Just goes to show there are crooks in both parties, just typical bottom feeders.

All that Chinese money going only to Democrats, and apparently, most of them. The Republicans have found a campaign meme with legs.
===================================

Kim:

I'll give you credit for one thing and it's about the only thing I've found so far.

You are eternally optimistic.

Have a nice workers day.

You've been fooled, that was May Day.

And read Joel Achenbach in the WaPo today.
==================================

Kim, JFO and his ilk think this is fine. Even selling missle data to the Chinese. A long comfy relationship the liberals have had with communitsts. Watch JFO attack the messenger now. ww

Right, WW, the technique exemplifies impotence. But they flail, and wail. Shades of the maturbatory Maccabee.
==============================

Our local paper had an article (a very tiny on the back pages article) in Saturday's edition reporting that our new Democratic Ohio governor and another Democratic State-wide officer holder were going to send the money they received directly from Hsu to charities. The article also stated that our new Democratic US Senator was going to turn the money he received from Hsu "associates" to charities as well.

Where is this money really coming from?

You've got more to worry about with Ted Strickland other than where the money came from, champ:

http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2785&theType=NR

I like the count from the liberal pages.

Just so you know, I am estimating you have 3-4 times the amount of Hsu stories than AG Gonzales resigning due to scandals. To put it in perspective...

like I said on the other thread yesterday, good ole Hsu surrendered to authorities within a $10 cab ride of the San Jose Mercury News...and the Paws live $5 further up the Penisula.

Now any (and it is tiny) mention of Hsu is buried inside articles about CRAIG!! The tiny story they ran when he turned himself in called what he did an "obscure fraud case".

Anybody waiting for the Mercury News (and their ilk) to EVER be ashamed of their total lack of journalistic standards can stop waiting. OK, technically they HAVE standards...the "standard" is: "Never print anything that might harm a Democrat!"

One more thought ....

For most of the candidates, the amount received from Hsu is minimal. Even our State-wide official would have to have been an idiot to give him any favors for such a small amount.

So, is this truly a Democratic scandal or is there some else trying to make them look bad?

The REAL problem - in my opinion - is that, based on the actions of many Democratic officials, I can't say for sure that they DIDN'T sell their souls for such a small amount of money.

Conversely, if this is actually a Rovian Republican plot to make the Democrats look bad, another question has to be asked. Have the Republicans done anything to indicate that they have the collective intelligence to conceive of the plan and pull it off successfully for so many years?

Heck, the Republicans have been been overwhelmed with "sex scandals" for the last year costing themselves at least national office seats and they haven't even been able to manage a "sex scandal" that ACTUALLY includes sex.

Where's the third party for us to choose from?

"I am estimating you have 3-4 times the amount of Hsu stories than AG Gonzales resigning due to scandals."

Gee, jp, y'think?

The Gonzo story is fairly stagnant - scandels or not. There isn't much new news being produced, while the Hsu story is still evolving.

Here's a fun little task: go to any of the "major" news outlets (google, yahoo, abc, nbc, cbs, cnn) and tell me how many stories on Hsu you find ... without digging through a bunch of clicks.

You've got more to worry about with Ted Strickland other than where the money came from, champ:

Oh, I know. Don't get me started on Strickland.

We really ought to discuss this, JFO, I've mistakenly looked upon the rhythmic delusions of such as Maccabee as essentially onanistic, however, in the light of further evidence, like the Maccabee comments, it appears far more mutually masturbatory. Another great example is Scary Larry's Potemkin Pirate Ship, NoQuarter.
=============================================

Did you try running a search just on "hsu"?

--|PW|--

"Oh, I know. Don't get me started on Strickland."

No worries, I won't try to get your blood up on that. Ohioans have been poorly (POORLY!) represented, for years: Voinivich as Gov and as a tearfully pro-then-not-so-pro-amnesty slug, Taft, and let's not forget the smoking crater that used to be Cleveland that Kucinic helped make worse.

You have my sympathies for being in Ohio, man, you really do. I was in Columbus for quite a while, and I'm not too terribly upset at not being there, any more.

Then again, I'm now in Illinois. So, I'm basically screwed.

"Did you try running a search just on "hsu"?"

The voice of logic steps up. Mornin', PW.

And you're so damned right! A straight Google of "Hsu," and you get a handful of squat. Google news produces a little more, but it does make one wonder how much the gents at Google donate to the DNC.

Oh, yo, what you don't know.
==========================

Kim ..., I'll draw on the experience from previous life as a douchebag liberal, and say that I am comfortable in my cone of ignorance on that one.

Lalalalalalalalala ... can't hear you.

(learned that trick from my parents when, at 10 years old, with Carter running for re-election - my parents were voting for him ... and I'd asked them how could they vote for Carter while Iran STILL held our folks hostage .. that was their response, "lalala" - still is, as a matter of fact).

I was roundly sounded off for mentioning Balzac's axiom the other day, so I won't repeat it..but it seems that Democrats particularly,the ilk of the Clintons, are probably even more naive and impressionable than Republicans about the sources of many fortunes. As a result of his largesse, Hsu's stock rose rapidly in Democratic circles...
Bob Kerry (D) said he never inquired about the source of Hsu's wealth. "My presumption is that he's rich," he said.

It's a matter of google doing the muffling.
===========================

Larry Craig gave Hsu a hummer while driving around the Minneapolis Airport in Hsu's Hummer.
==========================================

Editor's Note: This comment was not posted by the regular "kim," but by an imposter -- most likely a driveby troll, as that IP has not commented prior. Accordingly, that commenter's IP has been banned.

Since Hsu appears to simply a conduit for the Dim. money, we can reasonably infer that he is funneling dirty money to the Dims.

With the obvious China connection, you can also reasonably infer that is the source.

Until Mr. Hsu comes to terms with his criminal past, the burden is really on him to prove otherwise. I doubt we'll see it traced; he'll clam up and protect the Dims/Chinese/Whoever.

OT...but it's worth mentioning somewhere:

Bush went to Anbar province today...once written off as "lost"...now a splendid example of VICTORY!

If it's possible to do so, it makes Katie Couric look even STOOOPIDER for her snarky comments yesterday! ("They only let me see good things")

A google on Hsu and all that will turn up is a check in the mail.

"Even Bill Clinton has chimed in on it, saying he was "shocked""

Heh heh, I always like a good laugh with my am coffee. You gotta use that word, "shocked" just before getting busted up the rails. Fire Dog Lake is actually a pretty cool name for a weblog. Too bad it's well...you know, uh--leaning that way a little too much.

the 10:46 post is a sock puppet.
===================

You"re right, Jay, but Larry Craig committed a...a...well, I don't know exactly what he committed but whatever it is, it's more important that bribery and malfeasance and, likely, murder.

By a Democrat, that is.

TNX, ed. Pretty good parody, though; I'm impressed.
================================

Oh, and 'previously' instead of 'prior'.

::grin::
===

Any fool that believes that money doesn't buy politicians on either side of the fence deserves the same kind of amdinistration we've had for the past six plus years.

God, will it never end. Are the people really so foolish?

"God, will it never end. Are the people really so foolish?"

As soon as it ends on the other side of the hill, and we know how soon that is, don't we? Please tell me you're not just counting back six years.

For him, rrita, it wouldn't make a whit of diff; he's a true believer.
========================================

"Please tell me you're not just counting back six years."

If he could count higher, he'd go back further.

I wonder if Hsu was able to elude the law by staying in a sanctuary city like San Francisco, where aliens are immune from hassling by the cops.

Whoa - you've got 'em there Jay!

It's been over a week, and blogs like TPM aren't still flogging this story? What's the matter with them?

Maybe it's because this story is far from HUGE.

Hsu has turned himself in, and the Dems that received his donations are falling over themselves to return it. And... well, and that's it really. You can probably just chalk it up to a clerical error.

Now, if anyone took money from Hsu, knowing that he was a felon, or Hsu was able to gain influence (or derive some benefit) as a result of his donations, that would be news. But nothing of the sort has even been suggested.

The fact that TPM, for example, has 3 articles in the archives is because this story broke a while ago and there haven't been any new developments. Not so sinister after all, eh? But keep trying, someday soon you'll get there.

There's an old phrase that goes something like, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. So, what about Republican scandals? Do you guys at wizbang cover every Republican scandal in depth? If I do a "find" search on wizbang for say, Jerry Lewis, Ted Stevens, Thomas Kontogiannis, Don Young or David Vitter we'd get lots and lots of coverage, right? If I searched for some mention that the Patraeus report will actually be authored by the Whitehouse, that would make the front page of Wizbang, right? I'm waiting...

something tell me I'll wait a long time.

"Now, if anyone took money from Hsu, knowing that he was a felon, or Hsu was able to gain influence (or derive some benefit) as a result of his donations, that would be news. But nothing of the sort has even been suggested."

It would be news, and is it that this has not been suggested, or that it's not been reported - which is the point.

Geesh.

Well Yo, there's got to be some smoke there, before you go launching accusations like that, right? Dodgy campaign contributions are about where this one ends.

Justrand :

That part of Anbar province Generalisimo Bush went to was a heavily fortified airbase proving once again that airbases are safe places in Iraq. At least he didn't dress up in his pretend fatigues this time.

Perhaps because unlike Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert, and numerous other nefarious GOPers Sen. Clinton had no idea the guy was dirty and when she did find out she got rid of the money ASAP? You know, unlike go golfing with the guy like DeLay/Abramoff.

Also: I can only be your punching bag if you've actually laid any punches.

Well, let's see here. Certain Wizbangers are wondering about why liberal websites are generally not discussing the legal woes of one out of likely hundreds (if not thousands) large campaign contributors. To that we liberals respond with "Big [expletive-deleted] Deal!" How often has Wizbang mentioned something like this, a Republican campaign SUPERVISORS getting arrested?

Giuliani event aide quits over sex, theft charges

"TALLAHASSEE --
An organizer for a Rudy Giuliani presidential event plans to step down amid revelations of his arrests for allegedly extorting an FSU student in a sex case and his conviction for dealing in stolen state computers."

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_dade/story/222005.html

or how often has Wizbang mentioned something like this?

McCain Florida campaign co-chair arrested for sex in men's room (Yep, that again -- poor repressed male Republican acting out inappropriately).

"A member of the Florida House of Representatives arrested yesterday on charges of soliciting a male undercover police officer is the co-Chairman of the Florida campaign of presidential hopeful John McCain, PageOneQ has learned."
http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/07/12/mccain-florida-campaign-co-chair-arrested-for-sex-in-mens-room/

Give us a nice round number regarding posts by the Wizbang staff. Hint: Very round.

Sorry, Oliver, I thought after your wall-to-wall coverage of Abramoff, this would be right up your alley.

But you're right. This is a world of difference.

The Repubs didn't pal around with Abramoff after his indictment.

Let alone after trial, conviction, sentencing, and fleeing the country.

And these same bozos who can't perform a routine background/criminal record check on their bigger fundraisers want to be trusted on "fighting crime" and "securing borders" and "national security?"

And you think they SHOULD?

The worst part of this is that Hillary Clinton and (I believe)Barack Obama have Secret Service details. Did the Service screw up, knowingly let a wanted fugitive access to their protectee, or were they ordered to look the other way? That's what I REALLY want to know.

Oh, and the source of Hsu's money. That'd be nice, too.

J.

My goodness the liberals are obsessed with sex. It seems to be the only fault they validate for politicians. Except Billy Boy. Oh yeah! John Wayne Gacy, little boy rapist and serial killer campaigned for Jimmy Carter and donoted to the campaign. So, by the liberals yardstick, democrats are latent serial rapists and killers. ww

Wild willie you forgot drugs. We're obsessed with drugs too - just like Tom Ravenel.

Still waiting Jay...

Here's an update on your oh so balanced coverage:

Jerry Lewis - Nada.

John Doolittle - Nada.

Tom Feeney - Nada.

Thomas Kontogiannis - Nada.

Don Young - Nada.

Ted Stevens - Nada.

Lisa Murkowski - Nada.

David Vitter - One post. (Good job!)

Pete Domenici - Nada.

Heather Wilson - Nada.

So under 10% is pretty good, right? You don't look like a HUGE hypocrite now, do you?

Both parties have their big donors. Meg Whitman, the billionaire CEO of Ebay is a prime backer of Mitt Romney and worth an estimated $1.3 billion dollars for example. More than 20% of the donations to the Giuliani campaign have been from donors giving $4,600. Giuliani has received 1,456 such $4,600 donations so far. During the last 2006 election, a texas real estate developer bankrolled negative attack ads all across the nation to attack Democratic congressional candidates, even though these candidates were not in his own district. And the billionaire heir to the Wal-Mart of the Sam Walton fortune, Alice Walton often bankrolls 527 organizations in which she is the prime donor during election cycles.

Norman Hsu is not the exception in American politics, but often the rule. Big money is unfortunately the mother's milk to American politics for both political parties.

Kapow, your list:

Jerry Lewis: isn't he dead? Or doing his telethon?

John Doolittle: LOVED his raid on Tokyo. But I think he's dead, too.

Tom Feeney: What's Shirley's dad got to do with anything?

Thomas Kanto-whatever: Is he related to Arianna Huffington?

Don Young: I think this is a TV voiceover guy.

Ted Stevens: the Alaskan idiot who's trying to supplant Robert Byrd as King Of Pork? Hell with him.

Lisa Murkowski: Chip off the dirtbag block.

David Vitter: Good lord, a politician from Louisiana is corrupt? What is the world coming to?

Pete Dominici: Is HE still around, too?

Heather Wilson: Hey, she's a New Hampshire gal! I oughta do some digging into her some time...

Hacks, has-beens, and nobodies. All of 'em together don't amount to anwyhere near the influence of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Ted Kennedy.

If that's the best you got, Kasfizzle...

J.

I gave you a list - by no means comprehensive - of Republicans who, this year alone, have all either admitted to or, been indicted, or are facing investigations regarding malfeasance ranging from bribery, obstruction of justice, electoral fraud and prostitution.

Now, do you want to go through that list a little more carefully, or are you willing to admit that no matter what a Republican does, it's alright with you.

Or should I just interpret your not so-funny response as an admission of defeat already?

I personally have never liked the "so and so hasn't commented on..." game.

Now, if you were checking the whole "NYTimesWashPostCNNABCCBSNBCetc.", then I think you would have something, but this post should be re-titled, "Democrat supporting blogs down-play Democrat scandal. Well, Duh."

Oh Jay,

Just in case you weren't trying to be funny, and you really are THAT ignorant (which considering what you offer up each day here at wizbang is apretty fair assumption) I'll help you out a little here.

Jerry Lewis is the ranking Republican member on the House Appropriations Committee. So not exactly a small fry. He's been the target of a federal investigation into bribery and corruption for over a year, so not new news either. (Though he did announce that he'll not seek re-election in '08 recently.)

Pete Domenici (sorry typo in the post above) and Heather Wilson are both being investigated for their role in ousting US Attorney David Iglesias. (Part of the whole Gonzo fiasco which you so carefully ignored.) The ouster of another USA (along with budget shortages) has been mooted as part of the reason Jerry Lewis still hasn't been indicted.

By the way I missed your posts decrying the use of the DoJ as another wing of the political party in power, was that just because it was your favorite political party?

John Doolitle (the 'meat' in the famous Delay, Doolittle and Ney sandwich of impropriety) is under investigation as part of the on-going Abramoff scandal. A scandal which reaches into the heart of the CIA, the DoD and (maybe even) the Whitehouse. So again, not so little actually. The FBI raided Doolittle's house in April this year. I think I missed your post on that one though...

As for Young, Murkowski and Stevens, that's the entire delegation from Alaska! Now, I know Alaska isn't the center of the universe, but we haven't seen corruption on that scale since Ohio in '06. Come to think of it, wasn't that the Republicans too?

You are the hack Jay, and you proved it with your dithering and dishonest response to my post above.

Some of the leftblogs are covering this..One of the biggest if not the biggest huffingtonpost had this post today..We've over at wizbangblue pointed out Hillary and Bill's blind spot and history of greed in attracting money, however unseemly. The White house as Motel 6, pardons for crooks that gave them campaign contributions or fees to relatives etc.. There is no minimizing it..

Kapow,

Knockout.

Well, kapow, we're talking about Hsu and Hillary Clinton, so you're off topic. See what you can find on wizbangblue.

No one has "suggested" Hsu was parceling out illegal money, or that Clinton/Dims. knew it was dirty, but we don't have an investigation yet--hopefully we'll see where the evidence goes.

This dirt bag has been around since 1992 with a public file; you could reasonably assume some dirt bag Dimocrapper knew what this dude was up to.

We're talking about the Clintons here, for God's sake. And it's alot more important than playing footsie with a cop--which I don't see covered by the solicitation or public conduct statutes, by the way . . .

There it is. Kapow told us. If the FBI looks at someones house, they are guilty. Of course I believe Hillary is running for PRESIDENT. Kapow wants to give her a pass. Figures. ww

Pete Domenici (sorry typo in the post above) and Heather Wilson

Which law enforcement agency is investigating them?

Kapow

And... well, and that's it really. You can probably just chalk it up to a clerical error.

That's the funniest comment of the day!

For Hillary Clinton to feign ignorance on this matter is to suspend disbelief. Hillary didn't know this guy's background?

Is this the same Hillary that had the White House basement floor littered with thousands of FBI files? If it's a clerical error then we all know who the clerk was Kapow: Craig Livingstone.

"Perhaps because unlike Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert, and numerous other nefarious GOPers Sen. Clinton had no idea the guy was dirty and when she did find out she got rid of the money ASAP?"

Yeah you're right. She probably had no idea there was a problem with this guy. Unless evaluation is selective:

"Hillary Clinton told a Manhattan audience yesterday that her team tries to do the best they can in vetting volunteers. How could any vetting process possibly miss this? None of his story checks out at all, not even with the most cursory look at his record. It's filled with false addresses. Not even his listed residence appears current. Exactly what kind of vetting did Hillary do?"

Hugh:

Re: Domenici and Wilson. Currently, it's only the house and senate ethics committees. I don't know of any law-enforcement investigation.

As far as I can tell, the first any Dems knew of Hsu's outstanding warrant (last week) they handed back his contributions. This seems like a failure of law enforcement, not the Democratic campaigns, to me. It certainly does warrant further investigation, but until we know more, I'd reserve judgement.

Wild willie:
The Feds don't usually raid politicians houses without a pretty good reason - it tends to look bad. But fair enough, lets wait and see on that one. Care to make a bet on whether he's eventually indicted?

Did I say Hilary should get a pass? didn't think so. What I did say, was that at the moment we have no reason to suspect anything untoward.

Mitchell:
You are so clever with the word play! The topic was actually about left-leaning blogs not covering the cliton-Hsu scandal. I was pointing out that wizbang ain't so hot on covering the malfeasance on the right side of the political spectrum - so pretty much bang on topic, actually.

Care to engage on the issues Jay, or are you all out of snark AND substance?

As for Young, Murkowski and Stevens, that's the entire delegation from Alaska! Now, I know Alaska isn't the center of the universe, but we haven't seen corruption on that scale since Ohio in '06. Come to think of it, wasn't that the Republicans too?

Well, one thing is certain. Either you know nothing about what is going on with Alaska now or you know nothing about the situation in Ohio in 2006.

:-D

Did this new troll infestation come from one of the commie sites--like kos or DU?

Kapow

Adding Domenici and Wilson to your list diminishes the efficacy of your point. That is a political investigation. I suppose if Gonzales really wanted to get his problem solved at Justice he should have fired all of the US Attorneys, as Clinton did.

On Hsu, I could see Obama making the mistake, maybe. But not Team Clinton.

Kapow, maybe you missed it, but recently I said that pretty much any member of Congress, when facing serious charges, oughta be considered "Guilty until proven innocent."

And I repeat my two key points:

1) Two of the figures tied to Hsu (Clinton and Obama) are running for president; shouldn't we have a higher standard for them?

2) Both of them have Secret Service protection; how did Hsu get past them?

J.

It's an ethics investigation, true, but a pretty serious one. Specifically, that Domenici and Wilson may have tried to use their political position to pressure Iglesias to bring indictments against their political opponents, just before an election. I think they earned their spot in my list.

I guess I should make it clear, that my list above was pretty ad-hoc - just the first few that came to mind really (That sort of says something right there though, doesn't it?) So there may be more egregious examples I left off, and equally, it would be wrong to suggest that Murkowski's transgressions are equal to those of someone like Doolittle, Ney or Cunningham.

A higher standard for the candidates, yes. But we also need to be careful of jumping to conclusions. We haven't heard enough on this issue yet, in my opinion.

Good question about the securityside of things. (There seems to be some serious lapse of law enforcement here in general.) Do we know that Hsu met personally with Clinton, Obama etc? If so, someone needs to ask a secret service guy what sort of checks are carried out when pols meet with fund-raiser etc.. If they do background checks for that sort of meeting, and the checks should have identified Hsu, then we have to ask how would someone go about subverting this process.

So in summary a lot of ifs. But they should be answered, I agree.

Kapow
There is no date on the photo in this article, but I think it's safe to say that Clinton was under Secret Service protection at the time.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/30/dems-rush-to-dump-donations-from-fugitive-fundraiser/

Will this do for you, kapow?

J.

Hugh,
I forgot to adress your comment about Clinton and the USAs. He did fire all of them, and Bush could have too. But, that wasn't the point.

The point was that they only fired some. And, when the DoJ was asked about why certain USAs were fired, and others were not, the DoJ's response was less than convincing. Many of the fired USAs had excellent apraisals, others who didn't get good reviews were not fired though. The DoJ changed their story in a few cases In at least one, emails have surfaced, where key DoJ members are actually trying to come up with good reasons excuses for why they were fired. To me, that would seem to suggest something untoward was going on.

/off topic>

Hugh and Jay that would do it, yup!

Now, my first question is (which Hsu himself raises), given his presence in the public eye, how has he evaded the authorities all this time?

And now we need to know what sort of checks are done on someone meeting Clinton at a fundraiser. I know that in Obama's case at least, there was no secret service screening at recent campaign events in here in SC.

kapow
There was no crime in the firing of the USA's. Gonzales and his department bungled the terminations, but again, there was no crime. The Executive has the right to fire any and all of them.
Keep this in mind....this is the epitome of a "be careful what you ask for moment". Any Democratic presidential candidate that tries to get traction on this issue will have it come back to haunt them. Bush/Cheney are doing ALL future presidents a favor by telling Congress to stick it on this issue. It's a gross encroachment on the power of the Executive.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one (and we're getting way off topic now). There's more to come on this I think, but we'll just have wait and see. What is clear is a pattern of cronyism and poor leadership, which has marred almost every branch of the government, and nowhere was that more evident than at the DoJ.

The point was that they only fired some. And, when the DoJ was asked about why certain USAs were fired, and others were not, the DoJ's response was less than convincing.

Yes, that was a weak excuse. What the answer should have been was, "Because we wanted to."

John in CA:
See, I think the truth would be because they wouldn't play ball politically. I think that because there is a wealth of evidence to that effect, including but not limited to, the testimony of several of the USAs. These guys are political appointees (the thrust of your point, John) so why would they turn on Bush and Gonzalez, who picked them out in the first place? And what a story to concoct - talk about contrived!

Kapow, your rationale (fired some, not all) is completely without any merit, or point, for that matter. In either case, the Executive has the sole authority to do so by Constitution, and practice these many years.

Similarly, you have made false comparisons regarding your "list" of ethics violators, and Clinton mugging with, and taking money from, a known felon. This is not the first time a Clinton has done so--how about Marc Rich, et al?

You can make these phony accusations all day, but no one believes that Clinton and Co. is cleaner than other politicians. Maybe in your sad little world, but that's it.

Kapaw - lets back-up a bit shall we. In an earlier post you said this:

If I searched for some mention that the Patraeus report will actually be authored by the Whitehouse, that would make the front page of Wizbang, right? I'm waiting...

You know, the law that delineates by who and when Iraq reports will be issued.

From the law:

(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.

(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.

D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.

There are two other reports as set out by this law, first is an independent assessment by the Comptroller General that addresses Iraq benchmarks.

The third report is to be made by an outside organization with the the knowledge and expertise to make such an assessment. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (a 501c3 organization [think tank]) was chosen.

That report is due at the end of Sept.

Now onto the so called "Petraeus report." The law mandates that Petraeus and Iraq Amb. Crocker deliver an assessment via testimony to the Congress prior to the Sept. 15th benchmark report delivered by the White House.

Again, from the law:

(3) Testimony before congress.--Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

Ya really shouldn't oughta do that, it makes you look oh so silly!

And BTW, here's another potential Clinton campaign funding scandal in the making as reported by the WaPo:

Sant S. Chatwal, an Indian American businessman, has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns, even as he battled governments on two continents to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens.

The founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers" while they press to raise record amounts.Oh well, business as usual for the Clintons I suppose.

Kevin - why does including more than one para in a blockquote suck sooooo bad?! This section should be blocked also:

The founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers" while they press to raise record amounts.

More than wanting to know the source of Hsu's money, I want to know what "charities" the dirty money is being sent to.

More than wanting to know the source of Hsu's money, I want to know what "charities" the dirty money is being sent to.

And I bet some of the charities would like to know to. I suspect some would turn the offer down.

Oyster
I think the answer to your question is: any 501(c)3 that "smells good" to the contributor. Isn't that TNR standard?

But an H L Mencken type might surmise: Any 501(c)3 that was on the plan B list.

Oliver Willis puts his credulousness on public display; that's all that's waving in the breeze, apparently.
================================================

More problems for Hil, another donor in trouble:

"Sant S. Chatwal, an Indian American businessman, has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns, even as he battled governments on two continents to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens.

The founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers" while they press to raise record amounts.

From left, Sant Chatwal, Bill Clinton, Renu Mehta and Michael Douglas at an event in London in 2006. Chatwal, a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, raised money for their campaigns and causes even as he faced legal and financial difficulties. Mehta, a philanthropist, founded Fortune Forum. (By Dave M. Benett -- Getty Images)

Related Document

FDIC Lawsuit Against Chatwal

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Redstate | Conservative News and Community
Redstate | Conservative News and Community
The Political Lizard

Full List of Blogs (24 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook

Chatwal's case reached from his native India to New York City. The IRS pursued him for approximately $4 million in unpaid business taxes, while New York state placed a lien seeking more than $5 million in taxes. He forfeited a building to New York City on which he was delinquent on property taxes and was sued by federal regulators seeking to recoup millions of dollars in loans from a failed bank where he served as a director."

She does represent New York, doesn't she???

Marc,

Could you be a bit more clear? Will there be one report by the Whitehouse and then when Petraeus briefs congress will his statement will be his own words? Or will Petraeus present a report on progress in Iraq to Congress (which will be authored by the Whitehouse staff) as the LAT asserted?

If I understand what you meant to say above (by quoting the relevant law), then we can expect the "report" to be yet another crock of sh!t from the same people that sold us "Iraq has WMDs", "major combat operations have ended" and "these are the last throes of the insurgency". Ont he other hand, Petraeus's testimony might be a bit more revealing.

Regardless, I'm glad we agree then that we shouldn't put much stock in the much vaunted "Petraeus report". That was the gist of my satement in the first place.

kapaw if you want to believe he will testify before congress using a prepared script from the WH, as you obviously do, I'm far from surprised.

That's what some of you guys do best.

But I sure would like to know the WH script writers name who has been feeding talking points to all the donkey's coming back with favorable progress reports in Anbar and other areas.

Got a name kapaw? More importantly, are their reports also classified as "shit" by you?

Oh my, here is a post about another highly questionable foreign donor to Hillary's campaign, Tendo Oto.

Oh, wait! Here is yet another criminal fugitive donor, Abdul Rehman Jinnah.

Wow, those are a lot of 'clerical errors' starting to add up.

Nothing to see here however, Hillary is only running for president.

We have much more important things to look at, such as ginned-up Democratic political non-scandals like the Gonzales yawner.

Heh, 'clerical errors'. That is this year's silliest commenter quote, IMHO.

Jay, could you please fix my damn html?

Ken:

DREAM ON.

I'll only make it worse.

(sigh)OK, I'll try...

J.

Update: Hey, Ken, I did it!

It seems you gotta put quote marks around the target URL...

It seems you gotta put quote marks around the target URL...

Which is why I have the whole link html thingy on my clipboard and paste it in my comment when I need it. I could never type that from scratch every time.

The left has gone to such extremes to denigrate the Petraeus report because they are so sure it will bring good news about our effort there.

How more evocative of bias and blindness can you get? Hey, come back here. I'm talking about YOU.
==================================

Thanks JT!

I knew my trust in you was not misplaced.

Pardon me for bringing up some old history here, but earlier Kapow gave a list of Republicans with difficulties, and I've been doing some ruminating on it. Here's my answer to Kapow's list:

Those individuals Kapow enumerated are elected by the people of their districts and states. If the Democratic challengers for those seats in the next election wish to inform the voters about those issues, I see nothing wrong with that.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is campaigning for a position which is elected by the whole country. Therefore, by the above protocol, the whole country should be made aware of the legal difficulties she faces.

However, that's not the way those on the left want it. They want all the dirt on the GOP to come out, but bristle to an extreme degree when something bad about their anointed candidate(s) come out.

To summarize: I say it's fair to bring up negatives--so long as they're really true and not "fake but accurate" stories--about all candidates. The left, to judge from this thread in particular, prefers a double-standard.

Just exactly what "legal difficutlties" does Mrs. Clinton face ccg? Care to enumerate them with appropriate references? Or, is that just one of your usual wet dreams?

is that just one of your usual wet dreams?
-----------------------------------
Is this just one of your usual cheap distration tactics?

Well actually LAI - it 's really a rhetorical question after a legitimate question to an idiotic conclusory statement by ccg. Get it now?

Perhaps you'd like to step in and answer the question for your good buddy. What are the specific "legal difficulties" Mrs. Clinton faces along with the supporting references to those "legal difficulties." Or do you share the same wet dreams as CCG?

JFO,
Just notice your usual cheap distraction tactics to distract from the corruption of your liberal buddies. I just noticed that the liberals seem to like Clinton 's perjury (using your standard) and fundraising activities that they are willing to make her the Senator from NY. And now they are still poised to make her the presidential candidates of their party. The illegality of the fund-raising activities of the Clinton team should be brought up widely for all to see. Do you see a problem with that? Or you are trying to do another cheap distraction tactics?

Whereas WIzbang here has been totally on top of the Mitt Romney fundraising scnadal, right?

You know, the one where Romney's top fundraiser was indicted for mail fraud, bankruptcy fraud, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice?

Funny how I just searched here, and didn't find one story regarding this man who is one of the top GOP contenders for the Presidential nomination.

Why would that be? Well, the clearly obvious answer is that you are more interested in the negatives of those you oppose than those of those in the party you support.

Which is just what you accuse liberal blogs of.

And really, that's just human nature. So if liberal blogs are guilty of it, you are just as guilty. That's all there is to it.

URL for Romney's scandal, just in case you're curious:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709010002

So Jim, Thanks for proving Jay 's point that media matter is a propagandist machine for the liberal dems (wrt their silence about Hsu 's scandal). BTW, it was founded by a known liar Brock. Liberals seem to love liars like Clinton, Brock, Wilson etc...

Speaking of cheap distractions care to answer the question I asked which was in response to your fellow wingnut CCG? Not able to? Don't want to? Can't? Or - just afraid you'll actually have to say something other than your usual idiotic "cheap distraction" or "crooked liberal" or "traitor" or "Clinton's a liar" or whatever the drivel you choose to dribble. Just try answering the question in an honest way.

Or if you want to wait till ccg gets home from work so you too can pray together first that'd be ok too.

I think it should be a crime for a former first lady to fall out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down...

Actually, when Romney's "top fund raiser" is found guilty and then flees the country and then comes back and remains a fugitive while raising more money for him, I'll be concerned.

Or, is that just one of your usual wet dreams?

92. Posted by JFO

jfo, WTH is your fixation on these things the last couple of days? Wet dreams in this thread. On the Bush in al Anbar you were fixated on his "package."

Did the Craig story get your juices flowing or something? Try mixing in a female - it'll do you good and maybe get you away from this desperate fixation you've been on.

The terminology and usage is apropo the wingnuts whom I've been addressing. If I offend you delicate sensibilities well just f*** off.

LAI - huh?

ok....quoting Media Matters *refuting* Jay's point....confirms Jay's point, because Media Matters is refuting it??

How's this - is there anything wrong, either fact or observation, in that link I cited? If so, please show it.

Otherwise, calling something 'propaganda' because you don't like what is being said, simply isn't good enough.

Oh yes, liberals love liars. Whereas the GOP can't stand liars, right?

[cough]Gonzales[/cough], [cough]Libby[/cough], [cough]Vitter[/cough], [cough]Abramoff scandal[/cough]...

Funny you mention Abramoff, jim. I did, too -- and what Hsu did made Jack look like a piker.

J.

JFO,
I just try to use your cheap standard and you don't seem to like it. I don't need to call you an idiot or anything like that. I simple note the fact that you are a cheap liberal spinner who is not honest enough to admit that he is here to spin for his liberal buddies. At least FreedomFried is better than JFO in that department.
JFO is simply another liberal who cannot admit who he is.

BTW, I asked you a legitimate question and you didn't answer it either.

Jim

Trying to carry on a reasoned discussion with LAI is like trying to carry on a discussion with a 2 year old. He rants and raves, changes the subject, doesn't answer reasonable questions and cries when he's told to go to bed. It's useless. Just beat him with a "reason" stick and then let him run his silly rants. He positively hates anyone or anything that isn't to the right of Ghengis Khan. He dishonors what he was taught when he received his citizenship.

lol....see the response above.

Jim,
Your post of Media Matter proves Jay 's point here. I leave it as a homework for you to check the spin on Hillary 's donation to charity there. Brock is a known, self-admitted liar. Liberal NY doesn't seem to have a problem with the Clinton 's perjury and fundraising.

As for his employer, Media Matters: nothing on the main page, six articles in archives -- all playing down its significance.

JFO is a proven cheap spinner who constantly resorts to ad-hominent attack to distract from the corruption of his liberal buddies.

THis is another example of the level of honesty we can expect from JFO. At least FreedomFried is more honest about who he is. JFO can only pretend and resort to adhominen attack to justify his liberal sew*age. Sad but not surprised that FF is more honest than JFO.

Jim

Need I say anything further?

Whether you need to or not, no doubt it will be accompanied by more of your foul little mouth.

Need I say anything further?
-------------------------------
Maybe not, your dishonesty has been exposed. At least FF is better in this department.

It would appear that only Mr. Hsu is presently on the hot seat. If further investigations uncover inconsistencies as to what Hillary's people knew about their fundraiser beforehand, there may be a few problems. Will they be able to use the term plausible deniability? This is another "wait and see."

SPQR

Me thinks you protest too much a**h***. And my mouth isn't little b***h***.

CCG:

Hopefully you'll answer the reasonable question I asked following your post that Mrs. Clinton faces "legal difficulties." Or will you do your usual when confronted about your exaggerations and lies? Run and hide.

Me thinks you protest too much a**h***. And my mouth isn't little b***h***.
------------------------------------
Since you are full of the a**h***, so you cannot but spit it out of your mouth as shown on this thread.

Hillary Clinton needs to answer for Hsu and her partner in corruption in fundraising dept. Your cheap stunt is simply to distract from the corruption of your liberal buddies. But again, you are not honest enough to admit who you are. FF is more honest than you.

I protest too much? It is funny to see you attempt to quote Shakespeare with such incompetence. Nonetheless, my language is not from the gutter like yours. Nor do I use so many junior high school debating tactics as yourself. Do grow up soon.

SPQR

I am left with nothing more to say to you than go f*** yourself. I 'll bet Shakespeare said it that way once or twice jackass. Oh, are you French per chance?

JFO cannot keep his pretention long enough without spewing the garbage from within. At least we know that FF is honest enough to admit who he is.

The question we should be asking is:

"Who drilled the glory hole?"

Cuz if the cop did then it's entrapment.

JFO, am I French? Sacre bleu, non.

Keeping working on that growing up thing, 7th grade is a terrible place to be stuck.

Need I say anything further?

Nope. :)