As the press covers the ever less substantial Dem charges against DeLay, it has been almost totally silent about the charges involving Hillary's fundraising scandal. The New Orleans Times —Picayune printed a partical transcript from that case:

It appears to support the government's claim that Rosen knowingly mis—accounted for the event's expenses, so as to maximize "hard money" raised via the event, and minimize "soft money." But the conversation between Rosen and Reggie ranged into topics far more entertaining than campaign finance:

The chitchat ranges from speculation that a wealthy Clinton donor was using cocaine to lusty remarks by Rosen about the donor's young daughter. Rosen does not hesitate to disparage President Clinton, noting that he began calling regularly —— once a week —— after Rosen went to work for Hillary Clinton. "Go screw yourself , Mr. President," Rosen says, pretending to pick up one such call.

The salaciousness reaches its pinnacle with Rosen's rambling anecdote about a fat cat Clinton donor who said after a night of partying that he sent prostitutes to the hotel rooms of two top Clinton loyalists.
"So the next day, (one of the loyalists) calls (the donor) from the golf course with Clinton," Rosen told Reggie. "Clinton gets on the phone, he goes, I just wanna tell you something. . . . The day I'm outta office, I'm going out with you."[/quote]

Powerline asks:

If the indictment of DeLay's aides by a long—discredited Democratic activist in Travis County, Texas, is a big news story, then why isn't the indictment of Hillary Clinton's finance director by the Justice Department an equally big story? It's often said that newspapers focus on lurid stories to boost circulation; if that's true, why aren't they jumping all over a story that features, as the Times—Picayune's headline put it, sex, lies and secret tape recordings? Not to mention the Kennedys, the Clintons, and a supporting cast of Hollywood stars. Hmmm. I can't think of any explanation for the mainstream media's sudden reticence.