Hillary's Donors

More is coming out about people who've given money to Hillary:

The New York Times, which has discovered the identity of 97 donors who together gave or pledged $69 million early on, reports some of the million-dollar donors sought changes in policies and two of them were under Justice Department probes.

With the presidential election approaching, Clinton Foundation donations skyrocketed last year to $135 million, 70% more than the year before, with two-thirds of the booty from only 11 donors.

So much for Bill and Hil's populist image.

The former president steadfastly refused to reveal the donors' identities — including one super-rich donor giving $31.3 million.

We can certainly now see why. The $31-million-dollar man turned out to be Canadian mining mogul and founder of Lionsgate Entertainment (distributor of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11") Frank Giustra, who plans to give another $100 million, plus half his future earnings.

Foreign contributions to presidential campaigns are illegal, but foreigners such as Giustra can anonymously give as much as they like to presidential foundations. So can the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a United Arab Emirates foundation, and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar, all of whom reportedly gave undisclosed amounts to the Clinton Foundation.

That should make for interesting Mideast policy under Hillary.

Here at home, Anheuser-Busch gave $1 million after the Clinton administration's Federal Trade Commission agreed not to regulate beer, wine and liquor ads.

Chicago bankruptcy lawyer William A. Brandt Jr. pledged $1 million in 1999 as the Justice Department investigated whether he lied about using a big-money fundraiser for Clinton's 1996 re-election to lobby a top bankruptcy official. Later that year, Clinton's Justice Department cleared Brandt, who has since given big to Hil-lary's (sic) campaign.

When Loral Space and Communications' then-chairman, Bernard Schwartz, agreed to give $1 million in 2000, the firm was being investigated over whether it gave satellite technology to China. Under the Bush administration, Loral agreed to a $14 million fine.

Other million-dollar contributors got themselves deals on things like Medicare reimbursements for hospitals in Puerto Rico and special treatment on cell phone licenses from the Federal Communications Commission. One is an Iranian-born aviation executive who provided military equipment to Tehran during Iran-Contra.

Then there's the notorious income tax fugitive Marc Rich, pardoned by Bill after his ex-wife, Denise, gave $450,000 to the Clinton Library.

Corruption, thy name is Clinton.

Huckabee's Pardongate

It's not just Wayne Dumond... there appears to really be something there:

Over the course of more than a decade as governor, Huckabee granted over 1,000 commutations and pardons, and they’re currently being examined closely by journalists. The latest to draw national attention is a commutation of Eugene Fields, who had multiple drunk-driving convictions.

The question is if there was there a connection between his wife Glenda Fields’s five-figure political donations and Huckabee’s action. On April 14, 2004, then-Gov. Huckabee commuted the sentence of Mr. Fields — then a four-time driving-while-intoxicated offender — granting him early release from prison. Fields, a resident of the western Arkansas town of Van Buren, was a habitual offender. He had already been convicted of DWIs in 1996, 1998, and 2000, but his 2001 felony-DWI conviction resulted in the maximum six-year prison sentence and a $5,000 fine.

Read the whole thing... link is in the title, as usual.

What is it about Arkansas governors?

Hsu Who?

Short article from the AP:

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted Norman Hsu, a top Democratic fundraiser accused of cheating investors of at least $20 million and using some of the money to make illegal donations to political campaigns.

In the 15-count indictment returned in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the government accused the 56-year-old clothing-industry entrepreneur of duping investors nationwide with a massive Ponzi scheme.

The government said Hsu also violated federal campaign finance laws by making contributions to various political candidates in the names of others.

The "various political candidates" had one thing in common... they were all Democrats, including candidates named Clinton.

But of course the AP doesn't consider that to be relevant.

Imagine if Hsu had contributed to, say, the Romney campaign. Do ya think maybe the AP would have discovered that the name of the candidate was relevant in that case?

And the hypocrisy goes on...

Democrats and the Culture of Corruption, Part VI

Here we go again with the Clintons, money, and corruption:

Three years after the William J. Clinton Presidential Library opened its doors, the list of donors who helped the former president build his $165 million complex remains a secret from the public.

Yet the Blotter on ABCNews.com has learned that the Clinton Foundation sold portions of the list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor.

"The fact that they've sold the list and then turned around and said that these names must be kept anonymous completely undercuts their argument," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group that tracks the influence of money in politics.

An employee of Walter Karl, a subsidiary of the data company InfoUSA, told ABCNews.com that the company made a list of more than 38,000 donors to the Clinton presidential library available for sale to foundations and other nonprofit groups from June 2006 to May 2007. A spokesman for the company would not say how the profits from the sale of the partial list were distributed.

Again, while this is not illegal, it is definitely morally reprehensible, since they'd made a big point earlier about donors being anonymous.

And there's more about InfoUSA, the parent company of Walter Karl, who was chosen to act as the vendor for the mailing list:

Vin Gupta, CEO of InfoUSA, was also on the list of donors giving $1 million or more.

His ties to the Clintons came under scrutiny earlier in the year when a lawsuit filed by InfoUSA shareholders accused Gupta of wasting millions of dollars of the company's money to "ingratiate himself" with the Clintons and other personal friends.

Separately, a New York Times article in May revealed that InfoUSA was involved in an investigation in Iowa for selling mailing lists of elderly Americans to criminals. In response to the investigation, the company released a statement saying, "While InfoUSA can not manage what a client does with the publicly available information InfoUSA provides, the company has a strict policy about not selling data to companies who act illegally."

Gupta has donated and raised millions of dollars for the Clintons' political campaigns and charities over the last decade. InfoUSA spent millions more paying the former president as a consultant and flying him and his wife to events around the country and family vacations in Hawaii and Acapulco, Mexico on the company's private jet, according to the court documents.

InfoUSA officials have stated that the expenses were "legitimate business expenses."

A spokesman for Sen. Clinton said in May that InfoUSA had been reimbursed for her flights, though ethics rules at the time only required the reimbursement be equal to the cost of first-class airfare.

Hmmm... InfoUSA has been reimbursed? The question is, how? Money or cozy deals like selling a list of donor names for the Clintons?

Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

The Clinton Quid Pro Pardon

Gotta love how the Clintons have no shame at all:

Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety.

"It's not illegal," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ABC News. "But, of course, it's inappropriate and she should return the money. It does raise the appearance that this is payback.

"One can only hope that she wasn't yet aware of who made the donations," said Sloan.

"We have raised over $65 million from over 200,000 people," said Clinton campaign manager Howard Wolfson, adding sarcastically, "I appreciate your bringing the instance of this $5,300 and these three people to our attention."

-snip-

John Deutch is a different case, having served as President Clinton's CIA director.

Pardoned by President Clinton for charges he had mishandled government secrets -- but before the Department of Justice could file the proper paperwork against him -- Deutch, now a professor at MIT, gave Sen. Clinton the maximum allowable donation, $2,300.

No, it's not illegal, but imagine the howling from the left if, say, Scooter Libby donated to the presidential campaign of a member of the Bush or Cheney families.

Democrats and the Culture of Corruption, Part V

Once again, a Democrat with serious legal and corruption problems is somehow not mentioned in the leftymedia. Gee, I wonder why that could be?

U.S. Representative Alan Mollohan, (D-W.V.), has been under FBI investigation for steering federal money to a web of non-profits he helped create, questioned about suspicious land deals that made him a millionaire, and criticized for taking a European vacation paid for by federal contractors.

Mollohan has also paid the Washington, DC, law-firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans and Figel a staggering $220,000 in legal fees. According to the firm’s website, they specialize in “white collar criminal defense,” and Mollohan has used his campaign account to pay the hefty legal bills.

With all the investigations the MoveOn-controlled Congress is running, do ya think they could spare a few hours to look into this one?

Naah, he's a Democrat.

Corruption in New Jersey? Say It Ain't So!

Nearly a dozen New Jersey elected officials were caught up in a FBI sting operation. Yeah, I know, it's hard to believe. In New Jersey of all places.

A sham company set up by the FBI paid bribes to nearly a dozen public officials -- including Passaic Mayor Sammy Rivera, city Councilman Marcellus Jackson and Assemblyman Alfred E. Steele -- who were arrested this morning in a widespread corruption sting, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.

Jackson took $16,500, Steele took $15,500 and Rivera $5,000 in return for their influence in awarding public contracts, federal officials allege in criminal complaints. The government says its evidence includes conversations recorded secretly during the 18-month probe at a series of meetings in restaurants, parked cars and hotels.

[...]

Rivera also boasts of his influence after allegedly taking $5,000 in cash from a cooperator while parked in a car in Passaic, the complaints say.

“I make the [expletive] decision,” Rivera allegedly says during another conversation. “And believe me, I’ve got the four [expletive] votes on the council. So let’s stop [expletive] and let’s get this thing rolling.”

The defendants — a collection of mayors, state legislators, and school board officials from Atlantic, Essex and Passaic counties — are to appear in federal court early this afternoon in Trenton.

They include former Passaic city Councilman Jonathan Soto, who is accused of taking $12,500.

Those charged are accused of demanding and accepting cash bribes in return for their influence in awarding contracts for roofing services and insurance brokerage from school districts and municipalities, according to criminal complaints unsealed with the arrests.

What is missing from those opening paragraphs? Party affiliation, of course. My first guess is they are all Green Party members. My second is they are Republicans. Not really, without going to the fourteenth paragraph of the story, I already know they are democratics. One, because it's New Jersey. Two, because the article didn't mention they were Republicans in the opening grafs.

First mention of party affiliation in fourteenth paragraph:

John Currie, chair of the Passaic County Democratic Committee, said that he first got Steele involved in the party in the early 1990’s. Currie said that Steele stood out to him because of his community activism.

“He’s the straightest man I know,” Currie said. “This is a man who’s always thought of helping people within his community.”

Straightest man I know. What's that mean? He's not gay? Or the guy thought he was not corruptible?

I know, it's probably not fair to pick on New Jersey. I'm sure there's corruption in every state's political community. It lends itself to corruption, if there are corruptible people in those positions. But, if you hear about a sting operation in a state that nets elected officials, what states come to mind first? Louisiana, New Jersey and what other state?

And finally, we have that paragon of virtue from New Jersey, Senator Bob Menendez. Or, maybe not.

Democrats and the Culture of Corruption, Part IV

Here we go again...

Even by the scandal-pocked history of New York politics, Eliot Spitzer's fall from grace is extraordinary. A mere seven months into his term after a landslide victory, the Empire State's brash new governor is openly ridiculed as a liar and worse. An astonishing 80 percent of respondents tell pollsters they want the governor to testify under oath to prove his claim that he had nothing to do with "troopergate," a dirty-tricks plot to smear Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, a Republican rival.

There's lots more than just "troopergate." Read the whole article.

Corruption in New Orleans? Say It Ain't So!

Reported by the LA Times, New Orleans City Councilman, Oliver Thomas, resigned today after pleading guilty to charges that he took kickbacks.

The humorous part of the story is the shock among New Orleans residents, considering Thomas one of the least corruptible, straight shooting politicians. He was thought highly of and was a leading contender for a future mayoral run.

The longest-serving member of the New Orleans City Council resigned today, hours after pleading guilty to charges that he took kickbacks from a businessman who wanted to keep a parking lot contract for the French Quarter.

The swift fall of Oliver Thomas, who until recently served as the council's president, stunned New Orleans' political world and led many citizens and commentators to fear that it would further tarnish the city's image at a time when many think the stain of corruption is hurting Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts.

[...]

Thomas, 50, was considered a future mayoral candidate and one of the city's most effective elected leaders. He was also regarded as one of the least corruptible figures in a city long sullied by sleazy politics.

He is the biggest political figure to fall in a wide-ranging federal investigation of New Orleans government that has already netted several other elected officials, including the former president of the Orleans Parish school board -- and he probably won't be the last.

The U.S. District Judge took a dim view of the charges against Thomas:

When prosecutors finished explaining the charges, U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance castigated Thomas for embarrassing New Orleans at a time when it could not afford such notoriety.

Callers to a local radio talk show were dismayed

On WWL-870 AM, one of New Orleans' lively talk radio stations, news of Thomas' disgraceful end elicited a torrent of anger and disbelief from Louisianans. Many callers noted that Thomas seemed like one of the few straight shooters in city politics.

"If our best guy pleads guilty to corruption, what are we left with?" said the show's host, John "Spud" McConnell.

Despite that, at least one caller was undaunted by the corruption.

Although most people condemned his acts, some of the chatter demonstrated that New Orleans had a ways to go before it became intolerant of corruption. After the station broadcast Thomas' mea culpa, a man called in and said he didn't care. He said he would still vote for Thomas if he could.

We shouldn't be surprised by his sentiments. After all, New Orleans is the city that reelected School Bus Nagin as Mayor even after his disastrous performance. And Louisiana reelected William Dollar Bill Jefferson even with a possible indictment hanging over his head, and plenty of evidence to support it.

Why is that New Orleans residents seem to be shocked by these developments? Every casual observer of Louisiana politics isn't.

A note of interest - in four articles I read on this story, not one mentioned what party Thomas belongs to. Yeah, I know, he's just a city councilman. But he's a city councilman in New Orleans, a city that is receiving billions and billions of dollars in federal government taxpayer dollars to rebuild the city; a city that has been under democrat party governance for decades. Yet not a mention of his party affiliation.

I'd wager money he's a democratic. If he was a Republican I have no doubt that fact would have been in the opening paragraphs.

What I did find, in The Times-Picayune article, is that Thomas held the black at-large seat. There is also a white at-large city council seat. Political observers are concerned that this could present an opening to upset the racial balance of the at-large council seats.

As potential candidates study the field, a key issue will be the unspoken rule that has kept the two at-large council seats divided between white and African-American politicians since the mid-1970s.

During the recent election, Thomas was handily re-elected to the "black" at-large seat, while Clarkson and Fielkow battled for the "white" seat. Some black political commentators already are expressing fear that Thomas' departure might provide an opportunity to upset the racial balance in the at-large seats.

[...]

"Race is going to be a very contentious issue in the upcoming council race," said Sidney Arroyo, a political consultant who has worked for many local politicians, including Thomas. Holding the election at the same time as the governor's race would help African-American candidates because the turnout would be higher, he said.

Do these people realize this is 2007? Does the black population of New Orleans really think the black elected politicians in that city have really represented their best interests? I suppose it could be so, as they have continued to elect democrats despite their poor track record over the decades.

Democrats and the Culture of Corruption, Part III

Remember when the Democrats were whining about voter disenfranchisement? Well, I ran across a story about a real episode where voting rights were violated:

JACKSON, Miss. – A federal judge has ruled that a majority black county in eastern Mississippi violated whites' voting rights in what prosecutors said was the first lawsuit to use the Voting Rights Act on behalf of whites.

U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee ruled late Friday that Noxubee County Democratic Party leader Ike Brown and the county Democratic Executive Committee “manipulated the political process in ways intended and designed to impair and impede participation of white voters and to dilute their votes.”

Racism and voter disenfranchisement. When will we hear loud denunciations of this from the likes of the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson?

Probably never.

Hat tip: Wizbang.

Update and bump: John Fund, over at OpinionJournal.com, has a lot to say about this story, and includes a lot more details.

Among the abuses catalogued by Judge Tom Lee were the paying of notaries public to visit voters and illegally mark their absentee ballots, manipulation of the registration rolls, importation of illegal candidates to run for county office, and publication of a list of voters, classified by race, who might have their ballots challenged. The judge criticized state political officials for being "remiss" in addressing the abuses. The U.S. Justice Department, which sued Noxubee officials under the Voting Rights Act, has called conditions there "the most extreme case of racial exclusion seen by the [department's] Voting Section in decades."

Read the whole thing. Really.

DeLay Completely Cleared of Charges

The Houston Chronicle reports:

AUSTIN — The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals today refused to reinstate criminal conspiracy charges against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two co-defendants.

DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and political consultants Jim Ellis and John Colyandro were accused of conspiring to violate state election laws in the 2002 elections for the Texas House. But lower courts threw out the indictment on grounds that conspiracy to violate the election code was not a crime until 2003,

A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.

DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro were charged with plotting to funnel illegal corporate campaign contributions to several Republican House candidates in 2002, when the GOP gained its first House majority of modern times.

The three also were charged with money laundering, but a trial on those charges has been held up pending a resolution of the conspiracy charges.

DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said he was pleased with the ruling but sorry that it took so long and resulted in DeLay's resignation from Congress, where he represented Houston's southwest suburbs for more than 20 years.

"Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay for a crime that didn't exist, wasn't on the books," DeGuerin said.

Think this will make it onto the newscasts of ABCCBSCNNNBCPBS? Doubt it.

This was a political smear-job from the get-go, and it's sad that it actually accomplished at least part of its goals: getting DeLay out of Congress. However, vindication still has to feel good to Mr. DeLay.

Democrats and the Culture of Corruption, Part II

Looks like the Democrats are about to have their own culture of corruption exposed a little bit more.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long- running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.

The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years. He is charged with racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Jefferson is accused of soliciting bribes for himself and his family, and also for bribing a Nigerian official.

Watch ABCCBSCNNNBCPBS clam up on this story.

Democrats and the Culture of Corruption

Remember when Democrats were talking about the "culture of corruption" in DC? Maybe they were looking in the mirror...

The problems stem from [Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA)] subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.

In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state’s senior senator.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while”there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts.”

And the director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”

It may be irrefutable, but she almost got away without anyone even knowing what she was up to. Her colleagues on the subcommittee, for example, had no reason even to suspect that she knew what companies might benefit from her decisions because that information is routinely withheld to avoid favoritism. What they didn’t know was that her chief legal adviser, who also happened to be a business partner of her husband’s and the vice chairman of one of the companies involved, was secretly forwarding her lists of projects and appropriation requests that were coming before the committee and in which she and her husband had an interest — information that has only come to light recently as a result of the efforts of several California investigative reporters.

This adviser insists — apparently with a straight face — that he provided the information to Feinstein’s chief of staff so that she could recuse herself in cases where there might be a conflict. He says that he assumes she did so. The public record, however, indicates that she went right ahead and fought for these same projects.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Feinstein.

Democrats Overreaching on Investigations

Looks like the Democrats are in for a short-lived majority, if they follow the plans outlined in the story linked above (in the title).

Simply put, this is dangerous for the Democrats for two reasons:

1. It will soon become apparent even to John Q. Voter, who hardly ever follows the ins and outs of politics, that these investigations are purely politically motivated. Many of the John Q. Voter-type citizens believe that "everybody should just get along," so they won't like an endless stream of "investigations" splashed across the headlines.
2. It will focus public attention on "scandals," and Lord knows the Party of the Donkey has quite a few of those... remember William Jefferson's $90,000 in the freezer, Dianne Feinstein's sending military contracts to her husband's firm, Pelosi's plane kerfuffle, and the laundry list of the Clinton scandals? One would think the last thing a Democrat would want to do was shine a light on political scandals.

Personally, the line about being thankful for stupid actions by one's opponents comes forcefully to mind.

Hat Tip: Wizbang!