Clinton Accepts Donations From Firm Accused Of Widespread Sexual Harassment

MSNBC:

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

Read the whole story: MSNBC

Comments

[Bushgirlsgonewild]

07:55 PM on 03/02/2008

.

Sexual harassment against men?

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

[Seattlelite]

11:12 PM on 03/01/2008

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.

[joja]

08:21 AM on 03/02/2008

seattlelite --

Eggggggzatly!!!

[PJay]

10:48 PM on 03/01/2008

Will Tina Fey stand by her woman?

[loki]

10:04 PM on 03/01/2008

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.

[kellygrrrl]

08:57 PM on 03/01/2008

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.

[loki]

10:09 PM on 03/01/2008

Please, who should I band together for? Hillary? Obama? They are nothing more than puppets for the corporate elite, and much of both their past proves it. Especially Hillary's but Obama has his strings pulled too.
And dont get me wrong, True capitalism isnt a bad thing. But we dont have that, just like we dont have a democracy. Never did either. We were a republic at least on paper. Read the constitution. You wont find democracy anywhere in it. What we are is an authoritarian government. Were the elite and corporate run things, and we are the bystanders getting to watch and pay for it.

[kellygrrrl]

10:14 PM on 03/01/2008

TRUE Capitalism is good

True Christianity, True Patriotism, True Democracy ... have been corrupted and perverted beyond recognition. We must stand up and begin the process of restoring sanity, dignity, integrity, intellect in Our Great Nation.

that's all i'm saying.

[kellygrrrl]

10:24 PM on 03/01/2008

just to add: True Judaism, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu tenants are based on very logical beliefs for the time in which they were "created" -- basically, based on HEALTHY rules to live by to avoid the plagues and viruses and toxins of that time period.

We are today infected with very different viruses and toxins and must adjust our thinking to combat those infections. It has nothing at all to do with religion, but with basic logic and know-how skills to protect one's self and offspring, and family and community and society ... to thrive and survive. It's pretty BASIC ... and yet so complicated. Just as I'm sure it was complicated for Dr. Salk, when that seems so basic to us now.

[ACunningham]

03:49 PM on 03/01/2008

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

.

[soylentgreenleftovers]

03:47 PM on 03/01/2008

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

[teahead]

03:31 PM on 03/01/2008

Bill knows a little bit about sexual harassment.

This is funny:

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

[teahead]

03:26 PM on 03/01/2008

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

[MsLiz]

06:34 PM on 03/01/2008

That subject has been discussed to death, and you obviously haven't been listening or you wouldn't bring it up again.

[apikores]

03:23 PM on 03/01/2008

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.

[wagadog]

05:49 PM on 03/01/2008

It's even worse than that:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/26/11561/3233/355/464408

[democraticjack]

02:02 PM on 03/01/2008

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.

[teahead]

01:50 PM on 03/01/2008

More Hillary scandals:

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

[teahead]

01:48 PM on 03/01/2008

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

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

[democraticjack]

03:10 PM on 03/01/2008

Rezko has actually been indicted and his trial begins Monday. You might want to explain how your man was broke in 2000 and bought a $2 million house in 2006. A house which Rezko gave him a tour of prior to the purchase. You know Rezko, a "personal friend" of Obama's.

[democraticjack]

03:11 PM on 03/01/2008

Make that 2006 into 2004.

[wndrwrthg]

03:27 PM on 03/01/2008

Perehaps he traded in cattle futures, or invested in Whitewater real estate.

[teahead]

01:36 PM on 03/01/2008

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

[democraticjack]

03:06 PM on 03/01/2008

Why this desperation? Isn't your guy winning? You can also read about this case in her autobiography you know. It's nothing new and it's not unethical or immoral, so try another one of you guy's shit bombs - IRS? Vince Foster? Come on, it's right there with the rest of your lowlife tactics.

[wndrwrthg]

03:29 PM on 03/01/2008

The only desperation seems to be coming from you, with your strident comments and hyperbole.

[wagadog]

05:59 PM on 03/01/2008

Actually he is winning.

And Hil's account of this case in her autobiography only digs her in deeper, unfortuntately. It presents the "I was only doing my job" excuse.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/26/11561/3233/355/464408

----------------

The "I was only doing my job" excuse just doesn't hold water -- Hillary Rodham could have argued more vigorously to be recused: expressing once, and not even directly to the judge, that she would "rather not" is not what I would call "fighting for children." Hillary Rodham could have simply refused -- and suffered unfair censure on principle. Activists (and even some lawyers) who really do fight are not afraid of censure or even incarceration to promote a just and urgent cause.

Furthermore, even at this late date, I believe that her publishing and promoting the "I was only doing my job" excuse only digs her in deeper: apparently, HRC's job is more important to her than the physical injury and psychological destruction of a 12-year-old girl -- whose PTSD is still painfully apparent 35 years later. Heckuva job, Hillary.

And, as I understand it, the 14th amendment applies to the entire country, even Arkansas: Hillary Rodham was not in involuntary servitude to perform this filthy, odious task -- and she certainly was not in involuntary servitude to pursue it with such palpable enthusiasm. If she felt she could not fire this client, she could have said, "Mr. Taylor, the medical evidence and sworn testimony against you is so strong, I have no choice but to advise you to plead guilty."

That would have been both the professional and ethical thing to do.

---------------------------
And...she got Legal Experts Agree that she "had to"?

Bush's Legal Experts agree that waterboarding is not torture.

[Cedman]

04:17 PM on 03/01/2008

I am a big Obama supporter but, for the life of me cannot understand why you feel the need to peddle this story. Its the kind of the thing the Clinton's do. get a life and find the high road!

[wagadog]

05:53 PM on 03/01/2008

Well...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/26/11561/3233/355/464408

[MsLiz]

06:49 PM on 03/01/2008

Heck it is the kind of thing I have done. Court appointed lawyers don't vouch for their clients. If you don't like the justice system, go to China.

[TimeForChange]

01:28 PM on 03/01/2008

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.

[TimeForChange]

01:33 PM on 03/01/2008

PS: The headline for this story is Clinton accepts donations from firm accused of widespread sexual harassment. Hillary, proclaimed poster child for working women. Can we get back on the topic?

(Very clever of Susan to change this around to Obama not Hillary.)

[1dogs2]

03:00 PM on 03/01/2008

Thanks for trying, TimeForChange, but Susan1968 apparently can neither read nor reason. She is incapable of incorporating facts that do not fit her world view. She and her ilk (e.g., AnninCA) are apparently unaware of the damage they do Clinton's candidacy by their tiresome repetitions of slanders, inability to acknowledge unpleasant facts and failing grades in Logic 101. With supporters like these, Clinton doesn't need any opponents.