Does the Name "David Rosen" Ring a Bell?

You may not be familiar with him.
TheSmokingGun has all the details on the indictment of Hillary Clinton's campaign finance director, David Rosen.
The finance director for Hillary Clinton's 2000 U.S. Senate campaign was indicted today [January 7, 2005] on federal charges of filing bogus financial reports with the Federal Election Commission. According to the below indictment, David Rosen reported the false numbers in connection with a "Hollywood tribute" honoring Clinton.

Investigators allege that a "wealthy individual" paid more than $1.1 million to underwrite the Clinton gala and that those payments were delivered through "several corporate entities controlled by him." While that whopping sum should have been reported to the FEC as an "in-kind contribution," prosecutors charge that Rosen covered up the real source of the money, and even caused the creation of a fictitious $200,000 invoice to aid his scheme.

The August 2000 fundraiser was billed as a "Hollywood Tribute to William Jefferson Clinton," though the funds raised went to his wife's campaign kitty. The bash was held as the Brentwood estate of radio mogul Ken Roberts. While the so-called wealthy individual (referred to only as "C-1") is not named, he is clearly Peter Paul, an Internet entrepreneur who helped organize the bash. Clinton is not mentioned by name in the indictment,instead referred to only as "Senator A."

The fundraiser was largely orchestrated by Aaron Tonken, a notorious L.A. con man who last August was sentenced to five years in prison following a guilty plea to a pair of fraud counts. The 39-year-old Tonken, who made his living defrauding donors and underwriters of charity events, now resides in the federal lockup in Taft, California, where he is scheduled to remain until April 2009.
________________________________

We must not forget that Hillary Clinton has some ethics issues in her past. Lots and lots of skeletons are hanging in her closet next to the black pantsuits and pink blouses.

Have the mainstream media ever bothered to find out what Hill knew and when she knew it? Of course not.

Thanks to NewsMax, we have an idea. We not only learn that Hillary knew all about the scheme. We also get a glimpse of how the New York Times throws its journalistic integrity out the window to prop up Hill.

The Times report spent more time trying to undermine Mr. Paul's credibility than it did explaining the evidence against Sen. Clinton - and went out of its way to portray her campaign finance director, David Rosen, as someone who was victimized by the "desperate" witness anxious to save his own skin.

Obviously, a Los Angeles grand jury saw things differently when it filed a four-count indictment against Rosen over a year ago (it was unsealed Jan. 10), accusing the top Clinton aide of failing to report most of the $1.2 million Paul spent to produce a gala August 2000 fund-raiser for Hillary's Senate campaign.
Reading the Times report, however, one never learns that Mr. Paul has directly implicated Mrs. Clinton in Rosen's alleged bid to hide campaign cash.

"Hillary Clinton personally called the producer of the concert part of this event," Mr. Paul told Fox News Channel's Eric Shawn late last year. "She asked him to lower the fee that he was charging of $850,000 at my request. So I don't understand how she could possibly say that she didn't know" about the true costs of the event.

Paul's legal team, Judicial Watch, says he "wrote [Sen. Clinton] a letter in 2001 telling her that the FEC forms from her campaign were false."

"Hillary Clinton knew Peter was paying for the event and was personally involved in negotiating the production fee for the event," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told NewsMax in January.

But rather than mention inconvenient details like these, Wednesday's Times report adopted the attack strategy perfected by the Clinton White House during the impeachment scandal.

The Times describes Paul as "a smooth operator with myriad connections and a troubled past ... a well-connected figure with a checkered past ... [whose] law license was suspended after he pleaded guilty to cocaine possession."
_____________________

The NYT is very selective in their targets.
Liberal bias? What liberal bias?