BILL & HILL'S LATEST INTRIGUE (sordid stories about Bill/Hill's finances)

NY POST ^ | December 21, 2007 | EDITORIAL

[Free State Four]

and why you have investments in the Caymans.

I wonder if that little shack they are building in the Dominican Republic is finished? I'd like to see a picture of that. Compare and contrast to the Edwards' shack in North Carolina. Obama, are you listening?

[Crawdad]

Vulgar (adj)
a: lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : coarse b: morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : gross c: ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : pretentious5 a: offensive in language : earthy b: lewdly or profanely indecent

[darth]

Using stolen identities for campaign donations sounds like mail or wire fraud to me. Maybe Rudy should drop out of the race and become AG? The investigations need to start ASAP!

[FlyVet]

Little shack in the Dominican Republic? It must be a cigar factory. :P

[Grampa Dave]

If the Clintoons used their money raising skills for the good of mankind, they might be some what acceptable.

However, they use their money raising scams to increase their power and electability to rule America.

Hopefully new dictionaries will show their pictures when people look up evil, traitors, vile people.

[Grampa Dave]

What will happen to us if $inator Hilldebea$t becomes out president!

[zeugma]

All out of sight of the FEC, SEC, IRS and US banking laws.

By design. 

[ozzymandus]

This reminds me of the clinton/lewinsky scandals. When the story first broke, the clintonoid MSM was saying “If these allegations are true, clinton should resign.” As more and more truth came out, and the truth proved to be even worse than the first stories indicated, nobody in the MSM seemed to remember what they had said a few days earlier.

This time, it’s financial scandals, including offshore bank accounts, business relationships with crooks, and disappearing contributions. The MSM has learned from their past lessons of just how corrupt the clintons are, and they’re not saying a word about hillary withdrawing from the race “if the allegations are true.”

[Liz]

That’s about the size of it.

[dr_who_2]

Similar talk from the WSJ: Stonewalling and secrecy helped Bill and Hillary Clinton win the White House without a thorough enough vetting in 1992. Now they're trying to do it again, this time by not disclosing either their income tax returns or the donor list for the Clinton Foundation.

Yup, only now a sufficient percentage of the country have seen enough that the Clintons are bad apples who aren't to be trusted. Trouble is that the Democrat frontrunner also isn't getting a thorough vetting, much like that good old boy from Georgia back in 1976 and that good old boy from Arkansas back in 1992.