For GOP only

[Cknolls]

Faced with a clear example of vote fraud, the House has agreed to investigate .. itself. The day after Democratic leadership in the House attempted to nullify a completed floor vote, the Majority Leader had to issue an apology and agree to an extraordinary bipartisan panel to probe the actions of House leadership:

 

The House last night unanimously agreed to create a special select committee, with subpoena powers, to investigate Republican allegations that Democratic leaders had stolen a victory from the House GOP on a parliamentary vote late Thursday night.

The move capped a remarkable day that started with Republicans marching out of the House in protest near midnight Thursday, was punctuated by partisan bickering, and ended with Democratic hopes for a final legislative rush fading. Even a temporary blackout of the House chamber's vote tally board led to suspicions and accusations of skullduggery.

 

While Democratic leaders hoped to leave for their August recess on a wave of legislative successes, the House instead slowed to an acrimonious crawl that threatened to stretch the legislative session into next week.

 

The agreement to form a special committee was extraordinary. Such powerful investigative committees are usually reserved for issues such as the Watergate scandal and the funneling of profits from Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s.

 

"I don't know when something like this has happened before," said House deputy historian Fred W. Beuttler. He called the decision "incredible."

 

 

It started when Democrats gaveled a vote to a close on a bill that would have prevented federal aid going to illegal immigrants. The Democrats insisted that the vote had been a tie, 214-214, but C-SPAN showed the vote as 215-213 for the Republicans. The Democrats tried to keep the vote from the record, and then belatedly reported it as a 216-212 loss for the GOP.

 

Republicans erupted in outrage. Democrats had earlier in this session changed the previous rules allowing votes to remain open at the discretion of the president of the session, a practice they called unfair while in the minority. Instead, Republicans charged, they simply disregarded the result of a vote and replaced it with their own desires -- a highly dangerous precedent that creates dictatorial rule by the majority leadership. If allowed to stand, the incident would eliminate any requirement to actually vote at all in the House.

 

The panel will consist of three Republicans and three Democrats. They have a deadline for an interim report of September 30th of this year, with the final report due a year later -- just before the next elections. In the meantime, the GOP wants the vote to return to its gavelled result. If they do not get that, the Republicans will likely embark on a series of parliamentary manuevers that will keep House leadership from accomplishing any of their top agenda items. After all, the Republicans have nothing to lose as long as Nancy Pelosi disregards the results of legitimate votes and rules by decree instead.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Faced with a clear example of vote fraud, the House has agreed to investigate .. itself. The day after Democratic leadership in the House attempted to nullify a completed floor vote, the Majority Leader had to issue an apology and agree to an extraordinary bipartisan panel to probe the actions of House leadership:

 

The House last night unanimously agreed to create a special select committee, with subpoena powers, to investigate Republican allegations that Democratic leaders had stolen a victory from the House GOP on a parliamentary vote late Thursday night.

The move capped a remarkable day that started with Republicans marching out of the House in protest near midnight Thursday, was punctuated by partisan bickering, and ended with Democratic hopes for a final legislative rush fading. Even a temporary blackout of the House chamber's vote tally board led to suspicions and accusations of skullduggery.

 

While Democratic leaders hoped to leave for their August recess on a wave of legislative successes, the House instead slowed to an acrimonious crawl that threatened to stretch the legislative session into next week.

 

The agreement to form a special committee was extraordinary. Such powerful investigative committees are usually reserved for issues such as the Watergate scandal and the funneling of profits from Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s.

 

"I don't know when something like this has happened before," said House deputy historian Fred W. Beuttler. He called the decision "incredible."

It started when Democrats gaveled a vote to a close on a bill that would have prevented federal aid going to illegal immigrants. The Democrats insisted that the vote had been a tie, 214-214, but C-SPAN showed the vote as 215-213 for the Republicans. The Democrats tried to keep the vote from the record, and then belatedly reported it as a 216-212 loss for the GOP.

 

Republicans erupted in outrage. Democrats had earlier in this session changed the previous rules allowing votes to remain open at the discretion of the president of the session, a practice they called unfair while in the minority. Instead, Republicans charged, they simply disregarded the result of a vote and replaced it with their own desires -- a highly dangerous precedent that creates dictatorial rule by the majority leadership. If allowed to stand, the incident would eliminate any requirement to actually vote at all in the House.

 

The panel will consist of three Republicans and three Democrats. They have a deadline for an interim report of September 30th of this year, with the final report due a year later -- just before the next elections. In the meantime, the GOP wants the vote to return to its gavelled result. If they do not get that, the Republicans will likely embark on a series of parliamentary manuevers that will keep House leadership from accomplishing any of their top agenda items. After all, the Republicans have nothing to lose as long as Nancy Pelosi disregards the results of legitimate votes and rules by decree instead.

Source? Was this from an actual news organization? I'm guessing not, given the snarky last sentence.

 

If indeed they pulled that kind of crap, frankly, whomever did the closure on the vote should lose their parliamentary position.

 

[Cknolls]

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002566387.html. Bi-partisan enough for you.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002566387.html. Bi-partisan enough for you.

That certainly does make it clearer. And further, it doesn't look like either party was doing anything intentionally illegal. The text you pasted in earlier made it seem like the vote ended 215-213, and that the gaveller (is that a word?) somehow did something underhanded to take it off the floor. That clearly was not the case. In reality, the vote fluctuated all over the place, and at one point even went 215-213 in favor. Most of the rest of the time though, including after the vote changes, the measure failed.

 

So I can understand investigating, but to make this out like the Dems were out trying to rob a vote is just not accurate. I believe I've heard plenty of people use the phrase "manufactured rage" - and that is what this looks like to me. The article even states that when the gavel was falling, it was in fact 214-214.

 

[Rex Kickass]

I seem to recall in Politico that the House voting system actually completely crashed the next day and was offline for two hours, btw.

 

A busted computer system hamstrung the House (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv) for at least 45 minutes Friday on one of the tensest legislative days of the year.

 

The House electronic voting system malfunctioned at approximately 2 p.m. as lawmakers began a vote on a procedural motion sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.). Projectors that usually display how each member voted and show a tally of votes were not working, although votes were still being recorded on computers at various locations in the House chamber.

 

The mishap came during the final two days of legislative activity before a month-long recess, a time when tensions run high as lawmakers grind out last-minute agreements on a bevy of bills. Many lawmakers were already agitated from a rancorous episode last night when Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-N.Y.) gaveled closed a vote before the tally was clear. McNulty apologized to his colleagues this morning.

[kapkomet]

Bah, it was all innocent. But if the 'Pubes did this... WOAH, CORRUPTION!

 

[Rex Kickass]

If there was a whiff of intent behind it, I highly doubt the House Dem leadership would have agreed to a subpoena power investigation within 24 hours of the event.

[NorthSideSox72]

If there was a whiff of intent behind it, I highly doubt the House Dem leadership would have agreed to a subpoena power investigation within 24 hours of the event.

Have to agree.

 

[kapkomet]

If there was a whiff of intent behind it, I highly doubt the House Dem leadership would have agreed to a subpoena power investigation within 24 hours of the event.

Oh, exactly.

 

Seriously, I know that this was just at worst a miscommunication, and at best, a plain mess up.

 

[Cknolls]

Will THE NEW REPUBLIC issue an apology for publishing lies,(2nd time caught), about U.S.troops in IRAQ?

 

Will the MSM cover the story?

 

Will Olbermann cover the story?

 

I think we know the answers to these questions.

[Rex Kickass]

Washington Post put it on the front page of Section C today (Wednesday).

 

ABC News had a story on it.

 

USA Today had a blog post on it.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Washington Post put it on the front page of Section C today (Wednesday).

 

ABC News had a story on it.

 

USA Today had a blog post on it.

 

So, the answer to that question was yes?

[southsideirish71]

Well thank god they never insulted them, or played loud music. They were human, they just used electricity and threats of death against their families. Maybe we can get some of the protesters to hit Libya now.

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2007 by southsideirish71

[Cknolls]

Seems like Hillart needs a calculator to help her add up the dirty money she received from Mr. Hsu.

 

UPDATE: Added link to the Los Angeles Times story with the donation amounts that the New York Times failed to report. Here are the excerpts:

 

The Paws -- seven adults, most of whom live together in a small house near San Francisco International Airport -- apparently had never donated to national candidates until 2004. Over a three-year period, they gave $213,000, including $55,000 to Clinton and $14,000 to candidates for state-level offices in New York. ...

Danny Lee, a manager at the packaging firm, has given $95,000 to federal Democratic campaigns -- $19,500 of which went to Clinton. Yu Fen Huang, who shares a New York house with Lee, has given $52,200 to Democrats, $8,800 to Clinton. Soe Lee has contributed $54,000 to Democrats, $8,800 to Clinton.

 

 

The amounts add up to $92,100 going directly to Clinton. She's giving up $23,000

 

 

Probably just an oversight.

[Cknolls]

Rahm Emanuel, Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, excoriated President Bush for comparing Iraq's Parliament favorably to our Congress, while in Australia:

 

It has long been the custom that members of Congress do not go overseas and criticize the president — that partisanship ends at the water’s edge. But reading today’s accounts of the President’s remarks in Australia, it is clear he has a different view.

 

 

Methinks Rahmmy has one more person to whine about.

 

 

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich is in the Middle East: "US Democratic hopeful Kucinich meets Assad, blasts Bush":

 

Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

 

Kucinich, who accused the Bush administration of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus. He said Assad was receptive to his ideas of "strength through peace

 

 

Pathetic.

[juddling]

boy...it's amazing how a few words can get some in Congress all riled up......

 

congress in uproar

 

[Texsox]

Rahm Emanuel, Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, excoriated President Bush for comparing Iraq's Parliament favorably to our Congress, while in Australia:

 

It has long been the custom that members of Congress do not go overseas and criticize the president — that partisanship ends at the water's edge. But reading today's accounts of the President's remarks in Australia, it is clear he has a different view.

 

 

Methinks Rahmmy has one more person to whine about.

 

 

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich is in the Middle East: "US Democratic hopeful Kucinich meets Assad, blasts Bush":

 

Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

 

Kucinich, who accused the Bush administration of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus. He said Assad was receptive to his ideas of "strength through peace

 

 

Pathetic.

 

Exactly.

[southsider2k5]

Here is a little closer look at those uninsured numbers we got told about last week. It turns out about one in five of them are not US citizens in the first place... Here are some other interesting things.

 

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp...#39;s+uninsured

 

America’s uninsured are in the news again, by virtue of a Census Bureau report released late last month showing that, as The Washington Post put it, “The nation's poverty rate declined last year for the first time this decade, but the number of Americans without health insurance rose to a record 47 million,” or to about 16 percent of the population...

Absent from this story, however, is any meaningful breakdown that helps us understand just who is uninsured, for how long, and why. Also absent is the fact that the total of 47 million is disputed.

 

...According to Census data, a little less than 46.6 million persons in America are uninsured, not 47 million. By rounding up to the next whole number, it does bring that figure up to 47 million, but it also makes the problem seem just a little worse than it really is...

 

But the Census data also show that 9.5 million of the uninsured listed themselves as “not a citizen”: they aren’t Americans. The total now drops to 37.1 million, about 12 percent of the population.

 

The Census report also shows that there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance. If we are concerned about the number of Americans that cannot afford health insurance, should we really count those that can afford it?

 

...So, 37.1, minus 8.3, minus 8.7, now leaves us with 20.1 million people without health insurance, which is approximately seven percent of the population, a far cry from the 16 percent we have been led to believe by the socialized medicine lobby and the compliant media, who either support socialized medicine or are too lazy to actually examine these claims.

 

...If we believe the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is a frequent source for the mainstream media, Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and who make less than $50,000 a year total somewhere between 13.9 million and 8.2 million, no more than 5 percent of the population. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months.

[southsider2k5]

I also came across this... JFK, the ultimate supply-sider.

 

[Texsox]

Here is a little closer look at those uninsured numbers we got told about last week. It turns out about one in five of them are not US citizens in the first place... Here are some other interesting things.

 

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp...#39;s+uninsured

 

It would be interesting to know if they are here illegally or on a student Visa, work visa etc.

[southsider2k5]

The interesting thing to me is in bold. You would think with the China fundraising scandal that included Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry at various points, that the Clinton campaign would be really interested in making sure this isn't happening again. They seemingly ignored people calling to tell that this person might not be legit, who raised over a million dollars for the Dems.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-hs...=la-home-center

 

FBI looks into disgraced donor's business

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Norman Hsu, left, leaves San Mateo County Courthouse after posting $2 million in bail Aug. 31.

Investigators study the legitimacy of an investment pool operated by Hsu, a Democratic fundraiser, who was arrested last week.

By Robin Fields, Chuck Neubauer and Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

September 10, 2007

WASHINGTON — The FBI has begun examining a murky business venture run by disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu that paid out hefty profits over the last several years to investors, some of whom were pressed to make contributions to Hillary Rodham Clinton and other political candidates.

 

Sources told The Times on Sunday that a number of participants and their associates in Southern California and elsewhere had been in contact with the FBI about an investment pool operated by Hsu.

 

Related

- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Hsu's latest flight

- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Hsu's vow to stop fundraising

- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on fugitive in plain sight

 

Related Stories

- Hsu held under guard in Colorado hospital

- Democratic donor skips day in court

- Wealth, mystery surround donor Hsu

- About Norman Y. Hsu

- Democratic donor Hsu caught in Colorado

- Fugitive donor surrenders as Clinton camp ponders how

- Democratic fundraiser is a fugitive in plain sight

 

One associate, Irvine businessman Jack Cassidy, said he had tried to warn authorities and the Clinton campaign as early as June that he feared Hsu was running an illicit enterprise, but had gotten no response.

 

"Nobody picked up the ball," said Cassidy, who was not an investor but heard about Hsu's business from a friend.

 

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson declined to respond to Cassidy's claim, saying only that the campaign had conducted a background check of Hsu, who has emerged in the last three years as one of the Democratic Party's biggest fundraisers.

 

Hsu, 56, has contributed or raised more than $1.2 million for Clinton and other Democrats, but has become a source of embarrassment since The Times revealed in late August that he was a fugitive wanted on a 15-year-old bench warrant stemming from an early 1990s investment fraud case. He called the matter a misunderstanding, then failed to show at a San Mateo County hearing and was rearrested last week in Colorado after falling ill there on an eastbound train.

 

A spokesman for Hsu had no comment when asked about the FBI's interest in Hsu's current business. An FBI official also declined to comment.

 

Since Hsu's arrest, there has been much speculation about the source of his wealth and how he was able to put together a broad network of donors, many of whom had never given to political campaigns. Investigators are looking into whether several of the donors who appeared to be of modest means contributed their own money to the candidates or were reimbursed, which would violate federal campaign law.

 

Investigators as well as investors are questioning whether Hsu's current business was a legitimate bridge-loan investment pool, as those involved were told, or a Ponzi scheme.

 

Hsu, a self-described apparel executive, appears to have operated the investment business for at least four years under such names as Next Components and Components Ltd., according to sources.

 

His pitch for investors and his request for political donations reinforced each other, as he represented himself as a wealthy businessman and big player in Democratic politics, several investors said.

 

They were told their money was going into loan pools, some as large as $15 million, for businesses that needed short-term financing. Investors typically made at least a 6% profit in each 90-day period.

 

Several said they had received few specifics about the investments and believed in their legitimacy largely because they were given 1099 tax forms and paid taxes on their earnings.

 

Now they say they are fearful that they will never recoup their remaining investments; some wonder if the bridge-loan pool ever existed or if they were just paid with money coming in from new investors. In the early-1990s criminal case against Hsu, he solicited investors for a venture purchasing and reselling latex gloves; investigators determined he never bought the gloves and accused him of running a Ponzi scheme.

 

The New York Times reported Sunday that financial records from one of Hsu's companies show a similar pattern of money flowing to and from people who later made political donations through Hsu to Clinton and others.

 

Hsu's attorney has denied that he reimbursed anyone for their donations.

 

Though the details of Hsu's investment business remain unclear, campaign finance records show that his investors donated tens of thousands of dollars to candidates he supported.

 

One investor said she made donations solely to stay in Hsu's good graces and knew others who did so as well.

 

"They knew they had to do it or they were out," said the investor, who asked to remain anonymous. "There were people who maxed out every credit card they had to give the maximum $4,600 in donations."

 

She said she opposed Clinton's presidential bid but gave money to her campaign anyway. "I can't stand the woman," the investor said.

 

Their donations were among those delivered in bundles by Hsu, making him especially valuable to candidates because recent changes in campaign finance laws have sharply limited the amount individuals can contribute.

 

Hsu has been hospitalized in Grand Junction, Colo., since Thursday after behaving erratically on a train bound for Denver. His condition was upgraded to "good" on Sunday, St. Mary's Hospital officials said.

 

[email protected]

 

[email protected]

 

[email protected]

 

Times staff writer Dan Morain in Sacramento contributed to this report.

[Texsox]

Amazing that they would donate to a candidate they despised

 

I am more and more for public financing of campaigns. This isn't a Dem or Gop problem, it is a citizen problem. I am sitting here wondering at what level does a donor need careful checking, $1,000? $100,000? $10,000,000? Unreal. We know candidates hate this sort of negative publicity, but it seems clean and not so clean candidates get caught.

[Balta1701]

Amazing that they would donate to a candidate they despised

 

I am more and more against public financing of campaigns. This isn't a Dem or Gop problem, it is a citizen problem. I am sitting here wondering at what level does a donor need careful checking, $1,000? $100,000? $10,000,000? Unreal. We know candidates hate this sort of negative publicity, but it seems clean and not so clean candidates get caught.

How exactly does another donor being caught doing something underhanded make you more against public campaign financing? I would think that seeing some guys get caught would leave you wondering how many others weren't caught, and I'd think that's an argument in favor of taking the "legalized bribery" aspect out of the system.

[Texsox]

How exactly does another donor being caught doing something underhanded make you more against public campaign financing? I would think that seeing some guys get caught would leave you wondering how many others weren't caught, and I'd think that's an argument in favor of taking the "legalized bribery" aspect out of the system.

 

My mistake, I should read my own posts. I am more and more *for* public funding. I am concerned about the freedom of speech issues, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.

[southsider2k5]

So as the Hsu scandal grows by the day, instead of giving back just the $23,000 given directly by Hsu, Hillary thinks it is a good idea to give back the near $1 million that was bundled by this guy.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070911/D8RIVR8G0.html

 

Clinton to Return $850,000 Raised by Hsu

 

 

Email this Story

 

Sep 10, 10:28 PM (ET)

 

By LARA JAKES JORDAN

 

(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks during a Democratic forum hosted by...

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign said Monday it will return $850,000 in donations raised by Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, who is under federal investigation for allegedly violating election laws.

 

Clinton, D-N.Y., previously had planned only to give to charity $23,000 she received from Hsu for her presidential and senatorial campaigns and to her political action committee, HillPac.

 

The FBI is investigating whether Hsu paid so-called straw donors to send campaign contributions to Clinton and other candidates, a law enforcement official said Monday.

 

"In light of recent events and allegations that Mr. Norman Hsu engaged in an illegal investment scheme, we have decided out of an abundance of caution to return the money he raised for our campaign," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said in a statement Monday night. "An estimated 260 donors this week will receive refunds totaling approximately $850,000 from the campaign."

 

Wolfson said the Clinton campaign also will vigorously review its fundraisers, including thorough criminal background checks, in the future. "In any instances where a source of a bundler's income is in question, the campaign will take affirmative steps to verify its origin," he said.

 

The amount that the campaign identified as raised by Hsu would make him one of her top fundraisers. During the first six months of this year, her presidential campaign raised $52 million from individual contributors, second to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who raised $58.5 million.

 

While Clinton will return the money raised by Hsu, Wolfson said the individual contributors could make new donations.

 

"We will accept their contributions and ask them to confirm for our records that they are from their own personal funds," he said in an e-mail.

 

Since 2004, Hsu has donated $260,000 to Democratic Party groups and federal candidates, and raised hundreds of thousands of additional dollars. He was regarded as a top party fundraiser until recent reports surfaced that he was wanted on a warrant in California in connection with a 1991 grand theft charge.

 

Federal authorities are examining whether Hsu leaned on investors to contribute to political candidates after paying them big earnings from a shady business venture he was running, the law enforcement official said. Such a scam - using conduit contributors known as straw donors - is a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limits how much money individuals can give to candidates and political committees.

 

The FBI may be looking at other potential charges as well, according to the law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

 

In addition to the $260,000 he contributed to federal candidates, Hsu also contributed at least $330,000 to state Democratic candidates and state party committees and ballot initiatives during the 2004 and 2006 election cycles. Among the state officials who received money were New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Both have said they would divest their campaigns of the donations.

 

Additionally, last week Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said he would donate nearly $40,000 in contributions, and Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said he had donated a $1,000 contribution to a charity that helps soldiers.

 

The purpose of Hsu's business venture was unclear. The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that it was an investment pool that had recently drawn the suspicion of associates who questioned its legality.

 

An attorney for Hsu did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

 

Hsu remained hospitalized in Grand Junction, Colo., where he has been since failing to show up for a California court hearing last week. It was unclear when he might be returned to California to face charges.

 

Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to accusations that he defrauded investors of $1 million. He was facing up to three years in prison when he skipped town before his sentencing in 1992. He finally surrendered to the arrest warrant Aug. 31, but disappeared before last week's hearing where he was expected to turn over his passport and ask a judge to cut his $2 million bail in half.

 

Wolfson said the Clinton campaign was "unaware of Mr. Hsu's decade-plus old warrant," despite what he described as a thorough review of public records.

 

Since Thursday, Hsu has been at the Colorado hospital, when he was taken from an eastbound Amtrak train for treatment of an undisclosed ailment. He'd failed to show up for the hearing a day earlier. He is expected to be taken to the Mesa County Jail in Colorado to await extradition proceedings in state court once he is well enough to leave the hospital.