You are really exposing yourself for what you are on this thread, Howlin. Thanks.
Of course he may have taken money from Scaiffe. There is no law against that. Bill Clinton could have given him money without there being any violation of laws. The fact that he has now gone after both the Clinton and Bush administrations would seem to prove that he is non-partisan. Now if he took money from Scaiffe and didn't go after Bush, THEN you might have an argument. Or if he took money from Clinton during the Clinton years (as some of you move-on'ers have suggested in these Klayman fests) and ignored Clinton crimes, THEN you might have a point. But neither situation is the case.
It is interesting to hear you recite the arguments used by the democRATS when Klayman was going after Clinton. Wonder where you heard them?
You really are a vile poster; you know very well that the reason he went after Bush is because the money dried up from the Republicans.
And the only reason I brought up Scaiffe is because FIJC said that Klayman was non-partisan (even Judge Sauls in the Florida recount died laughing at that); Klayman got his START with the GOP and the hard right, but when they deserted him, he HAD to look somewhere else. Any fool could see that the gravy train was drying up.
And if Klayman is NOT partisan, why don't we ever see him on TV, supporting Daschle and Gephardt and Kennedy?