From http://www.strikebackusa.com

Yet again Hillary Rodham Clinton has been duped by a man. The “smartest” woman in the world was tricked, yet again. By a man no less. If it is not her husband William Jefferson Clinton having sex with obese interns in front of God and everyone in the Oval Office (soon to be the Ovarian Office?)  or the genius G.W. Bush tricking her into voting for war with Iraq, it is convicted felon Norman Hsu donating money to the anointed Queen of Socialism, Hillary Clinton.

Never to be outdone by that backsliding husband of hers or the hot air blowing Prophet of Global Warming Doom, Al Gore, Hillary has kept true to democrat form and taken suspect money from suspect donors. Never fear she has given it back already, well not all of it.

 From Newsday

 “And even though the former first lady is donating the $23,000 she received from him, Singer said her campaign would not relinquish an additional $45,000 that came from the family of a Daly City postal worker of modest means, whose donations closely tracked those of the California political rainmaker.

Hsu claimed to have bundled donations from the family, who gave a combined $213,000 - including $50,000 to Clinton - over a three-year period, according to the Los Angeles Times” 

Why should she? She is the left of center odds on favorite for the White House. There will be no “Special Prosecutor,” at least not a real one, assigned to look into this matter. The communist controlled media will be too busy chasing down Britney Spears and her children. Those un-reproachable journalists not tied up with meltdowns of pop-stars will be hounding John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales, although both have resigned. Justice must be served! “Nothing to see here, move along sheeple! Look over here! There are Muslims terrorists in Gitmo without lemon flavored chicken!”  

Read the rest at http:www.strikebackusa.com

On Sept. 7, 2007, the California Appellate Court will hear arguments regarding bringing Senator Hillary Clinton back into court as a defendant in the Paul vs. Clinton case.

An appeal was filed by Clinton donor Peter Paul’s attorneys in March, 2007 seeking reversal of an order granting Senator Clinton first amendment protection for her illegal campaign solicitations under California’s anti-SLAPP law that stems from her 2000 U.S. Senate campaign. Her Finance Chief David Rosen, was indicted and tried for causing false FEC reports to be filed by Senator Clinton’s campaign.

U.S. Justice Foundation, submitted to the California Court of Appeal a five minute videotape (which can be viewed at http://www.hillcap.org/), of a July 2000 phone call it claims shows Sen. Clinton – despite denials throughout six years of investigation – taking an active role with Paul in the production of the largest fundraiser of her 2000 Senate campaign.

Paul contends Sen. Clinton’s participation directly and through her designated White House staff assistant Kelly Craighead in directing expenditures, soliciting contributions of performer’s services, and planning the event would make his more than $1.2 million in contributions a direct donation to her Senate campaign as a matter of law rather than being attributable by Senator Clinton to a joint fundraising committee, violating federal statutes that limit "hard money" contributions to a candidate to $2,000 per person. Knowingly accepting or soliciting $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony carrying a prison sentence of up to five years.

The videotape was held since May 2001 by the New York Eastern District U.S. Attorney and released only on April 12 of this year after 2 years of requests made by Paul’s attorneys.

"The evidence is of that rare type that captures the very commission of a crime, namely, that of knowingly soliciting, coordinating and accepting federal campaign contributions far in excess of the legal limit of $2,000," according to a case brief filed back in July.

Sen. Clinton was dismissed from the case April 7, 2006, by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz on the basis of the state’s anti-SLAPP law, which, under the First Amendment, protects politicians from frivolous lawsuits during their election campaigns, even though the statute was invoked by Clinton six months after the statutory cut off date and four years after she ended her election campaign.

Paul’s attorney, Colette Wilson of the U.S. Justice Foundation, has argued that because Sen. Clinton violated the federal election law in engaging in her protected activity of soliciting contributions and, therefore, according to the law, would not be covered by the anti-SLAPP statute.

Wilson claims that Senator Clinton directly solicited the funds and applied some control over them, in violation of section 441 of the Federal Election Commission code.

Read the rest of this entry �

By Hot Air

His name is Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, originally from Pakistan. He allegedly funneled loads of money to the Clinton campaign, stood accused of same, and fled to Pakistan. In May, he surrendered to the FBI, flew back to the US to answer the charges against him, and collapsed in court.

Gateway Pundit has the Wanted poster that the FBI released on Jinnah last year. Rantburg has the original LA Times article about Jinnah’s flight. Michelle has a few more details about the case.

I have a few questions: Who else has been illegally donating to the Clinton campaign machine? In two days we’ve learned of two illegal contributors who went on the lam. Yesterday’s miscreant, Norman Hsu, wasn’t just an illegal Hillraiser himself: The available evidence suggests that he was using the Paw family as a conduit to pass his own money through, on the way to the campaign coffers of scores of Democrats. The Clinton campaign, along with all the other Democrats who have been connected to Hsu, have promised to return all the money they received from him. What about the Paws’ money? And are there any other shells out there whom Hsu used to illegally contribute to Clinton or any other Democrats? And where did all the money that Hsu was bundling for the Clinton and other campaigns come from in the first place?

And are there any other fugitives who’ve made their way onto the mighty Hillraiser list? Does the Clinton campaign vet its donors for legality before or after they get caught contributing illegally?

Update: Stop the ACLU has a very useful timeline on the Peter Paul affair. The allegation at the base of that affair is that Hillary Clinton flagrantly violated campaign finance law by filing false FEC reports, and thereby committed a felony.

Source: Hot Air

Democratic presidential wannabee, Hillary Clinton, will donate to charity $23,000 of the contributions she has received from her fugitive fundraiser.

Why only $23,000? The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] reports that Hillary’s fugitive fundraiser, also known as Norman Hsu, has raised over $1 million for Hillary’s Presidential campaign:

Beyond his $23,000 in personal contributions to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hsu had raised well over $1 million for the New York senator’s presidential campaign, making him one of her top 20 "bundlers.

As recently as Tuesday, Hillary’s campaign was touting Hsu’s integrity saying, "there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question."

After the Los Angeles Times reported that Hsu pleaded no contest to a grand theft charge, agreed to accept up to three years in prison, failed to show up for a sentencing hearing, and then disappeared, Hillary changed her tune. At least she changed her tune for 2 percent of the money Hsu raised for Hillary.

I don’t get it. All of the money raised by Hillary’s fugitive fundraiser is equally tainted. The entire $1 million should be given to charity, not just 2 percent of the funds raised by Hsu. Maybe Hillary is consulting with Al Gore, who remains unaware of any controlling legal authority.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you."

Why isn’t someone from the FBI reading Hillary her Miranda rights?

After two days of solid reporting in the Los Angeles Times, we now know that one of her elite "HillRaisers," as major campaign contributors are called, is a convicted felon and a fugitive from justice for the last 15 years.

His name is Norman Hsu. He pleaded no contest to grand theft and agreed to serve up to three years in prison in California before vanishing into thin air.

But he didn’t really vanish. He simply left California for the East Coast, where he became a major patron of Democratic Party causes and especially the presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hsu lives in New York City and has a prominent Washington attorney, E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., representing him. Yet, California authorities can’t find him.

Maybe those Democratic officials in the California attorney general’s office should ask the junior senator from New York where he might be found. She has met with him and been photographed with him since he went on the lam.

More importantly, her campaign has accepted at least $100,000 from him.

Hillary isn’t commenting, but her attorney, Howard Wolfson, explained: "Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Sen. Clinton. During Mr. Hsu’s many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or return them."

What? He’s a convicted felon. As such, he doesn’t even have a right to participate in the American political process. And by fraternizing and dealing with him, aren’t Hillary and her attorney aiding and abetting a known fugitive?

Where’s the FBI when we need it?

Read the rest of this entry �

By Gateway Pundit

Are you ready for another 4 years of unimaginable corruption?
Are you ready for another Clinton Presidency of record-breaking scandal?
Check this one out…
Here’s the latest Hillary Clinton Donor.

This one was wanted by the FBI!!

Click to Enlarge
ABDUL REHMAN JINNAH , a major Hillary and democratic party donor, is wanted by the FBI.

IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS PERSON, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL FBI OFFICE OR THE NEAREST AMERICAN EMBASSY OR CONSULATE.

Atlas Shrugs and Sweetness and Light are hot on the trail of yet another Hillary Clinton donor who fled the country to Pakistan and was sought by the FBI.
Hat Tip Larwyn

Mr. Sadiq, Senator Hillary Clinton and Mr. Rehman Jinnah (Sweetness and Light)

** Rantburg saved the article that was later purged from the LA Times:

A Pakistani immigrant who hosted fundraisers in Southern California for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is being sought by the FBI on charges that he funneled illegal contributions to Clinton’s political action committee and Sen. Barbara Boxer’s 2004 reelection campaign. Authorities say Northridge businessman Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, fled the country after an indictment accused him of engineering more than $50,000 in illegal donations to the Democratic committees. A business associate charged as a co-conspirator has entered a guilty plea and is scheduled to be sentenced in Los Angeles next week.

A federal law enforcement source said prosecutors had not dealt with the political committees in conducting their investigation and had no evidence that the committees knew the contributions were illegal. Officials for both committees said they were unaware of the investigation or indictments until they were contacted by The Times, and said they would not keep the donations.

The case has transformed Jinnah from a political point man on Pakistani issues, a man often photographed next to foreign dignitaries and U.S. leaders, into a fugitive with his mug shot on the FBI’s "featured fugitives" wanted list. Jinnah’s profile peaked in 2004 and 2005 as he wooed members of Congress to join a caucus advancing Pakistani concerns and brought Clinton to speak to prominent Pakistani Americans, lauding their homeland’s contributions to the war on terrorism and calling relations with Pakistan beneficial to U.S. interests.

My Word!
Is there anyone the Clintons won’t take money from?

Michelle Malkin has more on the Clintons and Jinnah.

Democratic donor Jinnah gave himself up to authorities in May of this year.
Here is a list of a few of his political contributions.

Related… Soros-funded liberal group guilty of using massive amounts of unregulated soft money to boost John Kerry and other Democratic candidates during the 2004 elections.

Source: Gateway Pundit

Say sleaze! Hillary with former fugitive donor Rehman Jinnah in 2000.

From Michelle Malkin

Sweetness and Light recalls yet another fugitive moneyman who shelled out big bucks to Hillary Clinton. Via the LATimes from last year noted by Rantburg:

Clinton donor wanted by FBI in scheme to funnel money

Robin Fields and Chuck Neubauer,

Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2007

A Pakistani immigrant who hosted fundraisers in Southern California for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is being sought by the FBI on charges that he funneled illegal contributions to Clinton’s political action committee and Sen. Barbara Boxer’s 2004 reelection campaign. Authorities say Northridge businessman Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, fled the country after an indictment accused him of engineering more than $50,000 in illegal donations to the Democratic committees. A business associate charged as a co-conspirator has entered a guilty plea and is scheduled to be sentenced in Los Angeles next week…

Read the rest of this entry �

According to an email I’ve received from her campaign, the intrepid Hillary is venturing into the lion’s den, with TV appearances scheduled tonight on Letterman and September 4 on the Ellen DeGeneres show. Daring stuff!

In any case, according to the email:

Ellen is soliciting questions from her viewers to ask of Hillary, and we want to turn it around on her. So if you have a question for Hillary to ask Ellen, submit it here.

Such a prankster, that Hillary. Wild ‘n crazy stuff!

Sure, go ahead and submit a question to Hillary. But keep it clean, and remember, you’ll be adding yourself to Hillary’s email list, so expect to receive lots of future fundraising solicitations.

For that matter, within those keep-it-clean-guidelines, why not let us know here what your question from Hillary to Ellen would be?

Source: Newsbusters

The harshest verdict on the ethical lapses of Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton did not appear in any news organ of the so-called “vast right-wing conspiracy” of Hillary’s imagination. Rather, it was the well-known liberal columnist from The New York Times, Bob Herbert, who wrote the most damning characterization of this political couple. On February 26, 2001 the following appeared in Herbert’s column in The New York Times:

“You can’t lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they’ve betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them.”

Strong language and it has an essential context. Weeks before, the First Lady’s husband, Bill Clinton, granted last minute presidential pardons to a rogue’s gallery of questionable characters. They included such “luminaries” as Marc Rich, a fugitive from justice who had been indicted on multiple charges of tax evasion and trading with the enemy. Not the resume of one you would think warrants a complete and full presidential pardon. However, in the Clinton White House it helped that the fugitive’s ex-wife was a financial contributor to the planned Clinton presidential library, and fundraiser for the Democratic Party. Also not to be ignored was that Rich had an attorney who happened to have been a former White House Counsel during the Clinton administration.

The Marc Rich affair was only one of a host of sleazy last-minute pardons. Hillary Clinton, recently elected a senator from New York, denied knowledge regarding the planning of these pardons, however, few were prepared to believe her. Bob Herbert certainly didn’t.

In February 2001 even the liberal media saw the Clintons for who they were, Hillary as well as Bill. Yet, as the fall approaches in 2007, this has all been conveniently forgotten. Terminally unethical and vulgar Hillary and her chief political advisor and campaign strategist may be. However, that has not prevented her from becoming the front-runner in the 2008 presidential race. For that reason, it is all the more incumbent on those who comprehend what a second Clinton presidency would inflict upon America to remind the American people of why Bob Herbert characterized both Hillary Clinton and her husband as being “terminally unethical and vulgar.”

Source: Hillary Clinton Nude

If women are from Venus and men are from Mars, the former valuing peace and the latter reveling in war, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lot more like Mars than Venus.

She loves war.

Indeed, like a dolphin or a submarine, she can only define where she is or who she is by bouncing her sonar off her opponents. It is only in the crucible of conflict that she is truly alive and self-aware. Conflict is the principle which permits her to organize her life. Peacetime is an invitation to entropy.

Hillary Clinton’s handlers like to promote her image as an embattled warrior — a relentless foot soldier dedicated to the dual crusades of fighting for the exalted principles of goodness and light while simultaneously defeating the ever-present forces of darkness and evil.

A modern-day Celtic warrior queen or Joan of Arc — that’s the spin on Hillary. But in reality, Hillary’s favorite wars are much less lofty and much more self-centered and mean-spirited. Hillary emphatically comes from the “us versus them” school of American politics. Like Richard Nixon, the politician she so closely resembles, she sees the world in extraordinarily simple terms: There are those who agree with her and support her and then there’s the rest of the world. Those who don’t agree with her are bunched together and known collectively as “the enemy” — that vast right wing conspiracy that must be vilified, beaten, and destroyed . . . whatever it takes.

To Hillary, this easily quantifiable adversary is unquestionably the source of all evil. Therefore, any means of obliterating them is acceptable. She thrives on identifying, assailing, and defeating them. Her hatred for this ubiquitous enemy is actually a source of enormous strength — it motivates her, energizes her, keeps her going and reminds her of her superiority.

Now she even claims that it is actually her experience in beating the right wing that makes her the most qualified democrat to be president. At the last debate, she touted her success: “And I will say that for 15 years I have stood up against the right-wing machine, and I’ve come out stronger. So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I’m your girl."

Read the rest of this entry �