[nuconvert]

You can disagree if you like, but the fact is, "there had been no finding of any wrongdoing." Period.

[Tribune7]

"there had been no finding of any wrongdoing." Period.

Not yet, anyway.

[laredo44]

You can disagree if you like, but the fact is, "there had been no finding of any wrongdoing." Period.

I'm old school: the benefits of charity work aren't to be bestowed on the benefactor. Imus is a limousine liberal philanthropy pimp.

[wildbill]

No finding of wrongdoing? Perhaps not in the literal judicial sense, but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that Imus has merged his own interests with that of his charitable work.

I don't know many charities that have their luxurious headquarters building featured in Architectural Digest.

Imaging a rehabilitation home for teenage prostitutes with a director whose luxurious master bedroom included ceiling mirrors, whips chains and other sex toys, and the opportunity for the girls to get a little action with the director.

[Samizdat]

Imus said this morning that he has enough money to support the ranch for the next 30 years and said he just might do it so we'll see. But in any event, I think that the problem some people have with it is the co-mingling of his private property (the ranch) and a public charity (the sick kids). I don't begrudge this arrangement because of the good it does but I can see where other, more venal, people would.

I don't think I would have the wherewithall to face what the Imuses face dealing with those sick and sometimes terminal kids. Its got to be a heartbreak and for them to have signed up for that mitigates any oversight that might have occurred in the propriety of the combined arrangement.