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?
Why thank you ... that's high praise coming from you.
you know very well that the reason he went after Bush is because the money dried up from the Republicans.
That's only your assumption. I think there are a great many Republicans (as opposed to NEW Republicans) that share my (and apparently Klayman's) concern that both parties might now be corrupt. Bush's administration does seem to be ignoring the many serious crimes committed by the last administration.
And the only reason I brought up Scaiffe is because FIJC said that Klayman was non-partisan
I just find it interesting that you just decided to use the same argument that democRATS tried unsuccessfully to use against Klayman (or anyone else that Scaiffe funded for that matter) for all those years Clinton was in power committing crimes, fending off Klayman's efforts to discover those crimes. How conservative of you? How do you differ from democRATS? Refresh my memory.
And while your at it, perhaps you could tell us why you cited as a reliable source an article from the Washington Post, a paper that villifies Scaiffe and willingly spread disinformation by the head of the AFIP about the opinions of his pathologists and the nature of the wound in the Brown matter? Did the Washington post ever mention the rape allegation against Clinton? Did they ever mention that Sid Blumenthal lied under oath to protect Clinton in an impeachment trial about lying under oath? Did they ever mention the real opinions of the pathologists in the Brown case? Prove to me they aren't as biased as I suspect.
Klayman got his START with the GOP and the hard right, but when they deserted him, he HAD to look somewhere else.
How do you know the "hard right" deserted Klayman ... you certainly aren't in that crowd and its ridiculous to think that the "left" is giving him money given that Klayman is still pursuing lawsuits that could put their leader Bill and many others in the DNC in jail for a long time. This is the sort of the hysterical suggestion that was put forth by other move-on'ers a while back ... that Klayman was a tool of Clinton, funded by Clinton, from the very beginning ... even during the time he was digging deep into Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and the like. Seems to me some of your best friends on this forum at the time were the people posting such nonsense.
And if Klayman is NOT partisan, why don't we ever see him on TV, supporting Daschle and Gephardt and Kennedy?
Let's turn that around. If Klayman is being funded by the supporters of Daschle and Gephardt and Kennedy as you seem to be implying, why don't we ever see him on TV with them supporting their own brand of corruption?
Look, I'm not fool enough to think that Klayman is totally "non-partisan". But he certainly appears to be a lot less partisan than dozens of other organizations whose existance you don't seem to care one iota about ... left leaning organizations whose activities are a lot more damaging to this country than anything you IMAGINE Klayman is doing. In any case, I'm not arguing with you about auditing Klayman ... audit away! But do it legally ... which means Klayman gets to fight that audit if he thinks it is motivated by political considerations.