Today I came across an interesting blog post by Ron Rosenbaum about a story the L.A. Times is sitting on. Read the post here
It’s a story about a "potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. Supposedly everyone in the DC mainstream media knows about it
And yet the LA Times does not know what to do about it!
As quoted from the story:

“Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it.

Complex ethics??? What would the complex ethics be about a politician having an affair on their spouse?

If you read the story below - he is not referring to John Edwards - a non story surfaced about a supposed affair he had on the campaign trail.

I believe the story is about Hillary Clinton having a lesbian affair with her "Right Hand Woman" Huma Abedin.  Who is Huma you ask? Follow this link to read all about her.

Here is a list of reasons I think the story below is about Hillary and Huma.

• For some strange reason the story I posted  Hillary’s Mystery Woman: Who is Huma is my 9th most popular visited page on this blog! I insist you have to be VERY knowledgeable on Clinton information to have heard about Huma Abedin. The traffic going to my site is coming from search engines. I’m convinced people are hearing about the Hillary - Huma relationship and are going to Google to see if anything is written about this lesbian relationship. I have hundreds of blog posts on this site - and my 9th most popular page is about a unknown campaign aid to Hillary Clinton???? This just does not make sense to me.
• I have been receiving emails about Huma - one came for a Department of Justice computer (ISP) stating this: "I am close enough to both Hillary and Huma to know that it is an open secret on the campaign that those two are romantically involved.  It is something you will never get them to verify though…"
• If you’ve noticed recently the Mainstream Media has been churning out stories about how "romantic Bill Clinton is when he returns" to visit Hillary. How feminists have great relationships. Some gay organization flat out asked Hillary IF she was gay.  She denied it, but wouldn’t you follow that question up with "Hillary, if you are not gay, are you Bi-sexual?"  Etc, Etc Etc. Why all of the fuss about Bill and Hillary’s marriage? At first I was guessing that the Polling Data was showing that voters were indicating they were having problems with Bill and Hillary’s strange marriage, that voters might have thought she was Gay or anti-marriage. But after connecting the dots here - I am thinking that all of this media attention to the Clinton marriage is about crises control about this story that the LA Times is surpressing.
• According to my limited research the Clinton camp has tried to keep Huma’s existence real quiet. I at first suspected it to be because of her nationality and Hillary’s creepy relationships with India and Pakistan.
  To read up on these strange connections view these links: Gupta and Jinnah
• Huma according to information sent to me is possibly living with Hillary at her house in DC
• It is common knowledge that Hillary is bi-sexual.  According to Bill’s long-time ex-girlfriend Gennifer Flowers, Hillary enjoyed performing oral sex on other women.  On p.41 of Flowers’ autobiography "Gennifer Flowers: Passion and Betrayal",  Gennifer asked Bill if there was any truth to the rumor that Hillary was having an affair with another woman.  Bill laughed and said (referring to Hillary):  "Honey - she’s probably eaten more p—y than I have."

So, IF the LA Times is sitting on this story BECAUSE the want to protect Hillary - that’s par for the course. You know without a doubt IF this was about a Republican Presidential candidate - they would have not problem whats so ever bombarding the media with this story over and over and over again!

UPDATE:
interesting information here | Village Voice

Shocking Inside DC Scandal Rumor: A Media Ethics Dilemma

So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. “Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. “Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me )not an LAT person) knows I write and didn’t say “don’t write about this”.

If it’s true, I don’t envy the LAT. I respect their hesitation, their dilemma, deciding to run or not to run it raises a lot of difficult journalism ethics questions and they’re likely to be attacked, when it comes out—the story or their suppression of the story—whatever they do.

I’ve been sensing hints that something’s going on, something’s going unspoken in certain insider coverage of the campaign (and by the way this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before. By the way, t’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else.

And when my source said “everyone in Washington”, knows about it he means everyone in the elite Mainstream media, not just the LA Times, but everyone regularly writing about the Presdidential campaign knows about it and doesn’t know what to do with it. And I must admit it really is was juicy if true. But I don’t know if it’s true and I can’t decide if I think it’s relevant. But the fact that “everyone” in the elite media knew about it and was keeping silent about it, is, itself, news. But you can’t report the “news” without reporting the thing itself. Troubling!

Read the rest of this entry »

Yuval Levin makes a great point over at The Corner:

In response to a question about Lance Armstrong and cancer research last night, Hillary Clinton said “It’s just outrageous that under President Bush, the National Institutes of Health have been basically decreased in funding.”

The NIH budget in 2001: $20.4 billion
The NIH budget in 2007: $28.6 billion

An eight billion dollar increase. Maybe it all depends on the meaning of the word “basically”

Source: National Review Online

Criminey.  Asked in tonight’s debate about why she supports Governor Spitzer’s illegal immigrant voter registration drive, Hillary seemed to accidentally back herself into the corner of estimating the number of illegal immigrants in New York State.  After stammering a bit, she took a swing: "Several million."  Yowza.  Spitzer himself pegged the number as being between 500,000 and a million.  Still a huge number, but Clinton’s guess was off by as much as a factor of 10, depending on how you take your "several".  How seriously can we assume she’s analyzed this issue if she can’t even quantify the problem anywhere near the right ballpark in her own state.

Does she even know the approximate population of the state she represents?  Her estimate implies as much as 25% of the state is here illegally.  In New York City, it’s thought to be about 6%.  About half of upstate and Long Island residents must be in the shadows.

It’d be one thing if she’d just made a calculation error in the throes of evading a question.  But when she finally settled on her estimate, she slung it with a smirky "Can ya believe that?" grin, as if the impressive statistic had scored her a point in her unresponsive answer.

Read the rest of this entry »

Conservative bloggers Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan will file a formal complaint about Hillary Clinton’s shady fundraising practices with the Federal Election Commission today.

On the heels of the Norman Hsu scandal, the Clinton campaign was rocked by questions of even more Hsu-like shakedowns in connection with a $380,000 fundraiser in New York which saw contributions ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 from cooks and dishwashers. At least one donor admitted to being an illegal immigrant. Another said she was illegally reimbursed for her contributions. Others said they felt pressured to give.

Unlike the Hsu cash, Hillary’s campaign has yet to return the bulk of this tainted money.

This complaint brings these charges into a formal FEC process. The Clinton campaign will have 15 days to respond and publicly defend itself from charges of illegal campaign fundraising.

When lefty blogger Lane Hudson filed FEC complaints against Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, the press couldn’t get enough of the story. I expect Margolis and Noonan will get similar treatment.

This is really smart on Margolis and Noonan’s part, who know the issue of Democrat corruption backwards and forwards as the authors of Caucus of Corruption. For about the time it would have taken to write a blog entry on this issue, they can demand real accountability from the Clinton campaign. I wish I’d thought of this.

The full complaint is after the jump.

October 31, 2007

Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463
 

Dear Counsel:

We write to file a complaint against the Hillary Clinton for President Committee for violation of Federal Election Law under the Commission’s jurisdiction.

It is clear from recent news accounts that the campaign and its donors and fundraisers have violated 2 USC 441f, the provision of law that prohibits campaign contributions in the name of another, and that some donors may have violated 2 USC 441e which prohibits donations by foreign nationals without permanent resident status.   

A recent Los Angeles Times article, [available here], indicates that several reported donors to the Clinton campaign are non-existent persons, illegal immigrants, or were reimbursed by others for contributions. The article documents several instances in which reported donors could not be found, even by those living at the same address reported in the campaign’s FEC filing:

The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records. […]

Of 74 residents of New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.

The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton’s campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000. […]

A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li’s address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.

Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.

In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee’s name there; they knocked on one another’s doors in a futile effort to find him.

Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hillary Clinton’s promise of a robust space program is the least she can do after the Clintons traded U.S. security for campaign cash. Thanks to Bill, when we return to the moon, China will be waiting.

Sen. Clinton made the promise earlier this month, on the 50th anniversary of Sputnik, as part of her plan to reclaim America’s lead in science and technology.

The irony is, that lead is now being challenged by China, whose great leap forward in missile and space technology was aided by the Clintons in exchange for campaign contributions.

Last Wednesday, China launched its first lunar probe, the Chang’e 1 lunar orbiter, named after a mythical Chinese goddess who flew to the moon. The 5,070-pound probe was launched from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in Sichuan province aboard a Long March 3A rocket. The probe is expected to send back its first photos in November and to conduct exploration of the moon for a year.

The Long March has proved to be a reliable Chinese launch vehicle, but it wasn’t always so. After the failed launch of a satellite built by Loral Space and Communications (NASDAQ:LORL) Ltd. attached to a Chinese rocket in February 1996, Loral provided 200 pages of data to China’s Great Wall Industry Corp. to correct the guidance system problems of their "Long March" rockets, which blew up 75% of the time.

The export of such data, which also are applicable to the guidance system of ICBMs, had been banned for national security reasons since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre — until President Clinton granted a waiver.

On March 14, 1996, the Clinton administration transferred licensing responsibility for technology exports to the Commerce Department from State and Defense. As a result, our formerly strict export controls were effectively eviscerated.

This transfer of licensing responsibility was made after a request from a man who would be the Democratic Party’s largest donor in 1996 — Loral Chairman Bernard L. Schwartz. Schwartz would give $1.5 million to the Democratic Party in that year. Two years later Loral would receive a blanket presidential waiver to export missile technology to China, even though the company was under investigation by the Justice Department for similar transfers.

A May 1997 classified Pentagon report concluded that Loral had "turned over expertise that significantly improved China’s nuclear missiles" and that, as a result, "United States national security has been harmed." According to the Pentagon, the technology that improved the Long March satellite launcher has also made the Dong Feng ICBM series more lethal.

Federal Election Commission records show that between February 1999 and June 2000, Schwartz gave Democrats an average of about $40,000 a month, largely in unrestricted, soft-money contributions. In return, China got technology to target American cities, down American satellites and challenge our lead in space.

China’s lunar orbiter is to be followed by a lander and then, by 2017, a robotic mission to return moon rocks. "I personally believe that China will be back on the moon before we are," NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in a low-key lecture in Washington last month.

Johnny Chung was right — the White House was like a subway turnstile: You put your token in and you got inside. Forget the White House coffees and renting the Lincoln bedroom. This garage sale of American satellite, missile and supercomputer technology by the Clintons was the real impeachable offense, not the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Perhaps the past and possibly future co-president can explain.

Source:  CNN

Hillary Rodham Clinton stumbled badly at last night’s Democratic debate when she repeatedly refused to give a direct answer about whether she supports Gov. Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens - and got slammed by her opponents for evasive double-talk.

"I was confused on Sen. Clinton’s answer," said Sen. Barack Obama, who backs the plan. "I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it."

He added, "One of the things that we have to do in this country is be honest about the challenges that we face."

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut said a driver’s license was "a privilege, not a right," and that illegals shouldn’t be allowed to get one.

Clinton shot back that "I did not say that it should be done," prompting Dodd to counter, "You said yes."

"No I didn’t, Chris," Clinton insisted.

The Democratic front-runner said illegal immigrants are "driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds."

But she did not clearly say whether or not she backs Spitzer’s plan.

That prompted MSNBC moderator Tim Russert to ask, "Do you . . . support your governor’s plan to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?"

Again, Clinton wouldn’t respond directly, saying, "We want people to come out of the shadows," and adding Spitzer is "making an honest effort to do it."

"Unless I’m missing something, Senator Clinton said two different things in about two minutes," said former Sen. John Edwards.

The heated exchange took place at the tail end of a two-hour debate at Drexel University.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the City of Brotherly Love, there wasn’t much for a sister.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s rivals ganged up on her during a two-hour Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night, putting the front-runner on defense on issues ranging from Iraq and Iran to Social Security and whether she would be electable in the general election.

Gone was the Clinton who laughed off their answers and joked about how she’s lucky to be getting so much attention from all these men at her age. Clinton clearly had decided she must defend herself from rivals who are right on her heels in the leadoff voting state of Iowa and who pose a real threat to her winning the Democratic nomination.

Still, she continued her strategy of avoiding direct answers to questions: She wouldn’t say how she would address Social Security; she declined to pledge whether she would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, or say whether she supports giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

Instead she tried to tried to turn every issue into an argument against President Bush. She said Bush’s name 25 times, more than all six of her rivals combined.

"I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress we were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since," Clinton said.

Costas Panagopoulos, a Fordham University political science professor, said Clinton ran against Bush while her rivals ran against her.

"This may be a useful strategy for a front-runner, but it only reinforces her status as the Democratic front-runner," he said. "And her Democratic opponents may also be helping to solidify her leading position in the minds of voters by going full-throttle on the attack against her."

Among the most pointed criticisms of Clinton were about whether she represents the Democratic Party’s best candidate for the general election.

"Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country?" 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards said. "You know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don’t think that’s going to happen."

Read the rest of this entry »

We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.

In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.

It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers’ licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.

It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.

And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.

Asked whether she still agrees with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.

But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”

NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”

”You know, Tim,” Clinton replied, “this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’ ”

John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”

Read the rest of this entry »