Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Watchdog: Christine O'Donnell "Clearly a Criminal"
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016966-503544.html
Published: Sep 20, 2010
Author: Brian Montopoli
Post Date: 2010-09-20 21:39:09 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 64276
Comments: 78
Watchdog: Christine O'Donnell "Clearly a Criminal" Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, today filed a pair of complaints concerning Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's use of more than $20,000 in campaign funds for personal expenses. "Christine O'Donnell is clearly a criminal, and like any crook she should be prosecuted," CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said in a release. "Ms. O'Donnell has spent years embezzling money from her campaign to cover her personal expenses. Republicans and Democrats don't agree on much these days, but both sides should agree on one point: thieves belong in jail not the United States Senate." CREW is requesting that the U.S. Attorney's office in Delaware open a criminal investigation and asking the Federal Election Commission to audit O'Donnell's campaign expenses. The group said its allegations are tied to former O'Donnell aide David Keegan's affidavit stating O'Donnell, who has run for Senate three times, paid her rent for two months out of campaign funds in 2009 and also used campaign funds for meals and gas. In addition to misappropriation of campaign funds, CREW argues that O'Donnell is guilty of lying about the expenditures and committed tax evasion by not reporting the money as income. Representatives for O'Donnell, whose financial disclosure form said her earned income between March 2009 and June 2010 was just $5,800, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the Values Voter Summit Friday, O'Donnell said it was worth running for office despite the fact that people "smear our background and distort our record" and "lie about us, harass our families, name call and try to intimidate us." O'Donnell has faced a variety of criticisms over her personal finances, some of which she responded to on her website. (The alleged campaign finance violations are not among the issues addressed.) On CBS' "The Early Show" last week, she said, "of course in this economy I've fallen on hard times. But I worked hard. I sacrificed. I made the decision that I needed to make things right." CREW's Sloan said on CNN in advance of the release of the complaint that it's decision to target O'Donnell was not grounded in partisan politics, noting that her organization had called for Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel to resign over ethics violations. (She also discussed the complaint on CBS News, at left.) "We're about right and wrong and not about black or white, Republican or Democrat," she said. "And it is flat-out wrong for a candidate for the U.S. Senate to be stealing her campaign funds and be using them for personal use." In an Election Day robocall on behalf of O'Donnell primary opponent Rep. Mike Castle, O'Donnell's 2008 Senate campaign manager Kristin Murray said, "As O'Donnell's manager, I found out that she was living on campaign donations -- using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt." "She wasn't concerned about conservative causes. O'Donnell just wanted to make a buck," Murray added.
Poster Comment: She's so corrupt there's no way she doesn't win in November.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-38) not displayed.
.
.
.
#39. To: Abu el Banat (#38)
How can they save what they don't understand?
Don't worry, Orly explains it to them.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
I'm sure in her case her supporters think they are getting double value, a get into heaven free card and a 'relentless' pursuer of truth. The plus side for me is one more lawyer who can't practice in California.
I knew they were hiring them to man the phone lines and manipulate internet chatter, but running them for office? Talk about throwing spaghetti at the wall.
The GOP is now the party of nihilism. They are like people who have their homes foreclosed and then trash the property.
Go ahead - cite all the kook, fringe sayings you want. Because you know what? This year - it's not going to matter. For years, leftists have defended "I've campaigned in all 57 states", "it depends on what 'is' is", "no controlling legal authority", "we've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it" and other gems too numerous to mention. You've defended these, while laughing yourselves silly over the spelling of potato and the pronunciation of nuclear when uttered by a (faux) conservative. Well, guess what? There are a lot of us out here who quit giving a damn about your bullshit "gotchas". If I lived in Delaware, I'd vote for O'Donnell because it's not rocket science to be a Senator. Will she vote against raising taxes? Yes. Will she vote for smaller government? "YOU BETCHA". And that's all she has to do - beyond that, I don't care if she belives the moon is made of green cheese. Reid is toast. Cuomo may be toast. You statists created the climate where clowns, crooks and stooges can run for office and be elected. Now live with the results.
______________________________________________________________________________ First off, if you believe that was anything other than a misstatement then you're a fool. Secondly, compare that statement to this one: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."
Thanks for proving my point.
______________________________________________________________________________ Get on it immediately whiningskag! You can actually make yourself useful. Why didn't Pelosi and Boxer think of that?
That attitude is an affront to the founding fathers and the effort they expended to create our form of government.
Yeah, my bad. On the other hand, I'm sure the "We The People" guys would've considered your "STATE UBER ALLES" attitude just peachy keen.
______________________________________________________________________________ Did you say the same thing about Bill Clinton, Melanie?
Which was what? That you wanted to look foolish? Now worries...glad to help...
Which was what? That you wanted to look foolish? Since you're the one who mindlessly gives anyone a pass (as long as they have the sacred "D" after their name, that is), I'll let others judge as to who is the fool . . .
______________________________________________________________________________ ...said the person attacking Coons because he has a [D] besides his name. That said, this woman is a Moonbat...she probably broke campaign finance laws... Look on the good side, when she loses, you can fall back on the trite chestnut thatthe dems cheated.
Some of my best stuff takes aim at the "R"s - McClown, Snowe, Collins, Graham, both Bushes - the list goes on. We're going to elect loons, crooks, crazies - whatever it takes to stop the insane leftist Zero agenda. Here on Earth, as much as I'd like everyone to obey laws, I realize it's a pipedream. R's break laws, D's break laws. How nice for the D's, though, to have people like you defending everything they do. ______________________________________________________________________________ You didn't give me much to work with - even tho it is true. Show me any race in which you've not defended the person with the [R] beside their name or not attacked someone whom you believe supports the "D"? Thanks. How IS the weather on your planet, war? You know - the planet where only R's break campaign laws. PLease feel free to point out where i have stated that only R's break campaign finance laws. Thanks. . . . says the insane poster who still obsesses about 2000. I'll stop obsessing when someone can post the results of the second mandated recount which requires that every ballot that was cast be accounted for. Can you do that? No one to date has been able to. But wait...the US Supreme Court said that's okay because the "safe harbor" date was more important than counting the votes. Feel free to show me any other election that was "certified" in violation of Stste statute that mandates non-vital state offices to be closed on Sundays. So, yea, I'm obsessed when people like you aid and abet the total usurpation of the electoral process simply because you liked the outcome.
Thanks. Gee war, how about the 2008 election, for starters . . . I viewed a McClown victory as more dangerous to the long term health of the country than a Zero victory. Why? Because McClown would have had the statist R's behind him (as did Bush). Nothing would have changed, they would just have continued to get worse. I knew that Zero - being the leftist Zealot that he is - would over-reach and maybe - just maybe - people would FINALLY wake the hell up. Which is EXACTLY what's happening. Here's the deal as it see it when it comes to Ds and Rs: D's violate the Constitution 100 percent of the time - so yeah, I'm never going to support a D. If the day ever comes when a D talks about the benefits of smaller, limited government, then I'll listen. Rs violate the Constitution only about 90 percent of the time. So once in a while, I might find one or two to support. Thanks. Seek help.
______________________________________________________________________________ Yea so? Jews are still "obsessing" over the Holocaust. And mUslims over the Crusades. 10 years isn't squat. But it didn't escape me that you couldn't meet the challenge.
Most of the incumbants who have lost are R's...
Jews are still "obsessing" over the Holocaust. And mUslims over the Crusades. 10 years isn't squat. ______________________________________________________________________________ Most of the incumbants who have lost are R's... Which reminds me of an old joke: Q: What is it when you see 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in shit? Statist Rs losing? A good start.
______________________________________________________________________________ Our republic is only as sound as the system that puts leaders into place. If that system is meaningless - which I argue given how badly Boy lunder fucked everything up was anything but - then the republic is meaningless. How can you blather on about "change" and "waking up" while simultaneously yawning about a rigged system? Oh...your guy got in...I forgot... How'd that work out for us?
You're nominating unelectable people for whom there is no general consensus.
Hopefully, I've learned a few things since 2000 and 2004. Like to fear ALL statists - even those with an R. This, my friend, is the last chance for elections to begin to effect real change and real solutions for our country's problems. If we wake up on the morning of Nov 3 and find out we have the status quo, then all hell might have to break loose. We shall see.
______________________________________________________________________________ And the way that "we the people" is exercised is through proxies. This the difference between a democracy and a republic. And it further underscores the need for open and honest selections. Since "we the people" can exercise our powers once every two years, it is PARAMOUNT that each and every election HAVE The GODDAM VOTES COUNTED. FL set up rules...they broke their own rules. Not only were the people of FL robbed of having their votes counted, the nation then suffered because the wrong guy was put into office. So much for "we the people"... Unlike you, I'm capable of learning from and admitting mistakes. I Unlike you [although I suspect deep down you know it to tbe true], I know that the mistake was made in December of 2000 and your recent contrition does nothing to mitigate that. Unlike you, I haven't voted for an R or a D for POTUS since 1988. Unlike you, for US Senate or House I've voted for a total of one R and one D since 1992.
And most of the polls I've seen.
((((sigh))))) Oh well, I tried . . .
______________________________________________________________________________ I gave you the condition under which the "obsession" would end. Simply show me that FL counted ALL of their votes. Why is that so hard?
And most of the polls I've seen. Oh well, gee. That settles it, then.
______________________________________________________________________________ That settles it, then. You're like the out of work traders whom I know. Of course they were always right and it was the market that was always wrong.
Why is that so hard? It's like this, war You're probably a nice guy and a fine, upstanding fellow. As I like to think I am. That said, it's impossible for me to have an intelligent political discussion with you, as you simply cannot get past your Bush obsession. Perhaps you really do believe he's Satan incarnate - I don't know. But whatever it is, to me stressing about the 2000 election is not only foolish but a waste of time. Yes, at the time I DID care about the outcome - but for pete's sake - I've come to the conclusion in the interim that it mattered not who was elected. Bush is an idiot. Gore is an idiot. My question is why do we have a system where all we get to choose from is crooks and idiots. You can respond to this or not - but I'm not going to discuss the 2000 election with you anymore. Any more than I would discuss the theory of Relativity with my crazy aunt in the attic.
______________________________________________________________________________ It's not the system's fault we have idiots. And it could have been Terry Bradshaw - who brought me 4 Super Bowl victories - in 2000. I didn't vote for Gore - even tho there is absolutely no way that he would have been as incompetent as Boy Blunder. Boy Blunder's incompetence - to which you now stipulate - is an issue wholly secondary to what happened in FL and at the SCOTUS in 2000. I think you're probably a fine fellow as well. But all of your rants and raves about the system and the politicians are meaningless until you confess to what happened in 2000. Capice?
That comment dovetails with a post I made to you quite a while back. At the risk of going against the "no further comment re: 2000" policy which I just instituted, here's the pertinent part: A defective chicken (representing the system) lays a defective egg (representing Bush's FL campaign manager), resulting in a defective omelet (your "stolen" election by the sinister Bush). You're saying the egg was the problem - when in reality it would have been impossible for the defective chicken to produce a non-defective egg in any event. Just as it is impossible for a defective system to produce a non- defective referee of an election. I'm saying the system is broken, and it doesn't matter what happens beyond that. It's not even arguable, war (though I'm sure it won't stop you from trying) Any system that produces an Algore, a Bush, or an Obama is broken beyond repair. ______________________________________________________________________________ Apples and oranges. The "system" I was referring to in that post is the one in which the campaign manger for Boy Blunder was also the person responsible for overseeing the election. That has nothing to do with the system of elections that were put into place by the Framers or the "we the people" reference you made. If anything, by pointing this out, you are agreeing with me.
If you say so. Care to comment anyway?
______________________________________________________________________________ So "the system" that allows a campaign manager for one candidate to oversee an election involving that same candidate (clearly a conflict of interest) is NOT the system that is broken? Got it!
______________________________________________________________________________ Now you're just trying to be a sophist to win the argument. That's okay...keep following that path and the truth of 2000 will soon be apparent.
Okay . . . you made me go to my dictionary for that one. Since I don't live in ancient Greece (1) and I'm not a philosopher (3), you must mean I fall under definition #2.
______________________________________________________________________________ See...you did get something out of this!!! The point is...there is nothing in the USCON that forces us to vote for these people.
Maybe that 'group of loons' will end up saving the constitution.
#40. To: lucysmom (#39)
#41. To: Skip Intro (#34)
hink that's what Orly Taitz is doing. Even though she lost her race for CA Sec of State she's still trying to collect money for her non-existent run. And she did manage to get her group of loons to pony up her $20,000 fine.
#42. To: lucysmom (#36)
Actually its the Arizona Republican's program for the homeless.
#43. To: mininggold (#42)
Talk about throwing spaghetti at the wall.
#44. To: lucysmom (#35)
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#45. To: Ignore Amos (#44)
(Edited)
For years, leftists have defended "I've campaigned in all 57 states"
#46. To: war (#45)
For years, leftists have defended . . .
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#47. To: mininggold (#32)
Run the poor for office
#48. To: Ignore Amos (#44)
Will she vote against raising taxes? Yes. Will she vote for smaller government? "YOU BETCHA". And that's all she has to do - beyond that, I don't care if she belives the moon is made of green cheese.
#49. To: lucysmom (#48)
That attitude is an affront to the founding fathers and the effort they expended to create our form of government.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#50. To: Skip Intro (#0)
"Christine O'Donnell is clearly a criminal, and like any crook she should be prosecuted," CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said
#51. To: Ignore Amos (#46)
Thanks for proving my point.
#52. To: war (#51)
Thanks for proving my point.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#53. To: Ignore Amos (#52)
Since you're the one who mindlessly gives anyone a pass (as long as they have the sacred "D" after their name, that is), I'll let others judge as to who is the fool . . .
#54. To: war (#53)
...said the person attacking Coons because he has a [D] besides his name.
You win no deflection points on that one, war. C'mon you can do better. That said, this woman is a Moonbat
Says you. But even if one were to concede that point, you and your terrified leftists who attack her are missing the larger issue: This year, nobody cares. ...she probably broke campaign finance laws...
How IS the weather on your planet, war? You know - the planet where only R's break campaign laws. Look on the good side, when she loses, you can fall back on the trite chestnut thatthe dems cheated.
. . . says the insane poster who still obsesses about 2000.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#55. To: Ignore Amos (#54)
(Edited)
You win no deflection points on that one, war. C'mon you can do better.
#56. To: war (#55)
Show me any race in which you've not defended the person with the [R] beside their name or not attacked someone whom you believe supports the "D"?
PLease feel free to point out where i have stated that only R's break campaign finance laws.
Nah, let's make it easier. Point out where you haven't. So, yea, I'm obsessed . . .
Pssst, war . . . . it's been almost 10 years, buddy.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#57. To: Ignore Amos (#56)
(Edited)
Pssst, war . . . . it's been almost 10 years, buddy.
#58. To: Ignore Amos (#56)
Which is EXACTLY what's happening.
#59. To: war (#57)
Yea so?
Interesting that you compare those events to an ultimately meaningless election between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. But it didn't escape me that you couldn't meet the challenge.
It's not a matter of "couldn't" - it's a matter of "don't give a f**k".
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#60. To: war (#58)
Which is EXACTLY what's happening.
A: A good start.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#61. To: Ignore Amos (#59)
Interesting that you compare those events to an ultimately meaningless election
#62. To: Ignore Amos (#60)
#63. To: war (#62)
Our republic is only as sound as the system that puts leaders into place.
The system is supposed to be "we the people" If that system is meaningless - which I argue given how badly Boy lunder fucked everything up was anything but . . .
You admit to being obsessed, so I'll cut you some slack. If you weren't obsessed, you might realize that not all problems began with Bush, and they sure as hell haven't gone away with his departure. - then the republic is meaningless.
If the people don't wake up and take it back, then yeah I guess it is. How can you blather on about "change" and "waking up" while simultaneously yawning about a rigged system?
The solution to the rigged system IS people waking up. Oh...your guy got in...I forgot...How'd that work out for us?
Unlike you, I'm capable of learning from and admitting mistakes. I don't claim to be omniscient. You're nominating unelectable people for whom there is no general consensus.
Unelectable? Says you? I suppose that will ultimately depend on those in their respective states and districts.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#64. To: Ignore Amos (#63)
(Edited)
The system is supposed to be "we the people"
#65. To: Ignore Amos (#63)
Unelectable? Says you?
#66. To: war (#64)
Unlike you [although I suspect deep down you know it to tbe true], I know that the mistake was made in December of 2000 and your recent contrition does nothing to mitigate that.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#67. To: Ignore Amos (#66)
#68. To: war (#65)
Unelectable? Says you?
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#69. To: Ignore Amos (#68)
Oh well, gee.
#70. To: war (#67)
I gave you the condition under which the "obsession" would end. Simply show me that FL counted ALL of their votes.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#71. To: Ignore Amos (#70)
(Edited)
#72. To: war (#71)
It's not the system's fault we have idiots.
So let me try to follow your logic by using an analogy:
Care to comment?
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#73. To: Ignore Amos (#72)
(Edited)
That comment dovetails with a post I made to you quite a while back.
#74. To: war (#73)
Apples and oranges.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#75. To: war (#73)
The "system" I was referring to in that post is the one in which the campaign manger for Boy Blunder was also the person responsible for overseeing the election.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#76. To: Ignore Amos (#75)
(Edited)
So "the system" that allows a campaign manager for one candidate to oversee an election involving that same candidate (clearly a conflict of interest) is NOT the system that is broken?
#77. To: war (#76)
Now you're just trying to be a sophist to win the argument.
"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois"
--Barack H. Obama, August 2006
#78. To: Ignore Amos (#77)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]