RUSH: “New York Sen. Hillary Clinton personally negotiated some of the fees for a star-studded Aug. 12, 2000 Hollywood fundraiser, the event’s producer, Peter Paul, said in an interview aired on Sunday – as the event comes under increasing scrutiny by a Los Angeles grand jury and the Justice Department. And in another sign of potential legal trouble for the top Democrat, a spokesman for the lawfirm championing Paul’s case said his client informed Mrs. Clinton that her finance director, David Rosen, had failed to accurately report costs for the event to the Federal Election Commission.
‘Hillary Clinton personally called the producer of the concert part of this event,’ Mr. Paul told Fox News Channel’s Eric Shawn. ‘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.’ A secret four-count indictment against Rosen was unsealed by the Justice Department late Friday, charging that he deliberately underreported costs for the Aug. 2000 gala. The indictment prompted a new round of denials from Clinton lawyer David Kendall. 
‘[Mrs. Clinton’s] Senate Campaign Committee has fully cooperated with the investigation. Mr. Rosen worked hard for the Campaign, and we trust that when all the facts are in he will be cleared,’ he said in a statement.”
According to Judicial Watch, the law firm often quoted by Peter Jennings in favorable reports, “Mr. Paul personally informed Sen. Clinton that Rosen’s filings were inaccurate. ‘Peter wrote her 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.'”
What this is, if you have a fund-raiser and you report the expenses as low as possible, that means all the more money you get to keep. So what they did, the allegation is that they lowered artificially the costs of this fund-raiser so that Hillary would net more from the fund-raiser and that everybody involved knew they were doing it including Mrs. Clinton. Now, we’re back to this simple question. When the Clintons are involved and there is a scandal, is it easier to believe they know about it or they don’t know about it? Is it easier to believe they’re in on it or not in on it?
We had Travelgate. We had Whitewater. We had Lewinsky. We had Paula Jones. All of these scandals. By the way, FBI records and the missing FBI files, the Rose Law Firm billing records that showed up in a (White House) Map Room one day after two years nobody could find them and Hillary had no idea about this, and we– (interruption). Yeah, probably be some billing records here that will come up. I mean, all of these scandals and the Clintons maintain throughout it was just a vast right-wing conspiracy to get her husband and of course Dan Rather thinks that Bill Clinton tells the truth, Bill Clinton, “He doesn’t lie.” Bill Burkett doesn’t lie; George W. Bush does. What a great reporter, Dan Rather. So people are watching this to see if anything comes of it. It’s just another Clinton scandal, but I’m telling you, folks, wise behavior here is to take previous experience guided by intelligence and come to a conclusion. The conclusion is, a scandal-ridden bunch like this, there’s another scandal, is it logical to assume they don’t know anything about it? Is it logical to assume that one of their cohorts is turning on them and trying to screw ’em? Is it logical to believe that they’re just innocent bystanders in all this? No it’s not logical to believe that in any way, shape, manner, or form.
END TRANSCRIPT
