The Bush Crime Family

[jreeves]

Cindy McCain financed John's campaigns. Where did that money come from?

From her mob connected father.

Now Cindy doesn't want to reveal her tax records from that time period, and the docile MSM never questions it.

She did release her tax records.

Ok...

ABC News' Cynthia McFadden and Rick Klein Report: Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, is ruling out making personal financial contributions to her husband's struggling campaign for president, saying that the she and her husband are committed to funding his race via small contributions from donors.

In an interview to air on ABC's "Nightline" Tuesday night, Cindy McCain said they will not reconsider that decision, even though McCain, R-Ariz., is contemplating taking public financing to help keep his campaign afloat.

"I haven't put any money into the campaign -- my husband has never believed that we should do that," Mrs. McCain says. "He has always said, you know, 'I run on my own merits, and if I cant convince the people that I'm the guy, we're not going to do it by, you know we don’t need to do it by [self-funding the campaign.]' We need to convince everybody else that we’re the right family and he’s the right guy for this."

Political Radar: Cindy McCain Won't Fund Husband's Bid

 

[Chris]

She did release her tax records.

Ok...

ABC News' Cynthia McFadden and Rick Klein Report: Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, is ruling out making personal financial contributions to her husband's struggling campaign for president, saying that the she and her husband are committed to funding his race via small contributions from donors.

In an interview to air on ABC's "Nightline" Tuesday night, Cindy McCain said they will not reconsider that decision, even though McCain, R-Ariz., is contemplating taking public financing to help keep his campaign afloat.

"I haven't put any money into the campaign -- my husband has never believed that we should do that," Mrs. McCain says. "He has always said, you know, 'I run on my own merits, and if I cant convince the people that I'm the guy, we're not going to do it by, you know we don’t need to do it by [self-funding the campaign.]' We need to convince everybody else that we’re the right family and he’s the right guy for this."

Political Radar: Cindy McCain Won't Fund Husband's Bid

No, she only released her records since 2000. She refused to release her records before that. What is she hiding?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vZi6QqFSH4]YouTube - Cindy McCain Refuses to Release Her Tax Returns... Ever[/ame]

 

[jreeves]

No, she only released her records since 2000. She refused to release her records before that. What is she hiding?

YouTube - Cindy McCain Refuses to Release Her Tax Returns... Ever

Dipshit, she first refused then released them. Remember Obama stated....
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama blames ‘conservative press’ for attacks on Michelle - Blogs from CNN.com
Obama emphasized the plea in the interview released Wednesday, saying his wife and Cindy McCain are not fair game because “essentially, spouses are civilians. If you start being subjected to rants..day in day out, that’ll drive up your negatives.”
Lmao...

 

[jreeves]

Dipshit, she first refused then released them. Remember Obama stated....
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama blames ‘conservative press’ for attacks on Michelle - Blogs from CNN.com
Obama emphasized the plea in the interview released Wednesday, saying his wife and Cindy McCain are not fair game because “essentially, spouses are civilians. If you start being subjected to rants..day in day out, that’ll drive up your negatives.”
Lmao...

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's wife, Cindy, released her 2006 tax return under pressure on Friday, showing she paid $1.7 million in taxes on about $6 million in income.

Cindy McCain, the wealthy heiress of a large Arizona beer distributorship, had come under attack for refusing to release her returns. Critics said it raised questions about her husband's commitment to transparency in government.

She said earlier this month she would not release the records even if she became first lady, citing privacy concerns. The couple, married in 1980, keep their finances separate and file separate returns.

Cindy McCain releases 2006 taxes, made $6 million | Reuters

 

[Chris]

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's wife, Cindy, released her 2006 tax return under pressure on Friday, showing she paid $1.7 million in taxes on about $6 million in income.

Cindy McCain, the wealthy heiress of a large Arizona beer distributorship, had come under attack for refusing to release her returns. Critics said it raised questions about her husband's commitment to transparency in government.

She said earlier this month she would not release the records even if she became first lady, citing privacy concerns. The couple, married in 1980, keep their finances separate and file separate returns.

Cindy McCain releases 2006 taxes, made $6 million | Reuters

Like I said, she only released her tax records for the last few years. What is she hiding?

Remember the Keating Five?

 

[jreeves]

Like I said, she only released her tax records for the last few years. What is she hiding?

Remember the Keating Five?

OMG....not the Keating Five...

Keating Five - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Several accounts of the controversy contend that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[19][20][21][8] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain, as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[19][21]
Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, "that there was no evidence against him."[

 

[Angel Heart]

He's not going to get it... He will not see it... He's blinded by his hate of all that is Republican.

BTW in 2006 she paid over 1/3rd of her income in taxes. What's this about not taxing the rich?

 

[sealybobo]

Here you go partisan hackjob....


Because it is almost certain that Christine Gregoire's 130 vote lead in Washington state's governor's race comes from what I have begun to call "distributed vote fraud", I thought I should review the concept. The ideas behind distributed vote fraud are not new, nor are they something that I discovered. I can think of examples that are literally hundreds of years old. What I have contributed is extensive coverage of the problem and, as far as I know, the phrase "distributed vote fraud".

What I mean by the phrase is vote fraud committed by individuals, acting by themselves, not the more traditional vote fraud committed by candidates, party officials, or election workers. I do not know of any good estimates of its extent, but I believe, from a variety of indirect evidence, that distributed vote fraud has made the difference in a number of close elections. I also believe, as I explain below, that it is a growing problem.

Because some find this argument distasteful, I am going to present it in an outline form and ask those who disagree to respond specifically to the points in the outline. In other words, if you think the argument is incorrect, I would appreciate it if you would explain where you think it is incorrect. And I will try to respond to those who make specific arguments.

Not every person who wants to vote is honest.
Dishonest people are more likely to cheat if controls on cheating are weakened.
Controls on vote fraud have been weakened in recent decades, notably by the passage of the 1993 "Motor Voter" Act and by the increase in absentee voting.
Dishonest people are more likely to cheat if they view an election as important.
Voters, especially on the left, viewed the 2000 election as more important than most.
Cheaters are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.
The first point is, I hope, uncontroversial. The second should be, but you can find a few criminologists who argue that deterrence does not work, that the fear of getting caught and penalized does not deter some from crimes. I have never taken their arguments seriously, but will listen to anyone who has new thoughts on that question.

The third point should also be uncontroversial — at least for anyone who has followed the changes in our election laws. It is simply a fact that, in many jurisdictions, prospective voters are not required to prove their citizenship at registration, or their identity at voting.

The fourth point follows from the same kind of argument that the second does; A cheater, I think, is more likely to cheat if the rewards (as the cheater measures them) are large. The fifth point is supported by a variety of evidence, including the surge in voting, polls showing that voters thought this last election extremely important, and the growth in groups such as MoveOn.

The sixth point is undoubtedly the most controversial, and deserves a post of its own, which I will provide in the next day or so. For the moment, let me simply note that Democratic leaders act as if it is true. Both nationally, and in most states, most Republicans want stronger controls against cheating than most Democrats do. In 1993, nearly all of the opposition to the "Motor Voter" Act came from Republicans. President George H. W. Bush had vetoed it earlier; President Bill Clinton signed it.

From those six points above, I draw several conclusions. Distributed vote fraud has increased in the last decade, and was higher in 2004 than in 2000. In most cases, distributed vote fraud benefits Democratic candidates. (Often against other Democratic candidates in primaries, by the way.)

How much distributed vote fraud is there? That's the great question, and one for which I do not have an answer. Neither does anyone else, as far as I know. On the basis of very general arguments, I think that somewhere between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 ballots cast in Washington's last election were fraudulent. That isn't a very high rate, but is enough so that distributed vote fraud may have provided Senator Maria Cantwell's margin in 2000, and almost certainly provided Christine Gregoire's current margin. It may well have provided the margin in some recent Washington legislative races, too.

One of the biggest sources of distributed vote fraud is voting by non-citizens. Those who disagree that it is a major problem often argue that non-citizens would not risk their green cards, if they are here legally, or deportation, if they are not. That risk is minuscule, and most non-citizens would know that. They are unlikely to be detected and very unlikely to be prosecuted if they vote.
and more at....
Sound Politics: A Review Of Distributed Vote Fraud

No need to call names.

Based on how what I know about how the GOP stole Florida and Ohio, and based on the fact that you have spun the facts in those instances, and based on my research on this case, I think it was the GOP that tried to steal Washington State's Governors race.

561 absentee ballots had been wrongly rejected due to an administrative error.
All together, 723 uncounted or improperly rejected ballots were discovered in King County during the manual hand recount.

Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This may be an inconvienent truth.

 

[sealybobo]

ThomHartmann.com - Dialing In For Democracy - Now Is Critical

If the voter irregularities in 2000, 2002 and 2004 sometimes worked in Gore/Kerry/Democrats favor, you could say we have a flawed process. But because they almost always went in favor of Bush, it is safe to say the elections were stolen.
In nearly every case now documented, the "irregularities" seemed to always favor George W. Bush or other Republican candidates. These include:
• machine errors
• misplaced machines
• unmailed absentee ballots
• certification of more votes than registered voters in some areas, and dramatically low voter turnouts in other areas
• modem-connected voting machines and tabulators
• different standards for provisional ballot recounts in different areas
• phony companies registering voters and then tearing up the registrations of people who checked one party but not the other
• voting machines defaulting to a particular candidate or 'jumping' by recording a vote for one candidate when another's button was pushed
• exit polls not corresponding with reported votes
• voting elections officials creating what look like phony election machine poll tapes and tossing original, signed tabulations in the garbage.
But the Supreme Court, in the lawsuit initiated by George W. Bush against Al Gore now known as 'Bush v. Gore', ruled that "irreparable harm" might be done to candidate Bush if such a recount was performed in Florida by Florida authorities. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his concurring majority opinion in Bush v. Gore, wrote that "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."
Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, writing that: "Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm.
Count the dimpled chads or not. Count the overvotes or not. Count the pregnant chads or not. No matter WHAT standard was chosen - Gore won Florida in 2000.
And that doesn't begin to examine the true fraud that occurred in Florida when Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, according to the NAACP and Greg Palast's reporting on the BBC, illegally removed tens of thousands of African American voters from the voter rolls - a crime that is still in the courts and has yet to be prosecuted. (An amazing documentary of this is the DVD "Unprecedented".) Or, as I reported in an article commissioned by MoveOn.org in July of 2003, many computer irregularities across the nation also drew into question the legitimacy of the 2000 and 2002 elections.
We need to get private, Republican-affiliated corporations out of handling our votes in secret, and we need other reforms such as IRV and public financing of elections. It could be a huge step in pulling us back from the brink of the Stalinist state the Bush administration seems determined to lead us into.

 

[editec]

It seems pretty clear that we need to do two things. Get rid of voting machines because they are hackable and two, democrats and republicans should oversee every state/county so no other elections can be stolen. Ken Blackwell in ohio overseeing the states electorals should not have been a loyal bushie. He should have had a democratic counterpart.

Yes!

 

[sealybobo]

OMG....not the Keating Five...

Keating Five - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Several accounts of the controversy contend that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[19][20][21][8] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain, as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[19][21]
Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, "that there was no evidence against him."[

What cause the S&L industry collapse back then? De-regulations.

Bush and McCain today continue to push for De-regulations, even though it led to the mortgage collapse we are going through today.

If you don't regulate, most industries will do shady shit like giving adjustable mortages to people they know won't be able to afford the rates when they go up. What do the bankers and mortgage companies care? They made their money.

Now is it the consumers fault? Yes. But now we are all going to pay for it when the Federal Reserve bails all these banks out.

This is why they should have been regulated in the first place.

Back in 2000-2003 many state attorney generals tried to stop the sub prime scheme but Bush and the Federal Government over ruled them. So many people knew this was going to happen. I suspect Bush and the GOP congress knew too. They fleeced America. And no biggy because the Federal Reserve will just bail them out in the end.

Who got screwed? All of us. Not just the people who lost their homes.

Didn't a bank just close last week? Isn't that serious? I heard of a woman who had $200K in the bank for her and her partner. She didn't fill out the proper paperwork though and so she is only insured up to $100K. But she said, "this is for two people" and the bank said, "sorry".

Can you imagine?

 

[Vintij]

I doubt anyone actually knew that so many people would defualt on home loans. The problem is that predatory sub prime loans have been going on for dozens of years, it is only now being highlighted because so many baby boomers decided to upgrade their living situation without knowing that they would lose their jobs. They decided not to save money in case of emergancy, and most likely never went to school to develope a more versatile skill in the computers. Everyone should know, the only market not being effected by the economy right now is the IT market. There are so many jobs right now at IT companys and other companys that work with computers in some way that India is literally flooding the metro areas on visas brining IT skills in from over seas. Why? Two reasons, number one.....nobody in this country goes to college anymore, and if they do they either drop out or major in cosmotology. Number two, Indians work for alot cheaper and americans would work for. I was at ADP, the largest payroll company in the world, and they hire nothing but indians getting paid well under the minimum wage for doing the exact same thing I was doing.

 

[sealybobo]

I doubt anyone actually knew that so many people would defualt on home loans. The problem is that predatory sub prime loans have been going on for dozens of years, it is only now being highlighted because so many baby boomers decided to upgrade their living situation without knowing that they would lose their jobs. They decided not to save money in case of emergancy, and most likely never went to school to develope a more versatile skill in the computers. Everyone should know, the only market not being effected by the economy right now is the IT market. There are so many jobs right now at IT companys and other companys that work with computers in some way that India is literally flooding the metro areas on visas brining IT skills in from over seas. Why? Two reasons, number one.....nobody in this country goes to college anymore, and if they do they either drop out or major in cosmotology. Number two, Indians work for alot cheaper and americans would work for. I was at ADP, the largest payroll company in the world, and they hire nothing but indians getting paid well under the minimum wage for doing the exact same thing I was doing.

How come wages aren't going up in the IT field then? Because companies would rather hire India's on foreign visas?

Every industry is being affected, in one way or the other.

Look up IBM lowers IT wages 15% because of an overtime lawsuit. Do you think they would dare do that if the demand were so high?

This is another lie, IMO, just like in January the GOP kept saying Michigan was in a one state recession. I knew that to be a lie. But they kept saying it until it was a rediculous thing to say.

Also investigate all the mortgage lenders that are now on trial for shady practices. Yes they did know this was coming. I did too. They over inflated the values of homes knowing the bubble was going to burst. They didn't care because they made their money.

 

[jreeves]

What cause the S&L industry collapse back then? De-regulations.

Bush and McCain today continue to push for De-regulations, even though it led to the mortgage collapse we are going through today.

If you don't regulate, most industries will do shady shit like giving adjustable mortages to people they know won't be able to afford the rates when they go up. What do the bankers and mortgage companies care? They made their money.

Now is it the consumers fault? Yes. But now we are all going to pay for it when the Federal Reserve bails all these banks out.

This is why they should have been regulated in the first place.

Back in 2000-2003 many state attorney generals tried to stop the sub prime scheme but Bush and the Federal Government over ruled them. So many people knew this was going to happen. I suspect Bush and the GOP congress knew too. They fleeced America. And no biggy because the Federal Reserve will just bail them out in the end.

Who got screwed? All of us. Not just the people who lost their homes.

Didn't a bank just close last week? Isn't that serious? I heard of a woman who had $200K in the bank for her and her partner. She didn't fill out the proper paperwork though and so she is only insured up to $100K. But she said, "this is for two people" and the bank said, "sorry".

Can you imagine?

Twidledum....what does this have to do with the Keating 5?

 

[sealybobo]

Twidledum....what does this have to do with the Keating 5?

deregulations baby!

the keating 5 was about dereging the s&l industry and the mortgage crisis happened because of deregs.

time for bed. sleep on that. and don't go shooting libs in churches. piece out.

 

[jreeves]

deregulations baby!

the keating 5 was about dereging the s&l industry and the mortgage crisis happened because of deregs.

time for bed. sleep on that. and don't go shooting libs in churches. piece out.

Um...ok what's the connection between supposed wrongdoings of MCcain in Keating 5 and deregulation?

 

[Chris]

Um...ok what's the connection between supposed wrongdoings of MCcain in Keating 5 and deregulation?

When the Republicans have been in the White House our banking and mortgage institutions have COLLASPED because of lack of regulation.

The Saving and Loan crisis during Reagan, and the mortgage crisis during Bush.

 

[sealybobo]

When the Republicans have been in the White House our banking and mortgage institutions have COLLASPED because of lack of regulation.

The Saving and Loan crisis during Reagan, and the mortgage crisis during Bush.

Thank you for explaining it. He clearly doesn't know what the Keating 5 scandal was about.

 

[DiveCon]

um, how come this hasnt been moved to the CT forum?

 

[Gunny]

Um...ok what's the connection between supposed wrongdoings of MCcain in Keating 5 and deregulation?

The connection is you are arguing with beavis and butthead. You should be feeling much dumber for the experience by now.