Democrat / Clinton fundraising scandals continue

True. For the moment, I'd be willing to go with the info it contains, though.

0 Replies

Hillary Clinton was on the Chris Wallace show on Fox this afternoon and he asked her at least 2 times to condemn this ad, which she didn't directly do; instead she condemned all attacks on people's patriotism and military service which she voted for in the Senate.

However, she did say something that Wallace wouldn't respond to, or maybe he just 'couldn't'.

I don't have a quote but it was something along the lines of 'the people who are condemning this ad the most, are the same people who have no exit strategy for Iraq so they want to focus on this little issue to take everyone's eyes off the REAL issue, which is progress in Iraq' (the measurable kind, not the kind GWB says we've been making for the last 5 years)

0 Replies

People continue to dig into Hillary's political machine. Lots of dots to connect, but nice to know they are working on it. This from this site, which of course will be pooh poohed by Hillary koolaid drinkers, but if the main stream media won't do any investigative reporting, somebody has to do it for them.

The information contends that Norman Hsu's contribution pattern or recipe, mirrored that of a Fred Hochberg, another prominent Hill raiser and player in the last Clinton administration, and that Hsu's operation was perhaps copied from Hochberg's. All of this supports what I have contended from the very beginning that Hillary knows much much more than she admits to. It is a complex and shadowey web of moneyed figures running the Democratic Party, thats for sure.

http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/suitably_flip/2007/09/hsocking-hsu-se.html

"But wait... there's still more. Hochberg is also a dean at the New School, where Hsu was a trustee until this scandal broke last month and the school hurriedly removed his name from their website. Also on the New School board is Bernard Schwartz, one of Bill Clinton's biggest financial backers and the central figure in Clinton's scandal involving the sale of missile technology to China.

And the lily gilder: Fred Hochberg was a member of President Clinton's Cabinet.

Yes, Fred Hochberg, a dean at the school where Hsu served as a trustee, one of Hsu's fellow HillRaisers, CEO of the company that officially bundled at least one of Hsu's direct contributions as recently as this summer, and the apparent architect of Hsu's favored candidate slate, was installed as one of the country's senior-most federal policymakers by Bill Clinton"

0 Replies

He was five and she was six
They rode on horses made of sticks
He wore black and she wore white
She would always win the fight

Bang bang she shot him down
Bang bang he hit the ground
Bang bang that awful sound
Bang bang Vince Foster hit the ground.

Mansions, limos, seasons blurr,
Slick porked his girls and he porked her
Yet she would always laugh and say
Remember when we used to play

Bang bang I shot you down
Bang bang you hit the ground
Bang bang that awful sound
Bang bang Vince Foster hit the ground....

Power, money, intrigue and
the one day trips to Switzerland
Unlaundered money in a bag
So heavy that it made him sag

and then that final, fateful day,
he knew too much, and heard her say

Bang Bang.......

0 Replies

Gunga, I am not sure what to think of bringing up the Vince Foster case again. I have not read about the Foster case for a long time, and when it was mentioned by somebody here as evidence of me being somewhat on the kooky side, I pointed out that inasmuch as the Kennedy assassination is still considered to be still suspicious in terms of what happened by almost everyone, I think it is entirely mainstream and reasonable to believe from the recorded facts surrounding the Foster case that it is at least as suspicious, and probably more suspicious. Holding suspicion of the Foster supposed suicide is entirely reasonable and warranted, based on various evidence surrounding the event. I admit I don't know really what happened, but I do not think it was handled properly and I think much was swept under the rug, for reasons I do not fully know.

With all of that said, I doubt the Foster case is going to have any traction at all unless something new is published, and I would rather concentrate on the current developments surrounding the Clintons, hopefully to help the country avert another disastrous Clinton administration. The campaign fundraising has been a real negative for Hillary, and more information dug up about it and published at the right times may serve to wake up some of her voters to reality and cause them to bolt from her camp.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

, I pointed out that inasmuch as the Kennedy assassination is still considered to be still suspicious in terms of what happened by almost everyone, .

I consider it kooky to think that "almost everyone" is suspicious about what happened in the Kennedy assassination.

0 Replies

You don't find it curious or bizarre in regard to not only Oswald's background and motivations, plus the rather strange event of Jack Ruby gunning down Oswald? I believe there was more to this than we know, and I am not claiming the Warren Commission intentionally covered anything up, but rather I just think there was more to these events than has ever been learned or revealed. I don't know that for sure and I don't know what it would be, but I simply assert there is reason for reasonable people to be suspicious of there being more to it. I am not so suspicious of there being another gunman is some people claim, but I do think there may be more to know about Oswald and Ruby, but I don't know there is, just suspicious - thats all.

Its called common sense, Parados. Try it sometime.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I believe there was more to this than we know.....

Yet when someone says the same thing about some of the events on 9/11 you call them a 'kook' and bring out the black helicopters.

0 Replies

That is correct, maporsche. And I do the same for people that believe martians landed at Roswell. If you can't discern the difference between the events of 911 and the Kennedy assassination or the Foster suicide, then I suggest you need a little more balance in your judgement.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

That is correct, maporsche. And I do the same for people that believe martians landed at Roswell. If you can't discern the difference between the events of 911 and the Kennedy assassination or the Foster suicide, then I suggest you need a little more balance in your judgement.

There's roughly the same amount of evidence for all three theories you listed, Okie. The only difference is that you personally believe one of them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

People continue to dig into Hillary's political machine. Lots of dots to connect, but nice to know they are working on it. This from this site, which of course will be pooh poohed by Hillary koolaid drinkers, but if the main stream media won't do any investigative reporting, somebody has to do it for them.

The information contends that Norman Hsu's contribution pattern or recipe, mirrored that of a Fred Hochberg, another prominent Hill raiser and player in the last Clinton administration, and that Hsu's operation was perhaps copied from Hochberg's. All of this supports what I have contended from the very beginning that Hillary knows much much more than she admits to. It is a complex and shadowey web of moneyed figures running the Democratic Party, thats for sure.

http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/suitably_flip/2007/09/hsocking-hsu-se.html

"But wait... there's still more. Hochberg is also a dean at the New School, where Hsu was a trustee until this scandal broke last month and the school hurriedly removed his name from their website. Also on the New School board is Bernard Schwartz, one of Bill Clinton's biggest financial backers and the central figure in Clinton's scandal involving the sale of missile technology to China.

And the lily gilder: Fred Hochberg was a member of President Clinton's Cabinet.

Yes, Fred Hochberg, a dean at the school where Hsu served as a trustee, one of Hsu's fellow HillRaisers, CEO of the company that officially bundled at least one of Hsu's direct contributions as recently as this summer, and the apparent architect of Hsu's favored candidate slate, was installed as one of the country's senior-most federal policymakers by Bill Clinton"

0 Replies

Another scandal I hadn't heard of, another neat little pardon by Clinton, another great accomplishment of his while in office. How nice of them to be so nice to do that! And I am so comforted by the pardon being on the merits of the case, as so described by Bill. Thanks for that explanation, Bill, as I would not wish to suspect anything out of line for such a fine couple, the Clintons. And I also think it is so nice that Hillary convinced her brother to give back the 400 grand. That was so nice of her too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908501/posts

"The Gregorys received pardons for a bank fraud conviction from President Clinton about two years after Rodham became a paid consultant to United Shows of America, a carnival business the couple owned.

Rodham has said he talked to his brother-in-law about the pardon, but he said President Clinton made the decision to grant clemency on the merits of their case.

After President Clinton left office, the Republican-controlled House Committee on Government Reform found that United Shows paid Rodham $240,000 for undocumented consulting services and that President Clinton was interested in the pardons solely because of his contacts with Rodham.

Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, has said her brother was not paid for his help with the Gregorys' pardon.

Another brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid more than $400,000 for his successful efforts to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker. He eventually returned the money at his sister's request."

P. S. I wonder where good ole Marc Rich is these days?

0 Replies

Hillary has changed her mind and is NOT going to return any of that money she got from Norman Shu.

I wonder why not.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Hillary has changed her mind and is NOT going to return any of that money she got from Norman Shu.

And your source for that is?

Quote:

A closer look at the political activity of those Hsu donors suggests their contributions to Clinton's presidential campaign did not mark their first donations to the senator from New York. Hsu's donors gave $256,945 to Clinton's senate campaign since 2005, and $40,000 to her political action committee, "Hill Pac" during that period.

Some of that money may have eventually found its way into Clinton's presidential accounts, because she transfered about $10 million from her senate fund into her presidential coffers.

Asked if the campaign was considering returning any of that additional money, campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said the campaign was not. "We didn't keep track of the contributions in the same way so we do not know which contributions to credit to Mr. Hsu," Wolfson said.

That's the latest I've found, from the Washington Post blog.

0 Replies

This seems to be a good place to deposit news about Hillary's corruption, which goes far beyond campaign donations. Yet another one that has been percolating ever since she was in charge of quelling bimbo eruptions during her husband's presidency, which indicates she listened to illegally tapped private phone conversations. At least that is the word according to a book by reporter Jeff Gerth, and John van Natta, Jr.: ( Gerth was a NYT investigative reporter)

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-files-eavesdropping-on-the-bimbos

"Hillary's defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries;10 she vetted senior campaign aides;11 and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions."

This is not surprising and it is totally believable, because it has been proven to have been done before by Democrats. Remember McDermott getting the tape from some "innocent" old couple that just happened to be driving along one day in Florida and listened in on Newt Gingrich and I think John Boehner? After all, don't we all do that all the time?

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/03/28/jim-mcdermott-lawbreaker/

This is all from the same people that decry listening in on suspected terrorist suspects because it is violating their civil rights. If its spying on the next bimbo eruption or spying on what Newt Gingrich thinks about some piece of legislation on his own personal phone, that is perfectly okay. Got that everybody? Just so we know the rules here as laid out by Hillary and the Democrats.

P.S. The troubling part of this story is that Clinton supporters were monitoring phone conversations of potential enemies. Troubling on many fronts, one being just how extensive and how organized was it, and secondly that many in the main media seems to have not cared, and of course we already know they did not care and still don't. Yet, we endured years of Watergate over just this very thing, did we not?

0 Replies

"NEW YORK -- Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

Related
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Pres. Clinton's plans for ex-Pres. Clinton
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on McGovern endorsement
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Clinton's Iraq remarks
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Iowa's voting record on women
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Clinton's Iraq remarks

Related Stories
- Not all Hsu-linked funds are rejected
- How Clinton has built her lead
- On policies, Clinton plays it safe
- Clinton outpaces Obama in money race
- Bay Area gives Clinton a boost
- Clinton's political blessing is her political curse
- Clinton makes the Sunday talk-show rounds
- Clinton unveils new healthcare plan
- Clinton appeals to antiwar Democrats
- Hsu is accused of Ponzi scheme
- Donor Hsu projected wealth, likability
- Hsu thrived in 'bundling' system
- Campaigns feel the effects of Hsu case
- Clinton to cut ties with fundraiser
- Clinton: Change is better with experience
- A Democrat in '08! But not that one
- At Wal-Mart, Clinton didn't upset any carts

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate -- Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown"

Shaking down the little poeple, I see.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story?coll=la-home-center

0 Replies

Quote:

Shaking down the little poeple, I see.

Well, at least your forthright regarding having not the slightest desire or sense of resposibility to speak/write/think accurately.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Shaking down the little poeple, I see.

Well, at least your forthright regarding having not the slightest desire or sense of resposibility to speak/write/think accurately.

What the "eff" you talking about , idiot. Want to tell us what "resposibility" is?

0 Replies

You used the expression "shaking down". It has a specific meaning. Your usage here doesn't match that meaning. Inaccurate, careless, lazy, irresponsible.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You used the expression "shaking down". It has a specific meaning. Your usage here doesn't match that meaning. Inaccurate, careless, lazy, irresponsible.

0 Replies

Democrat / Clinton fundraising scandals continue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know