Web of corruption eh?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hsu-convict20-2009may20,0,5551189.story
"Norman Hsu -- a fundraiser for top Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton -- was convicted this morning in New York of violating federal campaign finance laws.
snip...
"The current campaign violation charges accuse Hsu of using clients' names as fake donors to Democrats' campaigns to avoid federal rules that limit contributions to candidates.
At the trial, prosecutors for the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York played tapes of then-Sen. Clinton praising Hsu's fundraising efforts.
Hsu was a key fundraiser for Clinton, now secretary of State, throughout last year's presidential primary cycle. It was part of his rise to prominence within Democrat circles over about four years. During that time he hosted a string of lavish events for Democrats and typically identified himself as an apparel executive.
Starting in 2003, Hsu raised more than $1.6 million for Clinton and other Democrats. Around the same time, he started the Ponzi scheme and used those clients' names to circumvent campaign laws, according to prosecutors.
Hsu carried out his fundraising while trying to hide a criminal past. In 1991, California authorities accused him of running a scheme to cheat investors out of $1 million. He had claimed to have contracts to buy and sell latex gloves, but California prosecutors alleged there were neither contracts nor gloves."
Now if only the liberal MSM would hammer this the way they did the Abramoff scandal we might be able to get rid of the corruption that is the Democrat party out of power in the next election cycle.
When someone goes out and raises money for a candidate, they don't do it as an employee, or any other relationship. They may be trying to initiate a relationship but there is no basis for thinking there is one. The question is whether the candidate does anything in return for the contributions.
This is "guilt by association" - insinuating that somehow Clinton had something to do with it. Of course, of she did then SHE would be on trial along with Chu. But she isn't.
So your insinuation is without substance, just an insinuation.
Your allegations of Democratic "corruption" and of media complicity in covering it up should also include some evidence instead of just a statement. You use a word in a sentence with another word, as if the use of the words creates the connection outside of your sentence.
If you would like to present anything to show that there is "Democratic corruption" please do so. The prosecutors did so in the Abramoff case -- at least until your Bush administration made them stop.
There is even some potential grounds for making a claim of at least the appearance of interest, in the associations between Geithner, Summers and the firms they seem to be favoring - over other firms - in their efforts to get the economy out of the mess the Republicans created.
Posted by Dave Johnson at May 23, 2009 11:05 AMDemocrat corruption? Gee that will be hard to find but let's try:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/30/murtha-corrupt-district/
"Criticism of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), whom Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) calls one of the “most corrupt members of Congress,” has been mounting recently over his aggressive efforts to steer money to his district. In a recent interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Murtha used stark language to defend himself against charges of corruption:
Mr. Murtha, a 76-year-old Marine veteran schooled in the blunt-knuckle deal-making that defined politics here, is contrition-free when it comes to his success.
“If I’m corrupt, it’s because I take care of my district,” Mr. Murtha said. “My job as a member of Congress is to make sure that we take care of what we see is necessary. Not the bureaucrats who are unelected over there in whatever White House, whether it’s Republican or Democrat. Those bureaucrats would like to control everything. Every president would like to have all the power and not have Congress change anything. But we’re closest to the people.”
Murtha’s remarks recall another one of CREW’s most corrupt lawmakers, Rep. Don Young (R-AK), who defended his controversial earmarks on the House floor in 2007. “I was always proud of my earmarks. I believe in earmarks, always have, as long as they are exposed. But don’t you ever call that a scandal,” said Young"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/rep-charlie-wrangle-plays_b_113282.html
"Rep. Charlie Rangel, who represents Harlem's 19th Congressional District, sure knows how to wrangle himself a whopper of a real estate deal. He's managed to acquire four rent-stabilized apartments in his district's Lenox Terrace development at rents roughly 50% below market, and without enduring the same aggressive scrutiny from landlord Olnick Organization that has seen the poor, the elderly, the sick and the blind evicted over much less. But of course, Rep. Wrangle has angrily asserted he's done nothing wrong nor is he aware of getting any special treatment. C'mon Charlie, you're one of the sharpest tools in the shed. Do you really expect us to believe you had no idea that you were getting a preferential deal? If he didn't do anything wrong, why has he decided to give up his fourth rental unit, the one he currently uses as an office?"
Posted by manapp99 at May 23, 2009 11:14 AMhttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022690.php
"Former Sen. Tom Daschle, picked by President Barack Obama to lead the administration's health reform efforts, recently filed amended tax returns to report $128,203 in unpaid taxes and $11,964 in interest, according to a Senate document obtained by The Associated Press.
The White House acknowledged Friday that "some tax issues" had emerged in connection with the nomination, but a spokesman said the president is confident the former Senate Democratic leader will be confirmed as the new health secretary.
Daschle filed amended tax returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007 to reflect additional income for consulting work, the use of a car service and reductions in charitable contribution deductions. He filed the returns after the announcement that Obama intended to nominate him to head the Health and Human Services Department."
Get over it already. She LOST!
Posted by Larry Tate at May 23, 2009 02:20 PMManapp99,
I am sure there are other threads - especially open threads where we can discuss corruption that cuts across party lines, for no one here is denying there is corruption even within the Democratic party. That, however, is not the real focus of this post.
Posted by eriposte at May 23, 2009 03:05 PMLarry,
I see you have a post upon your blog titled "America Can't Afford Debate", evidently intended to point out the absurdity of Dick Cheney's recent comments. Nice to see you ably following in Cheney's footsteps, while additionally not bothering to read or understand what this post is about.
Posted by eriposte at May 23, 2009 03:09 PMOK, so this guy Dengre is an idiot and eriposte is going to henceforth ignore him. One could just as well go back to eriposte's stuff from spring 2008 when he was, if memory serves me correctly, promoting the "Obama flips off Hillary Clinton" meme, and decide that eriposte should henceforth be ignored.
But although I still think eriposte was wildly obnoxious during the 2008 campaign, I still appreciate what he's written recently about, say, south Asia. Those posts were quite educational.
And we should all be monitoring and criticizing the Obama administration on civil rights matters....
Posted by joel dan walls at May 23, 2009 07:01 PM"Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.
For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.
He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.
As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.
These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning." WSJ
...
"Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician."
Yeah Eri, things sure have "changed" over the last few months, and many things have stayed the same. Nice to see you venturing out on other topics(so much for JDW). Keep venturing...
U.S. Relies More on Aid of Allies in Terror Cases
Some people called this practice rendition when practiced by prior admins. Now President Bu/Obama is all for it. Former President Bush closed down all our overseas detention bases, now President Obama is opening several in Afghanistan. It was bound to happen...
Posted by peter at May 23, 2009 08:49 PMGood post...a lot of wacko comments though...jeeze Repus's & Obamabots rule the web.
Posted by S Brennan at May 23, 2009 09:45 PMYou scumbag trolls are so busy jacking off on this thread, you're all gonna hurt yourselves...couldn't happen to a more ignorant bunch of losers...
Posted by headxray at May 23, 2009 10:57 PMHis campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists."
They are capable and they have convicted terrorists.
Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.
I think when you get to Obama's explanation of the matter, the cases are fucked up... they need to be sorted through... the bu$h administration left many cases in complete disarry... one more huge FUBAR left for Obama to figure out. And he still doesn't have a full compliment to help him in justice... more republi-con obstruction.
eRiposte, delete the troll man-ape... he has a habit of posting under many different names. He's just an asshole.
Not a conspiracy theorist. No doubt Kos went overboard on this power... but it is his gig over there... like it or leave it. I've chosen to be very selective of what I read... it still very informative.
Thank you for covering the Wilson's trials and tribulations... they got shafted. I still wonder if the administration is waiting for someone to hang themselves a little more and expose complicity. Maybe a big dream.
Sibel Edmonds has been writing a lot of good things at her new blogsite.
Finally, how would Hillary have handled the Progressives and Liberals? With much more reverence and respect? Since this seems to be the gist of your question... I do think she would support more liberal causes... hence gay rights in the state dept. But tell us how her cabinet would have panned out... and would they be approved yet... or encountered the same trouble being approved as Obama's folks have.
I know she would have eviscerated cheney... not even put up with is shit.
And yes, Obama needs to come up with more concrete plans before speaking. Still the congressional Dems are a bunch of weak shits, when they should be hammering home the power they have.
Great articles by the way... kudos for working so hard on them. Glad to see you "back in the saddle"... hee, hee, a little reaganesque! Really thanks...
There you go again. Trying to force our president into your cookie cuter image. Doesn't work, never has. H. Clinton has nothing to do with any of this, so why bother.
"What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.
Mr. Obama's appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America's security interests."WSJ
Thank you President Bu/Obama for realizing this and placing America's security interest above the campaign! The continuity is needed and appreciated.
Shit-fer-brains pete..the more you try to impess with your "research" and "reasoned" opinions and "commentary" the more you show what a pompous ass and fool you are..
Thanks for proving my point about you on such a consistent basis..
Posted by headxray at May 24, 2009 05:16 AMSoS,
My general policy is that I don't delete comments or ban commenters because, first, I don't like to censor speech, but more importantly, I don't want to signify through deletions that I somehow agree with the comments that I don't delete. Plus, I don't have time to police the comment threads. If there is something horribly offensive and readers want that deleted then I might consider it.
I do want to clarify this was not a Hillary v. Obama post at all. The intention of the post is to highlight that some people who apparently cared about principles really don't. Once their favored candidate is in the White House, the principles are out the window and it no longer matters if the candidate is doing the right thing. The post has nothing to do with HRC.
Thanks...
Posted by eriposte at May 24, 2009 09:07 AMHeadxray,
I'd like to respectfully ask that we refrain from comments like "shit-fer-brains" in the comment threads. There's a reason why the GOP is in the minority today and I would like to see if we can elevate the discussion in the TLC comment threads by focusing on the substance of the claims by commenters like Peter.
Thanks.
Posted by eriposte at May 24, 2009 09:10 AMEriposte, as you say, you were trying to highlight the fact that some of the president's supporters really don't seem to have any actual principles or core beliefs. As long as Obama is doing it, even if it's the same crap Bush was doing, it doesn't matter. This is the current state of the post-election liberal blogs: torture is ok, bombing civilians in Afghanistan is ok, keeping Gitmo open is OK, driving gays out of the military is ok -- as long as it's Obama, it doesn't mean what it seems to mean. And when you raise the issue, you're just a disappointed Hillary supporter. Does anyone actually believe anything? Do we stand as human beings for nothing? Our party won, now it doesn't matter what happens. What a crock of s***, here and everywhere on the internet. What a bunch of measly cowards. You are not leftists, you are not liberals, you like to win and the black guy makes you feel noble. He turns out to be just another politician who couldn't give a crap about so much of what we convinced ourselves he stood for. But let's just avoid the subject (while they are blowing actual human beings, with lives and loves and feelings, to smithereens in Afghanistan). I mean, they are not us, middle class white Americans, and we are so much more valuable then they. COWARDS, every single one of you. Have any of you any decency? Do you believe in anything?
Posted by emjoe at May 24, 2009 08:52 PMObama's been a mixed bag, to be sure. Lots of pluses, but when the far right agrees on his national security policy you know you're in trouble. In addition, his Interior Secretary Salazar has made a series of pro-industry, anti-environment decisions, and on his policing of the banking sector.
Sadly, I'm not surprised by the latter two. He's never been very strong on the environment, and no Presidential candidate is ever going to become a serious contender without first making peace with the banking sector.
But it's the decisions in the Justice department that are the most worrying. This is his area of personal expertise, and his track record in this area held a lot more promise than what he's delivered so far. I suspect that he's getting a huge amount of pressure from the Bush leftovers in the department and is caving.
Posted by Anonny at May 26, 2009 08:08 AM