’t a right-wing attack piece. He suggests a “vast left-wing conspiracy” mocking Hillary’s claim about the right-wing conspiracy.
I read that post as irony. A previous poster suggested that it was a “left-wing” bias which kept the story from CNN; so the poster you’re responding to noted that it wasn’t on Fox, either, so according to the same logic, Fox must also be part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.
WASHINGTON - It is a cast worthy of a political thriller: a former convict whose claims about a former president and first lady spurred a criminal investigation; a prominent senator’s brother-in-law, who worked undercover for federal agents looking into the case; sworn enemies of the former first family trying to dig up fresh dirt; and Hollywood stars.
All these characters will share the spotlight Tuesday in a Los Angeles courtroom, where David Rosen, the former fund-raising director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, will go on trial on charges that he illegally underreported the cost of a fund-raiser held for Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign.
The case is being closely watched because of its political implications for Clinton, who is not only running for re-election next year but is also considered a leading Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2008. While she has not been accused of any wrongdoing and is not expected to testify, the trial represents another potentially embarrassing chapter for the senator and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
So he underreported a fundraiser and is now being tried for it, right? I mean, he’s going to have to pay a price? Good. He should.
Sorry, but I go along with those who’ve said I’m more concerned about Bush’s lies and a war that is costing thousands of lives. What do you suppose is going to happen to him? Will he be tried? Will he have to pay a price?
Shall we weigh which is more important in the long run - an aide lying about how much was spent on a fundraiser or the President of the United States lying to get us into a war?
