Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Campaign Finance Fraud

The right leaning blog The Gateway Pundit's lead story today is "Confirmed: It Looks Like Obama Just Got Away With Largest Election Donations Fraud in History" Gateway Pundit, along with a host of other right wing bloggers (all cross linked) has well documented the purposefully shoddy bookkeeping, elimination of security checkpoints and questionable donations and even more questionable accounting that allowed Barack Obama to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from unknown and possibly illegal sources.

Sadly, the mainstream media is still largely ignoring the story, although there is some rustling of the leaves among the press.

Pundit hypothesizes that is would actually take a "Special Prosecutor" to unravel the deception of the Obama campaign and I fear that is correct. Of course, during the glow of the honeymoon and a Democrat Party lock on Congress, no such prosecutor will be appointed.

What has happened here is appalling. If the actual list of donors were released it could, and I believe would, ruin the Obama Presidency. Of course, the massive cover-up is under way. Well, sort of. Bloggers investigating the scam at the Obama campaign website report that it is still possible to make fraudulent donations even today, even after the campaign had sworn they has fixed the problem.

I don't want to ruin the Obama Presidency. And and I don't want the massive fallout that would occur if a real investigation took place. I'm sure there are ample campaign staffers would would fall on their swords for Obama.

We the people should demand a full accounting and a full investigation of this grotesque fraud. And liberals should be leading the parade demanding accountability. Alas, I'm in a tiny minority.

The worst part of this evil is that it was totally unnecessary. Barack Obama would have easily won the election if he had followed reasonable security measures.

While I blogged about this numerous times before the election, here is my primary blog entry,
"Can the Presidency Be Bought?"

28 comments:

Stella said...

Wizard, George Bush accepted $250K from Walden O'Dell in 2004, the CEO of Diebold voting machines. O'Dell, in 2003, wrote in a letter that he was committed to ensuring that Bush received Ohio's electoral votes.

And that's not fraud? No one investigated the voting machines. Take a look at The Buying of the President in 2004.

What about Abramoff, who pleaded guilty Tuesday to fraud and tax evasion in 2006? Bush had to give the $6000 to charity.

Wizard, the key here is "the right leaning blog." No oversight ever occurred in the 2004 election. Why aren't the right-wing bloggers asking why Bush never got investigated?

I need a more legitimate source. If one appears, I will take this "scandal" more seriously. I can assure you that Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, would not pass on an issue like this.

shoo said...

So let me see...it's OK if Obama cheated because you believe Bush did in 2004? These concerns about Ohio are purely the stuff of conspiracy theories. If there was the slightest real evidence, don't you think the Democrats would have forced an investigation?

Abramoff was dealing with lots of politicians: Democrat and Republican. $6k is chump change. This happens all the time: there is no way any politician can be expected to fully vet every single donor.

donald said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Betty

http://www.my-foreclosures.info

Stella said...

Gosh darn you, shoo. Now I have to think. No, of course it's not OK for Obama or anyone to cheat. I do want more evidence. However, I will always accept an alternate view.

I believe Bush cheated in 2004. The Democrats tried to conduct investigations into the Ohio vote, and were shot down. Whether it was a conspiracy theory or fact has not been adequately settled. Rolling Stone has an excellent article about whether the 2004 election was stolen by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Since I am always open to reading conservative articles, I would appreciate your consideration in reading this article. Note: A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004—more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes. There are enough liberal and conservative comments to demonstrate an equal response to Kennedy's article. The ballot statistics in and of themselves are disturbing.

O'Dell did write the letter and ended up resigning from Diebold for "personal reasons" in 2005. I view his resignation with suspicion.

Yes, I agree about Abramoff. Again, yes, $6k is chump change and there is no way to fully vet every donor. Abramoff also gave Cheney $100K

Gov. Mitt Romney said the Republican Governors Association would divest $500,000 in contributions it received from a donor entwined in the investigation of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

However, you are absolutely right that the Democrats received significant amounts of money also.

I wholeheartedly agree with your logic, shoo. Could Obama therefor be expected to vet every donor?

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we try to make politics undeceive.

the WIZARD, fkap said...

Great discussion, as always. My continued compliments to both Shoo and Stella.

Stella, The Obama situation this year is considerably more complicated. It revolves strictly around fund raising (not voter fraud or preventing certain people from voting) and involves purposeful avoidance of vetting contributors.

Obama's campaign left a cavernous size hole in their fund raising machine that allowed anyone to make any size of contribution from any source. Hence he could receive unlimited cash from foreign contributors or from major donors who, under current election law, are barred from legally contributing more than $6,000.00 total.

I did make certain I pointedly noted the "right leaning" sources of investigations so far. But that doesn't make the facts less credible. The New York Times and The Washington Post have both verified the efforts of the bloggers. But then they merely accepted the Obama Campaign's statement that they had fixed the problem (three days before the election).

This is, of course, like fixing the barn door only after the rustlers had brought 600 million horses INTO the barn.

As it turns out even that was a lie. The barn door remains wide open today, well after the election.

Stella said...

Shoo's intellect and posts me think and recheck my facts. As a conservative friend of mine points out, "You can't learn anything in an echo chamber."

I enjoy our exchanges and your graciousness, Wizard.

Lee said...

Should Campaign Finance Fraud be investigated? Yes.

When? When there is evidence.

By Whom? A Special Prosecutor.

Assuming something is found what should happen? ...?...

K McKiernan said...

Great job as always, Stella.

Its so great to finally hear THEM whine for once.

At least Obama's votes were legitimate. No matter how you slice or dice it.... no matter how many accusations you throw, the people wanted this president. The Supreme court did not elect him, stolen votes did not elect him, ignorance did not elect him.

The people, by a huge electoral landslide and a hefty popular vote margin elected Barack Obama, so please, give it a rest.

Lee said...

Way to state the obvious K. Yes, Obama was elected. No issue.

Curious that when Pres. Obama committed Finance Fraud, your okay with that and we should "let it go"

Ironic, you start whining about Bush's election as well. Can't let that go?

I guess. Obama's message of Change, Healing and comming together was lost on you?

Stella said...

Lee, we'll let Bush's two suspicious elections go when you guys stop blathering about Ayers. It's a non-issue.

We are coming together, Lee. We're continuing to discuss issues. Dissent is the foundation of a free society. For that reason, I am able to research what you and shoo write so I can become better informed, even if I don't always agree.

So good to "see" you, K. I don't mind if you state the obvious. In fact, I enjoy hearing about the landslide: over and over and over again.

Lee said...

Heh,

Gloat alert!

"I enjoy hearing about the landslide: over and over and over again."

:P

Stella said...

Lee: got me... LOL! Good one.

8-O

Vigilante said...

To the question about specific charges all I hear is an echo-Echo-ECHO. Where's the probable cause for hearings?

Reagan said...

Obama should be subject to the exact same investigation that anyone else would be - only he's not.

The mainstream media refuse to touch him, his liberal illuminati colleagues will hardly work against their most recent acquisition of power...

Really, the best bet would be for someone to convince Hillary that this warrants an immediate investigation...

Vigilante said...

Yeah, try some of that ol'time divide-n-ruin. This has got deja vu written all over it. The GOP track record has never been torn up. Troopersgate-Travelgate-Whitewater, whatever. Trying to hamstring Obama from the start. Resurrect Vince Foster. Bring back Kenney Starr and have him look in to that illicit affair Barack's been having with Sarah P. (Methinks she's just a woman scorned.) Got to be something there. If that's your best bet, Good luck indeed, Reagan.

Stella said...

Reagan, you didn't answer Vig's question. Liberal illuminati? WTF? Take a good look at the PNAC policies and let's talk. Why doesn't MSM cover PNAC-related information, the organization to which most of the Bush Administration belonged?

Not one person commented on the Rolling Stone article dealing with voting machine election fraud in 2004. There is evidence, there was no special prosecutor, and why did the MSM publish little news on this issue? Did Bush's Illuminati PNAC keep this information under wraps? And why did O'Dell quit Diebold "for personal reasons" in 2005?

Shoo thinks the Diebold mess in Ohio was a conspiracy theory. We heard far more about Monica Lewinki. Why? Wouldn't election fraud be a far more serious matter?

Obama hasn't even taken office yet. Why don't you see how his presidency pans out before you bitch and complain. Jeez.

Vigilante said...

Hmmmm..... Even more unanswered questions accumulate. Verrrry interesting.

the WIZARD, fkap said...

I really tire of the "two wrongs make a right" arguments that substitute for real discussion or analysis.

Something really wrong happened in this election, this year. I'm sorry but the fact that John Wilkes Booth assasinated Lincoln really has no bearing on this issue.

Likewise, Diebolt is no justification for the Obama campaign exploiting, developing and then perfecting a major abuse of campaign finance law.

Vigilante said...

I get it: You're convinced that
"Something really wrong happened in this election, this year",
you're not sure what, but you want it investigated.

Just as you were sure there was something in Barack Obama's past of which you weren't quite sure, and you wanted the slackers in the media to investigate.

What really went wrong for you was dem librals won.

Gotcha, Wizard. Say no more.

Stella said...

(~silence~)

Lee said...

I am thinking the main problem with presidential election fraud is that it is up to the winner to say "hmmm, somethings not right here." Then congress has to say, "hmmm, we need to look into whats going on here" or the MSM has to rattle enough cages to get the torch and pictfork crowd out looking for the perp.

Because, getting in power is more important then, life, liberty and truth.

Turning off CC authorization? Accepting monies from offshore interests? Yup, needs to be looked into.

Because we all know Pres. Obama does not want ANY foreign interest money anyplace near his possibile Sec of state. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11012646

Unless there are different standards for rivals .vs. Obama?

Vigilante said...

Show me why I should take your pontifications about standards seriously, Lee. Tell me about the Alaska Disasta, Ted Stevens. Should the Senate GOP exclude him from their caucus? In your opinion?

Lee said...

I dont give a rip, what you take seriously, Vig.

The question is should evidence of corruption and fraud be investigated and given the findings prosecuted?

Your saying not if it's a liberal, cuz look at the Clintons?

As for the cacus, Depends on what standards they have set for themselves. Not having enough info on that, I really cant form an opinion. I'll continue reading though.

http://deltatao.com/deltajoe/?p=77

Vigilante said...

What I thought....

Lee said...

Nice avoiding my question vig.

the WIZARD, fkap said...

This post has taken on a life of its own.

Two things of interest happened today, both of them very good:

1. Democrats, under the gentle prodding of President elect Obama, voted (by secret ballot) to KEEP Sen Lieberman as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. This may have been a blow to Vigilante and Stella, but it is a huge victory of America.

2. Senator Ted Stevens was officially DEFEATED in his bid for re-election. This convicted felon had no place in the Senate. Another victory for America.

Vigilante said...

Well done, Wizard. And in a bipartisan spirit, let me the first person on your site to say that Congressman William $90,000 Jefferson should be 86ed from the Democratic caucus.

Stella said...

Absolutely, Vig!