Clinton Accepts Donations From Firm Accused Of Widespread Sexual Harassment

.

Sexual harassment against men?

Sign me up - I'm so lonely....

I personally don't hold these candidates accountable for everyone that donates to them, impossible for them to know everything about these people and their business dealings. However I am holding Hillary accountable because she's making an issue of it when it comes to Obama. They say people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Will Tina Fey stand by her woman?

So, she also sat by while Wal mart destroyed businesses, jobs, economies , unions and lives , and she still accepted a pay check for her covenant position on the Wal Mart Board. She is not new to the ways of playing puppet for corporations, and has no real heart for the working person in America, or anywhere else. Its all about the money and the power.

meanwhile, a school in AZ this week banned HUGS lasting more than 2 seconds, which will lead to immediate suspension.

and David Vitter (yeah, that guy) managed to squeeze through legislation banning abortions for American Indians through their sovereign health care.

perhaps it is time for all the TRUE DEMOCRATS to stand together and get the GOP out of the WH.

isn't that the main objective?

FOCUS, my fellow Dems. and any other sane Americans who would like to restore dignity to our great nation.

Gosh, this firms sounds just like the CLINTON WHITE HOUSE!!!

.

Since Hillary is such a fighter for women & against corporate special interests, I am sure she will have no problem returning this money. Right?

Right?


Did I mention that Hillary is a "fighter"?

LOL

Bill knows a little bit about sexual harassment.

This is funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrWHrbq1uE4

What did you expect from Hillary who defended a child rapist in her "35 years of experience"?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

From the Newsday article linked below:

Hillary Rodham Clinton often invokes her "35 years of experience making change" on the campaign trail, recounting her work in the 1970s on behalf of battered and neglected children and impoverished legal-aid clients.

But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

The case offers a glimpse into the way Clinton deals with crisis. Her approach, then and now, was to immerse herself in even unpleasant tasks with a will to win, an attitude captured in one of her favorite aphorisms: "Bloom where you're planted."

It also came at a crucial moment in her personal life, less than a year after she followed boyfriend Bill Clinton down to Arkansas - a time when she struggled to gain a foothold in a new state while maintaining her own professional identity.

"Bill was out front," said Tim Tarvin, one of Rodham's student assistants at the University of Arkansas Law School legal aid clinic. "But Hillary was running just as hard behind the scenes, battling just as hard for acceptance."

In May 1975, Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson called Rodham, who had taken over the law clinic months earlier, to tell her she'd been appointed to represent a hard-drinking factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor, who had requested a female attorney.

In her 2003 autobiography "Living History," Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired "cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff's office."

However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to a Newsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.

Echoing legal experts, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says the senator would have been committing professional misconduct if she hadn't given Taylor the best defense possible.

"As she wrote in her book, 'Living History,' Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter," he said. "As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.

So in order to score political points, the word "accused" now means guilty and convicted?
More shameless muckraking. BTW, please note that the "federal government" still means GWB's baby AG's patrol are out to indict and harrass as many Democratic Party related people as possible.
Quit giving comfort to the enemy.

More Hillary scandals:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e

Yeah, and Tony Rezko is SO MUCH WORSE, right Clinton supporters?

Why would any feminist/women support her who the friggin' knows why?

How come Hillary doesn't talk about her "35 years of experience" including her defending a child rapist?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

This is for Susan1968 and any of the other Hillary Huggers that are trying to use this as an issue to smear Obama (funny coming from the Clintons who's scandals while in the White House were legendary).

To read the whole story, go to http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/056

A February 28th ABC News report on one of the recent developments in the Rezko case states: "Obama is not considered a target of the federal corruption investigation, and his campaign staff says any contribution tied to Rezko has since been donated to charity."

Yes, Rezko's wife brought a thin corner lot -- which was recently sold to a third party -- adjacent to Obama's Hyde Park Chicago house. But the seller of the home, a physician, has indicated that the price of the home had nothing to do with the sale of the adjacent lot.

Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate in any of the long investigations of Rezko that Obama offered any quid pro quo for campaign contributions, similar to the situation that the Clintons have found themselves in when having to deal with rogue donors. The offering of a contract, job, or favorable government regulation is what makes such a donor-politician relationship a crime. If the mere receipt of money from unsavory operators were illegal, the Clintons and almost every other politician would have been in jail a long time ago.

Those of us in Illinois politics who have followed the course of the Rezko case through each new court filing and leak know that the Rezko case has a high profile target, and it is not Barack Obama, who is just a recipient of Rezko campaign funding and sycophancy (but with no indication whatsoever of any quid pro quo). The person that Patrick Fitzgerald is in pursuit of nailing is the Democratic Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who is known as "Public Official A" in prosecution court filings. Whether it can be proven or not (depending upon whether Rezko and some other indicted schemers flip or not), it appears that Blagojevich's office -- including the Governor -- participated in a "pay to play" scheme on a large scale -- with Rezko receiving government contracts and jobs for himself and others.

Obama, like the Clintons with many of their past donors, appears just to be the recipient of largesse because very few politicians ask where donations are coming from, but return them when a donor is "outed."

As for Rezko's wife's involvement with the purchase of an adjacent lot to Obama's house, Obama has admitted a lapse in judgment and called it "boneheaded." Still, there is no indication of any investigation or breaking of the law in this much discussed home purchase.


The far more uncertain revelation that is hanging out there is what potentially explosive information is in the income tax returns of Senator Hillary and former President Bill Clinton. Barack Obama has released his income tax returns, rendering his financial situation utterly transparent. Senator Clinton, however, has refused to release her joint income tax returns until after she were to be nominated by the Democratic Party. When queried about this by Tim Russert during the Cleveland debate, Clinton was evasive and downright clumsy in her explanation. She told the nation that she hardly has time to sleep, let alone deal with a tax return. Are we to believe that Senator Clinton needs time to get her calculator out and do her own tax returns, as Bill sits by her side?

No, Senator Clinton is not releasing her tax returns because there is obviously something in them that she doesn't want to come out until -- and if -- she gets the nomination. People who worry about a ticking bombshell should sure be worried about that one, because she could release them now with one phone call to the accountants. The Clintons have gone from being millions of dollars in debt when they left office to having assets estimated up to $50 million now. And Bill is off receiving commissions on some financial dealings with shady world leaders and financiers. When will we know the details about these transactions? Since Senator Clinton lent her campaign $5 million, did some of the money come from Bill's "rainmaker" fees?

Well, Senator Clinton, as transparent and as vetted as she claims to be, isn't telling us.

What a wonderful feminist she is! So she gets her feminist cred by embracing a firm that is notorious for sexual harassment, and she was such a great advocate for children by calling a 12 year old rape victim a whore that was looking for it.

Disgraceful.

Obama's letters for Rezko

Obama went to bat for now-indicted developer's deal

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers ...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article