Skip to comments.NY Times Spiked McCaskill Corruption Story After Tipping Her Off
Posted on 10/22/2012 3:35:42 PM PDT by Nachum
A spokeswoman for Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskills re-election campaign told The Daily Caller that the senator and her husband first learned the criminal background of the man speaking out McCaskills husbands business dealings from The New York Times.
McCaskill spokeswoman Caitlin Legacki told TheDC on Friday that she thinks McCaskill and her husband Joseph Shepard discovered Craig Woods criminal background [w]hen the New York Times told me in June that hes a felon.
TheDC reported Thursday that Woods, a former employee of Shepards, alleged in a 2011 audiotape that Shepard used the U.S. Senate dining room to cut business deals selling tax credits tied to the stimulus bill.
Woods was a longtime high-ranking official in Shepards business empire, serving first as chief financial officer and then as vice president and chief underwriter for Missouri Equity Investors LLC and JA Shepard Companies. He handled millions of dollars for the companies over the course of more than a decade.
If Legackis statement is accurate, that would mean the New York Times had some information about McCaskills husbands allegedly nefarious business dealings specifically relating to Woods allegations in June, and for some reason decided not to run it. It would also mean the Times provided the McCaskill campaign with the key information its using to attack the allegations: Woods criminal record.
Woods pled guilty in the 1990s in two different cases of felony larceny and spent some time in prison after that and thats the point McCaskill and her campaign keep pointing to as the reason they say people shouldnt believe Woods.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
I’d be more surprised if it didn’t happen
More Democrats attending to their “higher calling”.
The old gray lady, the newspaper of record. /s
so- is anyone now going to ask why McCaskill’s husband had a two-time admitted felon working as a high ranking official in his empire, handling millions of $$$???
Oh hell, what's the use.
Oh hell, what's the use.
...would break out.
The decades old corruption at the Slimes is breathtaking. The audacity and imperiousness simply too much to be believed.
To paraphrase from a thoroughly detestable satyr “ (We need to)splinter the Times into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.”
The media and politicos have become the mob families in today’s society. They trade favors for tips and vice versa. Where is RICO and the DoJ?
And there is eff all Romney will do about it. Our royalty does NOT believe in justice. They will offer some "Let's just all be friends..." BS, because heaven forfend that the crimes THEY commit during the next four years come back to haunt them.
Louis the 16th, Saddam and Quaddafi never figured they would have to pay for their crimes, either...
I fear you are right. But I am still hoping to see justice served.
I’m not sure that the President can pardon someone pre-emptively or that he can issue a blanket pardon. I thought that one possible reason that Issa was not bringing charges against Holder for anything was because he wanted to wait until 0bama is out of office so that 0bama can’t pardon Holder.
Obama CAN pardon all of Holder's crimes, without Holder ever having to go to court.
Can 0bama pardon himself?
Can he issue a sweeping pardon for a person covering anything? Or does he have to specify what he is pardoning or a time period? For example, if he pardons Holder (presumably for anything he did as AG) and later it is discovered that Holder committed a murder during the last 4 years, or that he committed a murder before he was AG, would the pardon cover the murder?
Another thing this makes me think about is that it will be interesting to see who he pardons. If he preemptively pardons someone who hasn’t been charged with anything, he’s basically announcing that that person is guilty of something.
Maybe the Republicans are playing this hand well. If they don’t charge Holder with any crime until after Romney is sworn in, then if 0bama doesn’t issue a pardon, it leaves Holder vulnerable. If he does issue a pardon, then it’s basically an admission of guilt.
And Holder is just one among many. So who will he protect and who will he throw under the bus? Rezco? Blago? Other Chicago cronies? Pelosi & Reid? Any of the people who covered up his past?
A boatload of pardons to everyone connected to him certainly won’t make him look very good and he’s always been willing to put his self-interest ahead of loyalty to others.
Some pardons would implicate 0bama himself. It would be interesting to look closely at who makes the list and why. I think the list would be a great starting point for a corruption investigation.
Indeed, when Sandy Burglar went to the National Archives to trim off any loose ends, and was stuffing documents into his socks to smuggle them out of the building, Bush did FARK ALL to even question it.
Why should we expect any different from the next bunch of thieves? I haven't even heard of Romney SUGGESTING that all the EOs the the Mobster signed should even be reviewed.
I hope and pray that Romney’s seeming lack of interest in prosecuting the crooks or overturning EOs is because he is enough of a politician that his immediate goal is winning. I think there is at least a decent chance that he will deal with these things once he’s in office.
If I were in his position, those would be pretty high on my priority list, but I wouldn’t start with that. First, I’d keep my promise to get rid of 0bamacare and get to work on any other promises made. Second, I’d clean house by firing as many socialists/Marxists as I possibly could, particularly in DOJ and State. You can’t steer the boat in the right direction if all the paddlers are heading the opposite way. I wouldn’t tackle any political prosecutions until the house was clean and I was confident that things would proceed with honesty and fairness.
I never understood why Bush looked away from so much corruption. I have to wonder if they had something they were holding over his head. At least with Clinton, the argument may have been that he didn’t want to tarnish the office of POTUS or drag the country through the mud (since that’s where it had been all through the Lewinsky years), or maybe that he didn’t want to create partisanship and divisiveness.
I can’t think of one good reason or even one lame reason for looking away from S. Burglar. None at all.
And as far as dividing the country, I don’t think we could be much more divided than today, so Romney should cross that off his list for reasons not to prosecute. At least he understands where the 47% is!
Some honest trials that bring out the truth would be more healing than “forgive and forget” and allowing the crooks to prosper from their crimes. Most American citizens would like to see that elected officials and their cronies are not above the law. This is one reason that Romney’s squeaky cleanness is a huge asset. (Romney wasn’t my first choice, but I like him more every day. If he cleans house, I will be the first to admit I was wrong about him. If he fails to govern conservatively, I will be looking for a viable third party candidate.)
Cleaning up Obama's mess is going to take more than one term. It's legal for him to fire all the Leftist DAs, nationwide, on 21 January, as Clinton did when he fired 93 Reagan and Bush appointed Federal DAs.
If Romney was ambitious, he'd kick off a nationwide investigation of voter fraud, with a focused task force, and Ryan heading it up. It would be interesting to listen to the Dems shriek. After all, they say it doesn't exist. Once Ryan starts turning over rocks and indicting under the RICO statues, and ACORN and union workers start rolling over to avoid long federal time, (No early outs for good behavior.), the Dims will have a load of things to distract them>
What if Romney starts to take apart Obamacare, the EPA, the Department of Education. Bis' little kingdom at the Dept. of Homeland Security, stopping the DOT from using blackmail for national traffic laws, all those EOs, firing all those federal SWAT teams, cutting off funding for "climate change" and farm subsidies that are 80 years old?
There is a lot of work to do, and I'm not sure this country has the time...