A Question of Judgment, A Question of Ethics, A Question of Accountability

A question of just how dumb Mrs. Clinton thinks the voters are?

Want to know why Democrats made such a big deal of Bush's firing of a handful of U.S. Attorneys? Consider this:

HILL'S CASH EYED AS CHINESE-LAUNDERED
By CHARLES HURT in Washington and ELAINE CHAN in New York
New York Post
October 20, 2007

Hillary Clinton's campaign has been raising huge piles of money in Chinatown, but some of it has come from donors who can't be located or who were improperly repaid for their contributions, according to The Post and other reports.

A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.
Shin K. Cheng is listed twice in federal records for giving $1,000 donations to Clinton's campaign on April 17.

But the address recorded on campaign reports is a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, hemorrhoids and skin disease.

No one at the address knew of a Shin K. Cheng.

Another donation came from a Shih Kan Chang on Canal Street. But the address listed is a shop that sells knock-off watches and other pirated goods. The sales clerk there did not know the donor.

Hsiao Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13. Contacted yesterday, she told The Post she had written a check.

But it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council, and Wang told The Post that Guo had repaid her for the $1,000 contribution.

Such "straw donations" are strictly prohibited by federal law.

And this:

Dishwashers for Clinton
Once again, a zeal for campaign cash trumps common sense.
Washington Post Editorial
October 22, 2007

DONORS WHOSE addresses turn out to be tenements. Dishwashers and waiters who write $1,000 checks. Immigrants who ante up because they have been instructed to by powerful neighborhood associations, or, as one said, "They informed us to go, so I went." Others who say they never made the contributions listed in their names or who were not eligible to give because they are not legal residents of the United States. This is the disturbingly familiar picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign presented last week in a report by the Los Angeles Times about questionable fundraising by the New York senator in New York City's Chinese community. Out of 150 donors examined, one-third "could not be found using property, telephone or business records," the Times reported. "Most have not registered to vote, according to public records."

This appears to be another instance in which a Clinton campaign's zeal for campaign cash overwhelms its judgment. After the fundraising scandals of President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign, the dangers of vacuuming cash from a politically inexperienced immigrant community should have been obvious. But Ms. Clinton's money machine seized on a new source of cash in Chinatown and environs. As the Times reported, a single Chinatown fundraiser in April brought in $380,000. By contrast, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry raised $24,000 from Chinatown in the course of his entire campaign.

Judgment? That's putting it mildly!

Rush Limbaugh had the best comment on this latest Clinton/Chinese money laundering scheme: "In Chinatown and other Chinese neighborhoods in the Bronx and in Queens, dishwashers, people who live in tenements, can afford[]to donate $1,000 and $2,000 campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton, but they can't afford health care. No, you and I are going to have to pay for that."

The FBI is reported to be undertaking an investigation of campaign contributions by disgraced Clinton fundraiser Norman Hsu, also Chinese. But what do you want to bet the investigation won't be concluded before the November 2008 election? Democrat's have already laid down covering fire to head off any Clinton investigation by making so much noise about the firing of U.S. Attorneys by Bush. If anyone were to even suggest that the investigation of fundraising irregularities needs to be complete and a report released before the election you can expect Democrats to hit the roof. Apparently, the people do NOT have the right to know.

The People DO NOT Have a Right to Know II

As part of an investigation into the deep roots of Clinton Scandals I visited Little Rock, Arkansas in September and the site of Charlie Trie's former Chinese Restuarant was my first stop. Fu Lin's (meaning "enrich your neighbor" -- how appropriate) is where the Clinton's first began cultivating the Chinese connections that continue to pop up throughout their public life.

During that visit of Clinton scandal sites I also visited the Bill Clinton Presidential Library which sits on the banks of the Arkansas River adjoining a rusted out and disused railroad bridge to nowhere. If you visit the Library you'll be impressed by all the letters and photographs of famous people praising Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But you won't find any documents relating to anything that might show Hillary or Bill in a bad light. All that is being carefully restricted by old Clinton cover up expert Bruce Lindsey:

Papers? I Don’t See Any Papers.
He says he's 'pro-disclosure,' but Bill has kept Hillary's White House files under wraps.
By Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK
Oct 29, 2007 Issue

When author Sally Bedell Smith was researching her new book about Bill and Hillary Clinton's White House years, she flew to Little Rock to visit the one place she thought could be an invaluable resource: the new William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Smith was hoping to inspect records that could shed light on what role the First Lady played in her husband's administration. But Smith quickly discovered the frustrations of dealing with a library critics call "Little Rock's Fort Knox."

An archivist explained to Smith that the release of materials was tightly controlled by the former president's longtime confidant Bruce Lindsey. Could she look at memos detailing the advice Hillary gave Bill during debates over welfare reform? Smith asked. No, the archivist said, those memos were "closed" to the public because they dealt with "policy" matters. What about any records that show what advice Bill gave his wife about her 2000 U.S. Senate campaign? Those, too, were closed, the archivist said, because they dealt with "political" matters. "He essentially told me I had no chance of getting anything," says Smith, whose book, "For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton, the White House Years," hits the bookstores this week.

The response Smith got isn't unusual. Nearly three years after the Clinton Library opened—and more than 21 months after its trove of records became subject to the Freedom of Information Act—barely one half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mail messages at the federally funded facility are public, according to the National Archives. The lack of access is emerging as an issue in Hillary's presidential campaign: she cites her years of experience as First Lady as one of her prime qualifications to be president. Like other Democratic candidates, she has decried the "stunning record of secrecy" of the Bush administration; her campaign Web site vows to bring a "return to transparency" to government. But Clinton's appointment calendar as First Lady, her notes at strategy meetings, what advice she gave her husband and his advisers, what policy memos she wrote, even some key papers from her health-care task force—all of this, and much more documenting her years as First Lady, remains locked away, most likely through the entire campaign season. With nearly 300 FOIA requests pending for Clinton documents, and only six archivists at the library to process them, Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper says it is "really hard to predict" if any of this material will be released before the election.

Bill Clinton has tried to cast blame for the backlog on the Bush White House. "Look, I'm pro-disclosure," Clinton said in a testy exchange with reporters during a recent press conference. "I want to open my presidential records more rapidly than the law requires and the current administration has slowed down the opening of my own records." But White House spokesman Scott Stanzel tells NEWSWEEK the Bush White House has not blocked the release of any Clinton-era records, nor is it reviewing any.

Is anyone surprised? If you visit the Clinton Library, make sure to see the policy alcove titled "Fight for Power." In it you will learn that every accusation of impropriety ever leveled at the Clintons was the result of scheming Republicans bent on the politics of personal destruction. Neither you, nor any researcher, will get to see the letters, emails, videotapes or photographs showing Clinton corruption firsthand.

For instance, you won't see this photograph of disgraced Clinton fundraiser Johnny Chung escorting Chinese "businessmen" to the White House:

And you won't find the guest list for the infamous White House Coffees where the White House was used as an ATM for the Clinton political machine.

If you had seen displays featuring those items you might be reminded that Clinton fundraising irregularities are nothing new. And you might be less willing to overlook the corruption which continues with Hillary's latest campaign.

The Sad Saga of Peter Paul

What happens to a Clinton supporter who fails to fall on his sword and cover up for Hillary? They find themselves in a foreign jail cut off from their family. Gayle found this documentary of the story of Peter Paul. Once one of Hillary's strongest supporters Mr. Paul was cut loose when questions about fundraising for Hillary's Senate bid were raised. It's the clearest example of how the Clinton corruption continues:

See more at the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project
Like every other Clinton scandal where Hillary denied any knowledge of wrongdoing Hillary LIED about her connections to Peter Paul and her awareness of fundraising activities on her behalf. And as you see in the video, the usual suspects in the leftist media are only too happy to come out and say "there's no evidence." And of course when you show them the evidence, the old standby "both sides do it" emerges.

When GOP'rs "Do it" they go to Jail.

When disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff "did it" he went to prison. When Congressman Duke Cunningham "did it" he went to prison. When Hillary does it, the public will be dragged through endless legalistic arguments quibbling over such minute points as "the meaning of the word 'is'." One word that is not in the Clinton dictionary is "accountability."

Mitt Romney Wrong on Hillary Experience

In the GOP Florida debate last Sunday Mitt Romney erred when he said "She [Hillary] hasn't run a corner store. She hasn't run a state. She hasn't run a city. She has never run anything."

Hillary Clinton has run the most successful criminal political enterprise in the last 50 years. And she continues to evade the accountability that would apply in spades to any other candidate from either party!

Is that the kind of "experience" we want in the White House -- AGAIN?