Patrick Fitzgerald - remember him? He ALREADY investigated Obama in the Rezko affair

[Hawkeye-X]

and DETERMINED that OTHER than receiving Rezko-linked campaign monies, which Obama has ALREADY donated to charity, Obama did not DO anything wrong. Therefore, any hopes of seeing any scandals will fizzle for Hillary supporters. I'm sorry but it's the truth - Hillary has more problems - for example refusing to release her tax records vs Obama's release of his tax records which shows that his revenue came from his book sales. Hillary has more indicted campaign contributors, some which have their campaign contributions returned or donated, but most of all, Hillary has kept their monies. Also, Hillary has been ranked #1 in lobbyists and PACs contributions.

This is my final thread on the Rezko-related affair. It's a dead horse, and yet the Hillary supporters keeps beating on it.



Hawkeye-X

[Thrill]

1. I've been saying there is nothing there

But the Clintons have to hold onto something

[Thrill]

2. I've been saying there is nothing there

But the Clintons have to hold onto something

[AZ Criminal JD]

3. Unless you're Patrick Fitzgerald or work for him

How the hell do you know what he has and hasn't investigated? You don't. He doesn't talk. You are just posting bullshit on a message board. We will be finding out a lot of things when the trial begins next week. Of course it may be too late by then.

[Faygo Kid]

4. Exactly. The last gasp of a campaign that ends this week.

It's ironic, after all that Bill and Hillary have gone through with Whitewater et al, that their supporters would use those same tactics here.

Sad. But over soon.

[Adelante]

14. Yep, the politics of personal destruction

You would think they'd have some shame.

[blogslut]

5. Cue the "Fitz is a republican plant" people

...

Love the Office Space horse.

[liberalhistorian]

7. No kidding. And I can't wait to hear on Tuesday

night, if she doesn't pull Texas or Ohio off (there's still no guarantee that either of them will take either or both states, it's still too close to call and she may very well win one or both), that those states are unimportant, don't really mean anything, etc., etc., ad nauseaum, you know the drill. And onward to the Great Decider, Guam! LOL.

[liberalhistorian]

6. The Hillary people keep beating it

out of increasing desperation and frustration that they don't have much else against him. And yet they go ballistic on us whenever we discuss the very legitimate issue of her continuing refusal to even acknowledge that her IWR vote was wrong, much less apologize for it, and her continuing to vote in favor of more and more and more war funding.

They, along with her campaign, had expected that she would automatically be crowned Queen and no pesky democracy, i.e., another candidate and people actually exercising their right to vote for that candidate, would get in the way. They had made no contingency plans in their strategy for serious opposition, a major, major blunder in campaigns and a major sign of her and their unbelievable arrogance and sense of entitlement. Remember, she dismissed any concerns over any real competition, telling Katie Couric last fall unequivocally that "I WILL be the nominee." They had really expected things to be wrapped up by Super Tuesday. That is a major reason why she's in trouble financially, as she has millions of dollars that she can't use because it was only earmarked for the general election. Apparently, she forgot that you actually have to campaign and win the primaries and nomination first before getting to the general election.

So, the anger of a lot of Hillary people is because they'd expected her to just cakewalk to the nomination and their increasing desperation is causing them to say and do a lot of things damaging to her campaign, on top of all of the things SHE is doing and saying to damage her campaign. Which is, in itself, infuriating. She acts as if no one else had the right to run against her or vote for anyone else. How dare another candidate run against her and how dare people vote for anyone but her? What do they think this is, anyway, a democracy?

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. You're right.....

I was watching a Meet the Press re-run with DeeDee Myers, who was WJC's former press secretary, who is a Hillary supporter, but she admits that Hillary's refusual to release her financial records just leaves this lingering cloud over her campaign. She thinks that in the spirit of transparency, it would be best to put this issue behind her. She added that it just heightens the perception that the Clintons are dishonest.

[JimGinPA]

8. It's Funny To See 5 Threads On The Same BS Keep Getting Kicked Up By The Same People

Pathetic.

[nonconformist]

9. We'll see what happens when the Republicans start using it

After all, these are the people that took the honorable military service of John Kerry and Max Cleland and completely destroyed them with it. It doesn't have to be true to work.

[ClayZ]

10. Fitzmas, the gift that keeps on giving!

K and R


YES WE CAN!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

11. It's not coming from the Sen. Clinton camp.

You see Rezko mentioned here on DU occasionally, but have you seen it ANYWHERE on the MSM?

Please remember that the MSM has destroyed two Democratic candidates, along with election fraud.

The powers that be NEED McCain to win.

Please.

sorry, "please get out of that mindset" was over the top.

[BuyingThyme]

13. I don't like that animated gif. Can you guys find something else?

[rocktivity]

15. How's this, BuyingThyme?

rocknation

[karynnj]

16. As to HRC';s lobbyists and PAC contributions, will she vow to follow the Kerry precedent?

"Group seeks details on lobbyist meetings



A watchdog group is trying to get the remaining presidential contenders to live up to what it is billing as the "Kerry precedent."

The Center for Public Integrity this week noted that in April 2004, shortly after he locked up the Democratic nomination for president, Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., took the unprecedented step of releasing details of every meeting he had held with a lobbyist dating to 1989.

Kerry revealed nearly 200 meetings with lobbyists in an attempt to say he could defend every one. The group is asking this year's candidates to take the same pledge. But according to a statement it issued this week, none has taken the time to respond to the Center's inquiries."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5583891.html

The same question should of course be asked of Obama and McCain. Will they be as open on this as Senator Kerry was?