Smelly, creepy…radical, huh?
Thx for the links.
Can’t wait for his 1st 100 days as we get a feel for his priorities. Already pressing are some of GB’s preemptive strikes.
I wonder, why all this bad blood?

Team McCain sure didn’t make much of an issue of this much.

forest on November 20, 2008 at 12:43 PM

…and neither did many other candidates on the right. The whole election was incoherent from the perspective of the GOP.

Exit question: Aren’t the Democrats bulletproof on Fannie/Freddie?

Not at all. It’s just there is nobody on the right that can convince any moderate or lefty (and probably a few on the right) to care.

No, I haven’t heard of it, but thank you for the link. That is unbelievable. The letter from the CT commie lady was chilling. The amount of influence is appalling and no doubt, we are going to see it come out slowly but surely as soon as he gets into office. I always thought the lean-to here in Chicago was the African American influence, I guess I was wrong.

It sure does sound like they were in violation by intentionally disabling safeguards, doesn’t it?

Y-not on November 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Yeah, no question of that. But it would take a US Attorney with large Cajones to bring this thing to a Grand Jury.

This looks to me like conspiricy to bypass the campaign finance laws, as even standard Credit card transaction safeguards were TURNED OFF.

Question becomes if you can find a paper trail back to the campaign itself, or do you just burn the company who ran the funding process (which IS a for profit company, and thus covered by Sarbains, so all those records still exist).

Now, Obama’s campaign should be able to be held accountable for not puttinb sufficient safeguards in place ONCE a problem was known… as it was early on… but its the intersection between campaign finance law, and Sarbains, that is in question…

Or, does a fraudulent campaign finance system, which is KNOWN to have no safeguards vs fraud, rise to the level of fraudulent accounting practices under Sarbains.

Romeo13 on November 20, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Thanks for your informed opinion.

It sure does sound like they were in violation by intentionally disabling safeguards, doesn’t it?

sherry on November 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Are you familiar with the New Zeal blog? Trevor Loudon, from New Zealand of all places, has the definitive dossier on all the Chicago liberals Communists and Socialists, going back in time for many, many decades up until the present.

Most of them are Barry and Michelle’s dear friends and political associates, or the parents and grandparents who raised them. As Mayor Daley proudly says, they’re “family”.

do you ever feel like we are the only ones in this alternate universe who are not robots?

Y-not on November 20, 2008 at 2:22 PM

I actualy just reread Sox…. hadn’t done if for a couple of years since I got out of corporate type IT work.

If I read it correctly, what it boils down to is if a CPA sees somthing hinkey… they are required to make public reports to the board… once that weirdness is known by the board, they are then accountable as well if it is not fixed.

Obama contributions were run by a profesional corp… who also ran other Demo campaign finace funds… Chase was the credit card entity, but the other firm was the one who was the one who collected the money, which they then gave to Obamas campaign.

Now, Obama’s campaign should be able to be held accountable for not puttinb sufficient safeguards in place ONCE a problem was known… as it was early on… but its the intersection between campaign finance law, and Sarbains, that is in question…

Or, does a fraudulent campaign finance system, which is KNOWN to have no safeguards vs fraud, rise to the level of fraudulent accounting practices under Sarbains.

Buy Danish on November 20, 2008 at 2:23 PM

I’m sure you’re right. She is a very dicey character, but then again most of the liberals here in Chicago operate with their own set of rules.

sherry on November 20, 2008 at 2:13 PM

I think it’s more likely that it’s because she earned the title of the Subprime Queen It got little notice during the election, but putting her in front of the Senate would have been a disaster (and I was licking my chops at the thought of it).

Romeo13 on November 20, 2008 at 2:13 PM

In the non-profit world, Sarbanes-Oxley has been interpreted to mean accountability to board members and other officers of the organizations as well, not just the accountants.

As I understand it, sloppiness (such as the gross lack of controls and standards applied to Obama’s campaign contributions) and ignorance are not excuses for the folks in charge, even if they are removed from the daily monetary side of things.

But as far as I know, the non-profits have mostly been changing their procedures voluntarily as a preventative measure, not necessarily because SOx applies to non-profits. (Actually, I don’t even really know what type of entity the Obama campaign’s fundraising arm would be considered — I just assume it is not the traditional ‘corporate’ organization that I thought the bulk of SOx applied to… ) But, California’s measure would seem to apply to the Obama campaign. I wish someone would investigate this.

Y-not on November 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Sarbains applies to the accounting firms who RUN these things. It forces them to keep the records and such for 5 years, and to accuratly report what was going on.

But it also covers any CPA paid for by the Obama for America commitee.

Sarbains means they have to keep the evidence, but does not kick off the investigation into campaign finance fraud.

However, it will nail Execs who knowingly perpetuate fraud… will be interesting if they can make the link to knowingly perpetuate CAMPAIGN fraud.

I am beginning to think that the “Obama Questionaire” is a tool devised by Axelrod to renege on the promised favors.

If you liked my earlier link to Bill Ayers you’ll like this one too. CPUSA’s expectations for Obama.

It’s all the same kettle of fish.

She was the finance chair of Obama’s campaign, and she was neck deep in a sub-prime loan bank failure, and now we’re hearing about it?

I heard about it during the Palin-disinvite-to-the-Achmadinnajacket-NYC-protest-by-Democrat-cowards debacle.

It was pointed out that moonbats and peaceniks would be feting the little persian freak at Pritzker’s hotel.

Of course, crickets from the lamestream media.

Let’s roll.

Bribery of a soon to be sitting President anyone?

Wow…..Obama has the most un-ethical administration evah and it hasn’t even started.

Let’s roll.