Hillary's campaign raises Rezko as Bill leaves campaign trail for fund raiser with Frank Giustra

[ProSense]

Clinton campaign: Obama must answer for Rezko

by Rick Pearson

FORT WORTH, Texas — Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign says rival Barack Obama has a lot of questions to answer about his relationship with indicted Chicago political insider Antoin “Tony” Rezko, whose federal corruption trial is scheduled to start the day before critical primaries in Texas and Ohio.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s chief spokesman, also told reporters today that if Obama doesn’t sweep the primaries on Tuesday, it will show that Democrats want the contest to continue. The answer belies earlier statements from top Clinton aides that she needs to win delegate-rich Texas and Ohio to stay in the race.

<...>

“Now the (Rezko) trial is beginning and I think it will be more difficult for him to avoid these very serious questions,” Wolfson said.

“What is the nature of the relationship? How many fundraisers were held? How much money was raised? How many meetings were attended? What was said at those meetings? Did Tony Rezko attempt to get jobs for Obama allies?” Wolfson asked.

Wolfson said the Clinton campaign was as forthcoming as possible about disputed donations connected to fundraiser Norman Hsu, who was sentenced in early January to three years in prison after a judge refused to throw out a 1992 no-contest plea to fraud.

more

Hillary's campaign is attempting to smear Obama with innuendo long after the story they threw out to the media has been debunked.

Obama Bought Home Without Rezko Discount, Seller Says. As noted here:

For months, reporters have been digging around a land deal between Barack Obama and indicted political fixer Tony Rezko. Despite article after article finding no legal wrongdoing (but suggesting that some was at hand) Obama’s political opponents have continued to use the event to suggest the Senator somehow did something illegal.

Now, on Hillary and transparency:

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, an issue of accountability and credibility.

You have loaned your campaign $5 million. You and your husband file a joint return. You refuse to relation that joint return, even though former President Clinton has had significantly overseas business dealings.

RUSSERT: Your chief supporter here in Ohio, Governor Strickland, made releasing his opponent's tax return one of the primary issues of the campaign, saying repeatedly, "accountability," "transparency." "If he's not releasing," his campaign said, "his tax return, what is he hiding? We should question what's going on."

Why won't you release your tax return so the voters of Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island know exactly where you and your husband got your money, who might be in part bankrolling your campaign?

CLINTON: Well, the American people who support me are bankrolling my campaign. That's obvious. You can look and see the hundreds of thousands of contributions that I've gotten.

And ever since I lent my campaign money, people have responded just so generously. I'm thrilled at so many people getting involved. And we're raising on average about a million dollars a day on the Internet.

And if anybody's out there who wants to contribute, to be part of this campaign, just go to HillaryClinton.com, because that's who's funding my campaign.

And I will release my tax runs. I have consistently said that.

RUSSERT: Why not now?

CLINTON: Well, I will do it as others have done it, upon becoming the nominee or even earlier, Tim, because I have been as open as I can be. The public has 20 years of records from me. And I have very extensive filings with the Senate where you can see...

RUSSERT: So before next Tuesday's primary?

CLINTON: Well, I can't get it together by then, but I will certainly work to get it together. I'm a little busy right now; I hardly have time to sleep. But I will certainly, you know, work toward releasing, and we will get that done and in the public domain.

RUSSERT: One other issue. You talk about releasing documents. On January 30th, the National Archives released 10,000 pages of your public schedule as first lady. It's now in the custody of former President Clinton.

Will you release that, again, during this primary season -- you claim that eight years as experience -- let the public know what you did, who you met with those eight years?

CLINTON: Absolutely, I've urged that the process be as quick as possible. It's a cumbersome process set up by law. It doesn't just apply to us. It applies to everyone in our position. And I have urged that our end of it move as expeditiously as we can.

Now, also, President Bush claims the right to look at anything that is released, and I would urge the Bush White House to move as quickly as possible.

RUSSERT: But you had it for more than a month. Will you get it to him -- will you get it to the White House immediately?

CLINTON: As soon as we can, Tim. I've urged that, and I hope it will happen.

link

Obama Memo on Clinton Not Releasing Her Tax Returns

To: Interested Parties

From: Obama Campaign

RE: Why Won’t Hillary Clinton Release Her Tax Returns?

DA: 2/29/08

During a recent MSNBC debate, Senator Clinton was asked if she would release her tax returns. She answered, “Well, I will do it as others have done it, upon becoming the nominee or even earlier.” But the very next day, her campaign backtracked, saying, “As is customary, as the Democratic nominee Sen. Clinton will release her tax information in April at tax time.”

But waiting until April is not customary. In the 2004 Democratic primary, Governor Dean, Rep. Kucinich, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Edwards released their tax returns in April of 2003 – a full year earlier in the primary process. Senator Kerry released his tax returns in December of 2003, and General Clark released his tax returns in January of 2004.

Senator Clinton’s refusal to make this very basic disclosure has raised a number of eyebrows among advocates for increased transparency. As her top Ohio supporter Governor Ted Strickland said in his 2006 campaign, if a candidate is not releasing his or her “tax return, what is he hiding? We should question what’s going on.”

There are a lot of questions about the Clintons finances. There is a question about why she refuses to return Jim Burgess' money:

Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm

Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT
Filed Under: Politics

By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.

<...>

Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.

link

Then there is The Clintons Kazakhstan problem.

With Hillary's campaign desperately needing a big win in Texas, Bill heads off to Canada for a fund-raiser with Frank Giustra:

Bill jumps off campaign trail just as Hillary faces crucial test

Published: March 1 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 1 2008 02:00

Bill Clinton is expected to take a break from his wife's campaign tonight - just days before she faces crucial -primary contests in Texas and Ohio - to host a charity event in Toronto with Frank Giustra, a Canadian -businessman.

The former president's relationship with Mr Giustra, a mining tycoon and -philanthropist who has donated more than $100m to Mr Clinton's foundation, has come under scrutiny in recent weeks. It has been suggested that his ties toMr Clinton have helped Mr Giustra's business ventures, including a lucrative mining agreement in Kazakhstan.

Senator Hillary Clinton is under increasing pressure to be more transparent about her family's finances, donors to Mr Clinton's foundation (which financed his presidential library) and other business ties, since she revealed last month that she lent $5m of her own cash to her presidential campaign.

Unlike her rival for the democratic nomination, the Illinois senator Barack Obama, Mrs Clinton has not publicly released her tax return, which she files jointly with her husband.

Pressed on the issue at a debate this week, Mrs Clinton said she did not have time to get her return ready to be released before next week's primaries. But she would "get that done and in the public domain", she said.

link

A few days ago, Giustra wrote a letter to the WSJ:

Clinton Foundation Criticism Is Unfounded

February 26, 2008; Page A17

Your recent editorial "His and Her Finances" (Feb. 22) does a major injustice to all of the good works that former President Clinton has undertaken through his foundation, and to the many who support him.

I am proud of my friendship with Bill Clinton. I have seen firsthand how inspiring his charitable work is, and how he has provided hope and relief to millions of people world-wide who never before had an advocate of his stature. He has shown me how and why philanthropy needs to be a truly global endeavor, and how to globalize my own longstanding philanthropic activities and interests.

As the public records show, I have been conducting very successful international business transactions for decades before ever meeting Bill Clinton. Allegations that certain of my recent business deals were successful because of his influence are untrue and malicious. As just one example, the mining agreements I recently reached in Kazakhstan were concluded after many months of negotiations with private companies, not the Kazakhstan government, and involved market value payment from my company for the assets involved. I have attempted to correct this lax journalism in the public domain, including through a press release statement I issued, which your editorial ignores.

My relationship with former President Clinton is solely based on our shared global charitable causes -- nothing more and nothing less. It's never been about my business, which I have grown extremely successfully over the decades on my own, thank you very much. The recent character assassination I have suffered in the press merely shows what a cynical age we live in, when attempts by successful entrepreneurs to give back to the global community become subsumed by political pandering.

Frank Giustra
President and CEO
Fiore Financial Corp.
Vancouver, British Columbia

Even Hillary has expressed previous discomfort with the relationship:

31 Jan 2008 07:02 am

I wrote back in October about the lack of transparency surrounding donations from corporate titans and foreign princes to Bill Clinton's foundation. My view was that it made sense for liberals to push for this disclosure sooner rather than later so that we could see if there are any stinkbombs in those records before Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. According to The New York Times there's at least one, where in exchange for a $31 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton helped a guy named Frank Giustra win some lucrative mining contracts from Kazakhstan's despotic government.

The only Hillary connection that the Times could uncover really highlights the lack of a Hillary connection here "Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York." Still, this obviously reflects quite poorly on Bill. And more to the point, it highlights the need for rigorous disclosure of this stuff. The Clintons are by no means unique in this regard -- the fundraising for the George W. Bush presidential library is super-shady. Normally, the relevant shadiness goes down during a president's lame duck phase so nobody really notices, but it's been a huge looming problem for years.

link

Wow! Bill’s out doing questionable deals, while Hillary is standing up for American foreign policy. Of course, she had no idea that Bill’s dealings were taking place, even in her own home!

Hillary recently changed her tune:

In an odd response to a follow-up question about her husband praising the Kazakh leader, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who has led the country for 19 years, and suggesting he could lead an international election-monitoring organization, despite her coming out against his anti-Democratic government, Clinton noted that Dick Cheney had also gone to the country to praise its regime.

link

Never mind, Cheney did it too!

What happened to the "sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record"?

This is not a case of good cop, bad cop, it’s a pattern of unethical dealings.

Hillary's Curious Campaign Loan

Follow the money

What is Hillary hiding?



edited line break, block quote

[ProSense]

1. It's possible that Hillary is hesitant

to release her tax returns because she doubts she'll be the nominee.

[Oilwellian]

2. You've hit the nail on the head

The Clinton global view is their support for cheap labor and the exploitation of natural resources. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

[Scurrilous]

3. K & R

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

4. Kerry released his return. Here is a "Kerry precedent" all candidates should pledge to follow.

Group seeks details on lobbyist meetings

A watchdog group is trying to get the remaining presidential contenders to live up to what it is billing as the "Kerry precedent."

The Center for Public Integrity this week noted that in April 2004, shortly after he locked up the Democratic nomination for president, Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., took the unprecedented step of releasing details of every meeting he had held with a lobbyist dating to 1989.

Kerry revealed nearly 200 meetings with lobbyists in an attempt to say he could defend every one. The group is asking this year's candidates to take the same pledge. But according to a statement it issued this week, none has taken the time to respond to the Center's inquiries.

link

[ProSense]

6. Hillary could release her tax return now,

and then the volumes of information later (not too much later though).

[Window]

5. .

[sandnsea]

7. Giustra, wow, they have no shame

and dare to complain about the media not asking Obama tough questions. The media hasn't been near tough enough on all the illicit money connections of the Clintons. If Ohio knew how cozy she was with Indian business, she wouldn't win a single vote.

[stillcool]

8. I haven't seen this article make the rounds...

Obama Bought Home Without Rezko Discount, Seller Says
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080218/pl_bloomberg/ar8nlioqedc4_1
Timothy J. Burger Mon Feb 18, 3:04 PM ET

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid ``was the best offer'' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller.


The Illinois senator has said he made a ``boneheaded'' move in involving contributor Antoin ``Tony'' Rezko, a Chicago businessman, in the purchase of the property on June 15, 2005.

Rezko's wife, Rita, also an Obama donor, bought the adjoining plot in Hyde Park from the couple, Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, for the $625,000 asking price, the same day that Obama bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price. Antoin Rezko was under federal investigation at the time.

Rezko was indicted on unrelated fraud charges 16 months later, in October 2006. Obama has since returned about $85,000 in campaign contributions made or raised by Rezko. Obama's Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, has questioned Obama's ties with Rezko.

``We still don't have answers about Senator Obama and his dealings with Mr. Rezko,'' Clinton, 60, a New York senator, said in a Feb. 11 interview with the Politico newspaper.

The sellers hadn't previously made their side of the story public out of concern for their privacy, according to Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's campaign. They approached Obama's Senate office 15 months ago and agreed to break their silence now through the campaign out of concern that the story was being distorted in the media, Burton said.

Toured Property

Burton said Obama, 46, toured the property with Rezko for 15 to 30 minutes at some point before the purchase. Burton said Obama wanted Rezko's opinion of the property because Rezko was a real-estate developer in the area. Burton said he didn't know when the pre-sale tour occurred.

Burton said a campaign adviser discussed the sale with Wondisford by phone and followed up with an e-mail to Wondisford repeating his points. Wondisford responded: ``I confirm that the three points below are accurate,'' according to the e-mail, provided to Bloomberg News and authenticated through records shown by the adviser.

The e-mail says that the sellers ``did not offer or give the Obamas a `discount' on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot.'' It also says that ``in the course of the negotiation over the sales price,'' Obama and his wife, Michelle, ``made several offers until the one accepted at $1.65 million, and that this was the best offer you received on the house.''

Wondisford has declined to talk directly about the matter.

Three Bids

The Obamas submitted three bids: $1.3 million on Jan. 15, 2005; $1.5 million on Jan. 21; and $1.65 million on Jan. 23, according to a copy of the sale contract shown to Bloomberg News. Obama received more than $1.2 million in book royalties and a book advance in 2005, the year he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate, his financial disclosure statement shows.

The e-mail between Wondisford and the campaign adviser also says that the sellers had ``stipulated that the closing dates for the two properties were to be the same.'' In January 2006, Rita Rezko sold the Obamas one-sixth of the lot, for $104,500, to expand their yard. She later sold the rest of the land to Michael Sreenan, who said by e-mail yesterday that he bought it in late December 2006 for $575,000.

but I guess it wouldn't. It doesn't seem to be about the purchase of the house anymore..just some vague dirty little secret that no one knows about.

[Tellurian]

9. Another Novety Spam thread by Pro-Sense that everyone zips past..

Pro-Sense is suffering from 'thread starting' withdrawal...

[ProSense]

10. Who is the

person who runs this site:

The Barack Obama Cesspool Threat

The Barack Obama Stench

That person must be on crack!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

20. Hillary is 60. n/t

[Yael]

11. Kicking recommending and bookmarking

Those with limited attention spans may skip this, but I read every word.

Thank you.

[ProSense]

12. Here comes the NYT with a long story rehashing the same old innuendo

As Developer Heads to Trial, Questions Linger Over a Deal With Obama

Where's Hillary's tax return?

[iilana X]

13. Good question, "What is she hiding?"

Probably more than we want to know.
:scared:

[anonymous171]

14. Why won't she release her tax returns?

[jackson_dem]

15. The Rezko trial is one reason why Hill should fight on to PA

[casus belli]

16. Wolfson is a schmuck. n/t

[zulchzulu]

17. As has been mentioned many times, Patrick Fitzgerald stated that Obama has done nothing wrong

K&R!

[1776Forever]

18. Vin Gupta: The man the Clintons love - Hillary & Bill's Benefactor - Free Trips & Plane Rides +++

Here is a good article on the Clinton’s benefactor who she just sold an email address list for $8,000 that some say was worth a lot more!:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/30vin.htm

Vin Gupta: The man the Clintons love

Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC | May 30, 2007

Vinod 'Vin' Gupta, 60, founder, chairman and CEO of infoUSA -- one of America's largest consumers of information with millions of clients -- is probably the single biggest contributor to the Democratic Party over the years.

He is a longtime Clinton benefactor, who has suddenly found himself thrust into the public domain in the wake of major articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post regarding his use of his company's private jet to fly the former President and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on personal, business and campaign trips.

Some shareholders in infoUSA have filed a lawsuit alleging that all of this was 'a waste of corporate assets', and an effort by Gupta to 'ingratiate himself', with these high-profile guests.

Gupta, in an exclusive interview with rediff.com, has said all of these stories being thrown up now was a "smear campaign" to embarrass Mrs Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination and accused the New York Times of "just doing a hatchet job on Hillary and me both because we are friends".

He has also alleged that the New York Times is doing so because it is supporting Illinois Democratic Senator Barack Obama -- who is also vying for the party's Presidential nomination -- "and they are trying to hurt Hillary anyway they can".

The multi-millionaire entrepreneur, who started his company in 1972 with an initial investment of $100 and says infoUSA's revenues will exceed $650 million, first got involved in Democratic Party politics over two decades ago when the leading Indian American Democratic fundraiser at the time, Ramesh Kapur of Boston, introduced him to erstwhile Democratic Presidential candidate, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, whom Kapur was exhorting Indian Americans to support.

But following Dukakis's disastrous showing it was not until Bill Clinton came on the scene, that Gupta also came into his own as a major donor to the Democrats, especially to Clinton's campaign and consequently established a close friendship with the Clintons.

In 1995, when Clinton was running for re-election, Kapur, organised on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, the first major fund-raiser among Indian Americans for the Clinton re-election campaign, which raised over $500,000.

Gupta, besides being one of the single biggest individual contributors -- whom Kapur by now had coveted and cultivated -- was afforded the honour of introducing Clinton, which he did with rousing gusto.

From then on, Gupta courted the Clintons and in turn, was afforded the opportunity of spending a night in the White House Lincoln Bedroom -- the first Indian American to do so.

As his sustained contributions to the Democrats continued to flow, Clinton offered him the post of first Counsel General to Bermuda and then the Ambassadorship to Fiji, both of which Gupta declined. While he maintained this was for business reasons, it was rumored to be because there were doubts his nomination would be confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee due to alleged violations of Securities and Exchange Commission rules.

Just before his second term ended, Clinton appointed Gupta as a member to the prestigious Board of Trustees of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. But even with Clinton out of the White House, Gupta's friendship with the now former President grew, and he brought him on as a consultant to infoUSA and, according to the lawsuit, beyond nearly $3 million in consulting fees, had flown the Clintons and himself to Acapulco, Mexico, on a vacation in 2002 and also to Switzerland, Hawaii and Jamaica. He was also said to have provided corporate jets for Mrs. Clinton at least seven times since 2002, although it was unclear whether he had done so after she began her Presidential campaign.

***************

Why aren't we hearing more about Mr. Gupta and his "gifts"?????

:grr:

[ProSense]

21. The Clintons' multiple shady deals don't matter because

Obama knew Rezko.

[ProSense]

22. The bizarre spin from Hillary's campaign and the equally bizarre reasons for it:

"We Have Momentum"

Penn and Wolfson listed three reasons why they said Obama was on the defensive: their chief economics adviser, Austan Goolsbee, was caught back-channeling with the Canadian government on NAFTA; the trial of former Obama pal Tony Rezko; and the Clinton gambit to raise questions about Obama's fitness to be commander in chief.

[ProSense]

23. What will the Republicans throw at Hillary Clinton in the fall?

Monday, March 03, 2008

What will the Republicans throw at Hillary Clinton in the fall?

by John Aravosis (DC) · 3/03/2008

Hillary's campaign had made the topic of the day "what will the Republicans throw at Barack Obama in the fall?" They're talking about Rezko today, they've race-baited Obama repeatedly in the past, and we've had reports that they've recently been sending reporters information branding Obama a Muslim.

(And last night, on 60 Minutes, Hillary didn't give a real ironclad answer, to quote Ben Smith, when asked if she thinks Obama is a Muslim. Hint: The correct answer was "no," without any hedging or "taking him at his word." And for extra credit, you could have thrown in: That's a ridiculous question, and having been through Republican smears myself, I know a smear when I see one.)

Hillary's campaign has already said that they are throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. They will discuss, are discussing, all the bad things that the GOP will throw at Obama in the fall.

So, what will the Republicans throw at Hillary in the fall?

Lots. But I'm not going to detail those things today because I'm, surprisingly, still pulling punches with regards to what I write about Hillary. I don't want to damage Hillary should she become our nominee, as increasingly unlikely as that appears. I don't want to write about very real scandals in Hillary's past, scandals that we will be forced to revisit for the next 8 months, and 8 years. I don't want to write about the rumors about Bill that no one has written about to date, even though the rumors include lots of details which are at least just as true as Obama being a Muslim. While Hillary's campaign is pushing known lies about Obama, such as the "Muslim" connection, most of the stories about Hillary are anything but lies. They're real stories that she will have to discuss publicly, again and again and again, to her and our party's detriment.

But I'm not going to be discussing the details of those stories today because I don't want to make our candidate damaged goods in the fall. You will notice that neither Obama's campaign nor Obama's official, or unofficial, surrogates are talking about the Clintons' past or present scandals, the Clintons' negatives, what a Clinton run for the presidency will to Democratic congressional races and governor races across the country. The Clintons are counting on the fact that none of us will write about their negatives, because we're too nice. So they can get as dirty as they want, with impunity.

Well, come Wednesday, if Hillary doesn't win 65% of the delegates in Ohio and Texas, and still insists on staying in the race and ripping our party in two, it will be time to start treating candidate Clinton with the same golden rule she is using for candidate Obama. Why? Not for revenge, but for the sake of our party and the fall election. Hillary and her campaign are in the process of turning Obama into damaged goods in the fall. They didn't have to go there, but beating Obama became more important to them than beating John McCain. So, the first question for Hillary come Wednesday, should she decide to continue risking our chances of winning in the fall even though the math says it's over, will be the question she's asking Obama today: What negatives will the Republicans throw against you in the fall? And as I've noted repeatedly, there are some negatives out there that most of you don't even know about - but everyone in Washington knows about them, in detail. That's because even Democrats who don't love Hillary, don't go there, for the good of the party. On Wednesday, the good of the party may dictate that we do.

[ProSense]

24. "Clinton's campaign has bombarded reporters with Web links and word that the proceedings..."

Just how much a part of the Rezko trial will Obama be? Notes the Washington Post: "Obama is expected to be no more than a footnote to the three-month trial -- Rezko allegedly contributed $10,000 in extorted funds to Obama's campaign -- yet Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has bombarded reporters with Web links and word that the proceedings are beginning. Searching for an advantage after 11 straight primary losses, Clinton strategists said Obama should be questioned more closely about his relationship with Rezko, who faces a separate trial on charges of swindling $10 million from a financial institution."

more

Beyond desperation!

[ProSense]

25. Is the primary fight going to turn

on scandals? The Clintons'?

[ProSense]

26. Hillary Clinton's Scooter Libby Problem

Hillary Clinton's Scooter Libby Problem

by Geekesque

Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:03:16 PM PST

"Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."

Statement of Senator Hillary Clinton on President Bush's commutation of the prison term for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The Scooter Libby commutation is a microcosm of the Culture of Corruption, a key issue in the Democratic party's takeover of Congress in 2006. It shows the disregard for judicial norms, the corruption, and the abuse of office that have come to characterize the Bush Era.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is not a credible critic of this Culture of Corruption, and certainly not of this episode.#

In 2008, we need someone with credibility on the issue of corruption and abuse of office if we are to take on St. John McCain, whose reputation for ethical behavior is overstated, but whose track record still outshines that of the Clintons.

The full vetting below the fold.

So, let's talk about abuses of office and cronyism involving executive pardons and commutations.

In the Clinton administration.

There are many such abuses to focus on. In the interest of brevity, we'll focus on two.

I. The New Square Four

The New Squ--who?

About New Square, New York.

New Square (Hebrew: שיכון סקווירא) is an all-Hasidic village in the Town of Ramapo in Rockland County, New York. Its inhabitants are predominantly members of the Skverer Hasidic movement who seek to maintain a lifestyle based on Hasidic teachings.

The village is administered by a Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and a Board of Trustees. Although elections take place, the officials generally run unopposed and actual voting is minimal. It is generally understood that officials running for office, are endorsed by Rabbi Twersky, the village's spiritual leader.

The upshot here, for external purposes, is that this community votes as a bloc in elections. People are told how to vote, and they comply.

So, what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton?

As it turns out, four men from New Square were convicted of fraud because they "

used a fictitious Jewish school to defraud the government of millions of dollars in education grants. "

Okay, okay. But what does that have to do with Hillary Clinton!?!?!?!

As it turns out, the village elders had a number of meetings with Bill and Hillary. The first was in August 2000.

The first took place in the Rockland County village of New Square last August, while she was running for the Senate. State party operatives thought the tiny community—which had often voted in a bloc in the past--was a promising one for Hillary in her race against Republican Rick Lazio. Following Hasidic custom, Hillary covered her head and chatted about the village's health-care services from across a coffee table, on which a tall bouquet of flowers served as the traditional screen that Hasidim require between the sexes. As far as anyone knows, that was a campaign event only; no pardons were mentioned.

(emphasis added)

This is all rather curious, since New Square normally voted 90% Republican and in 2000 "nearby Hasidic communities voted just as overwhelmingly for her opponent, former Rep. Rick Lazio, R-N.Y."

So they have that meeting, and what is the final voting result in New Square for the Senate race?

Hillary Clinton: 1400
Rick Lazio: 12

Not 1200. 12. As in one short of a baker's dozen.

You can probably guess where this is going.

The next session came four months later, after the sect had delivered nearly 1,400 votes for Hillary and only 12 for Lazio. On the morning of Dec. 22, Grand Rabbi David Twersky and an associate went to the White House and tearfully appealed to the President to pardon Benjamin Berger, David Goldstein, Jacob Elbaum and Kalman Stern. Hillary attended the meeting in the White House Map Room but insists she did not participate in the conversation. "I did not play any role whatsoever," she told the Associated Press. "I had no opinion about it."

Mmmmm hmmmmmm. Was Senator Clinton even there?

Why, yes!



more

Oh yeah, let the vetting begin!

[ThatBozGuy]

27. ..

..

[ProSense]

28. At Toronto gala, Bill praises's Giustra's thick skin

At Toronto gala, Bill praises's Giustra's thick skin

My colleague Jeff Ressner reports:

While Hillary Rodham Clinton was yukking it up with new pal Amy Poehler on Saturday Night Live last weekend, her husband Bill Clinton was in far-off Canada having fun with controversial mining operator Frank Guistra. The two men were in Toronto at a glittery, star-studded event for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a charity that the two men began to aid developing countries affected by harmful mining practices.

<...>

A January article in The New York Times scrutinized Clinton’s relationship with Guistra, a Vancouver mogul who has frequently loaned his private MD-87 jet to the ex-President for international travel. The two men journeyed to Kazakhstan together three months after they first met in 2005 and, during that trip, Guistra and Clinton both spent time with the country’s authoritarian president. The mining mogul came away with what the Times called "a monster deal."

At the Toronto event on Saturday night, Clinton said that Giustra had to have “rhinoceros skin” after stories in the NY Times and elsewhere suggested he benefited in his business from their friendship. “I love this guy,” said Clinton. “You should, too.”

The Cheney standard!