The Mysterious Hillary Clinton
By Jim Kouri CPP (01/06/06)
A campaign fundraising group for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has agreed to pay a $35,000 fine for underreporting hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a Hollywood fundraiser in 2000, according to the Associated Press.
Notice that AP didn't write Hillary Clinton's campaign. No. A campaign fundraising group underreported the money Clinton conned out of some of the mentally-challenged Hollywood elite. And this group is paying a $35,000 fine. Not Hillary. She's an innocent bystander. A news reporter employed literary gymnastics in order to avoid the reader suspecting Senator Clinton was in any way involved in this accounting "mistake."
The AP would have us believe she didn't know what was going on in her campaign. The Queen of control freaks didn't know what was happening with hundreds of thousands of dollars within her own coffers? And they want us to vote this woman into the Oval Office?
This sounds eerily familiar. I recall when everyone in the world was looking for Hillary's Rose Law Firm records until they mysteriously materialized in her bedroom. If she's innocent of dishonesty, then she must be oblivious to her surroundings and should not to be trusted with the office of Commander-in-Chief. The boob might lose a whole tank division. Tanks, munitions, men, equipment -- all vanish during a Clinton Presidency.
Here's another attempt by mainstream news media at trying to separate Senator Clinton from even the appearance of impropriety.
"The organization, New York Senate 2000, agreed to a federal finding that it failed to report $721,895 spent on the fundraiser to boost the former first lady's campaign for the Senate, according to paperwork provided by Peter F. Paul, who helped finance the star-studded gala that drew Cher, Diana Ross, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston."
Okay. So according to AP, an organization tried to violate campaign finance laws, got caught and said "ooops." New York Senate 2000? A group of Hillary's flunkies are to blame for this campaign finance investigation. But she had no idea what was happening. This is what the Democrats want in the White House? Sure, we don't want a Huey Long sleazebag as President of the United States, but we don't want a Gomer Pyle either, even if Gomer is a woman.
"It's a kind of vindication, but this is only one battle," said Paul, who bankrolled the gala and is suing both Senator Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton, contending he was led to believe the former president would later work for him in a private business venture. Mr. Paul is just another in a long line of chumps who actually believed the Bill and Hillary Clinton's malarkey and got burned as a result.
What's always fascinated me was how people who are assumed to be intelligent are so easily duped by two people whohave a history of shady dealings if not out and out dishonesty. It's like buying a car from a guy you know did jail time for running a chop-shop in Brooklyn.
As part of the agreement, New York Senate 2000 maintains it "implemented and enforced reasonable processes to collect and report information regarding event expenses," according to the document.
The Hollywood fundraiser was the subject of a criminal trial of Clinton's former national finance director, David Rosen. Rosen was acquitted in May 2004 of lying to the FEC about the event.
Mr. Paul has contended the event cost more than $1.9 million, though campaign reports at the time put the price tag at about $500,000. As part of the agreement, the actual cost is now put at $1.2 million, with almost $400,000 listed as unreported for the cost of producing the concert and nearly $100,000 unreported for travel and lodging.
It's time to repeal the fake, phony, fraud McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform laws. All it's done is to help in making sleazy politicians sleazier. Even McCain, the media's favorite Republican, found a way to benefit from this bogus law.
How did he benefit? Well, there's an exemption in McCain-Feingold for the American Indian tribes. While you and I are told there's a cap on how much we may contribute to a campaign -- $25,000 aggregate -- American Indians can contribute over $500,000 aggregate, according to Patrick Basham of the Cato Institute.
That's why folks such as McCain, Democrat Harry Reid and others are able to get their sweaty paws on vast amounts of campaign contributions. McCain alone garners an enormous amount of contributions from Indians in Arizona and other states. And that's how Abramoff funneled money into many a campaign, including that of Senator Harry "The Man from Searchlight" Reid.
Even the robust loudmouth from Harlem, Rep. Charlie Rangel got money from Indians through Abramoff's lobbying firm. I worked as a cop in Rangel's district and I never saw an Indian tribe there.
But back to Hillary Clinton. The news media attempted to interview the New York Senator, but her office told them she's unavailable for comment. And our tough-minded journalists just let it go. Imagine if this occurred with a high-profile Republican. The media would be constantly in his or her face. By the way -- and you won't read it in the New York Times or see and hear about it on CBS News -- Hillary's campaign received Abramoff money. Not Hillary, just her campaign. Everyone else's campaign bears their name -- the DeLay Campaign, the Hastert Campaign, the Bush Campaign -- but Hillary is separated from her campaign.
I guess if I picked someone's pocket and got caught by the cops -- and I were a liberal Democrat -- I could put forward the defense that I didn't steal someone's wallet, my hand stole it.
Besides, the news media are only interested in corruption cases involving Republicans. They are achieving some success in making the Abramoff scandal a Republican scandal which fits into the Democrat Party's talking point about a "culture of corruption."
For instance, on the Wednesday broadcast of CBS Evening News, while covering the Abramoff story, they flashed large photographs of Republicans such as Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert and others. When it came to the part of the CBS story in which we were told Democrats were also recipients of Abramoff money, they showed several tiny photos of the Democrat politicians. In order to read their names and party affiliations, viewers needed a microscope.
Yet, even on lists of Democrat politicians who allegedly received Abramoff's money -- displayed on TV news shows including Fox News Live -- do not show Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's name. Now why do you think that is?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Jim Kouri CPP
