Is Hillary the Real Target of the Feds?

I must admit that when I first heard of the indictment of David Rosen, a former fund-raiser for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), I dismissed it--because after all, the Clintons are famous for having their former associates get into trouble with the law for acts they committed while in the Clinton's service (or even under their direct orders) and then hanging those same associates out to dry while getting off scot-free. But now Carol Devine-Molin, writing over atGOPUSA.com, thinks that the Clintons are genuinely squirming over this investigation.

Furthermore, she asserts that this explains why the Clintons approached the Kerry campaign with a degree of personal animus against the President that rivaled anything that Michael Moore said, either in the movies or whenever anyone stuck a mike in his face.

Devine-Molin's point is simply this: Smart candidates, or spokesmen for those candidates or their Party, do not bad-mouth the current Commander-in-Chief on foreign soil in wartime, as Bill Clinton has done--and they certainly don't do it after the election is over! Neither, as I have said before, does it well-befit a Senator to speak in favor of a puerile, unwarranted, and baseless objection to a certificate-of-vote from a State where all but the most determined partisans agree that that State's electoral-college delegation won fair and square. But Hillary Clinton did, after Barbara Boxer (D-CA) started it by signing Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones' (D-OH) original objection. More to the point, such behavior is the political equivalent of a loose cannon on the gundeck when you are trying to get elected President in four years by an electorate that is getting more conservative all the time.

So why, Ms. Divine-Molin asks, are both the Clintons acting like loose cannons on the gundeck of Presidential politics? Or in Bill's case, UN General Secretarial politics? And if Bill really wants that job, he has to persuade the UN to amend its Charter to let him take it--because as it now stands, no citizen or lawful subject of a permanent Security Council member may serve as SecGen. The UN could amend its Charter, but why would they in order to get a SecGen who shoots his mouth off at the wrong moment? Even the Rockefeller/Rohatyn/Rothschild Axis, if you believe that such exists, is not composed of stupid men!

Hence Carol Divine-Molin's conclusion: that the Clintons know perfectly well that this is not repeat not Janet Reno's Department of Justice. Right now it's John Ashcroft's DOJ, and soon it will be Alberto Gonzalez' DOJ. And neither AG would be inclined to interfere with an investigation just to suit the Clintons. No, those are not two vindictive AG's. Neither is Bush a vindictive President. But the Clintons, you see, are vindictive, and they project their vindictiveness on the President--with results that surely make them shudder. In short, they expect to land in the slammer, because that is where they would send Bush if the positions were reversed.

Do the Clintons really face prison? I don't know. I don't fully share Carol Divine-Molin's confidence that the Bush DOJ will actively pursue the investigation to the point of trying to get a sitting Senator thrown into prison and/or out of the Senate. I'm not even sure that the evidence will be solid enough to achieve such a result. But I suggest that the Clintons are afraid of that result--again, because that's what they would have done. Hence their loose-cannon-on-the-gundeck behavior over the past several weeks.