Blockbuster Donor Scandal?


Via Tony Lee at Breitbart.com

President Barack Obama’s campaign raised more than $150 million in September, which was a record haul for the 2012 cycle, but the campaign may be actively trying to block a story in the works about a “blockbuster donor scandal” that could put its fundraising numbers under intense scrutiny.
According to the Washington Examiner, “a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation” and uncovered “thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations” to the Obama campaign. Many of those donations have allegedly come from overseas and may be in violation of federal election laws.
National outlets are preparing stories on the matter, and the Obama campaign has been trying to block those stories from being published.

From the linked article in Washington Examiner:

According to knowledgeable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story.

Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

The Obama campaign has received hundreds of millions in small dollar donations, many via credit card donations through their website. On Thursday, the campaign announced a record September donor haul of $150 million.

At the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Obama-Biden effort was hit with a similar scandal. At the time, the Washington Post reported that the Obama campaign let donors use “largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity.”

I’m glad they mentioned the 2008 shenanigans – will my money-laundering suspicions finally be looked into?
And, by request, let’s play guess what “national magazine” and “national web site” are going to break this story? (My guess – NOT the NY Times)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Blockbuster Donor Scandal?

  1. myiq2xu says:

    Follow the money!

  2. Lulu says:

    How much of this is to pad out a retirement fund from leftover campaign donations? Can they even spend this much before November 6th? The estate is Hawaii is lined up so how much does it cost to run the place?

  3. votermom says:

    OT LOL

    • Lulu says:

      Is this why there were a number of envious OWS protesters with advanced degrees (and enormous student loans) in puppetry? Who knew?

  4. cj says:

    Will it matter? This WH has scandals stacked up like flights on a stormy day, but none of them ever get anywhere.

    • yttik says:

      Yes, but nobody has ever really tried to expose this white house before now. Obama has had a complicit media, a discouraged Republican base, and opposition unwilling or unable to go after him.

      • cj says:

        The only way I see that changing is if the press becomes convinced that Obama is going to lose & that there’s nothing in their earthly powers they can do to stop it. Once they smell blood in the air they’ll be tripping over themselves to break these stories.

  5. myiq2xu says:

    Now the Vile Progs are claiming Mitt used a cheat sheet:

    • myiq2xu says:

      They are calling it Hanky-Pankygate

      • yttik says:

        Didn’t Ann just say that Romney always puts a piece of paper down on the podium with “Dad” written on it?

        As to cheat sheets, for gawd’s sakes, please give the President a whole stack of them for the next debate! I want him to lose, but I don’t want him to completely humiliate me as an American.

        • Black&Right says:

          Enough with the excuses. If he can’t debate his opponent that frightens me. As an American how can I count on him to advocate our interests with other world leaders? He won’t get a cheat sheet with Russia, China, or Iran.

      • cj says:

        They’re such pissy little crybabies, srsly. I’m going to start one called shoegate because, think about it, why else would Barry look down so much during the debate. Follow the shoes.

    • doesn’t that sheet have to do with something Romney’s wife said — something related to his dad? Its his standard debate prep. I swore I read that somewhere a few weeks back. Anyhow, I didn’t see him looking down a lot during the debates. But I did see Obama do it a lot.

      • HELENK says:

        Ann Romney said that he writes DAD on a sheet of paper to remind him that his dad is always with him.

        people were claiming that it was a mind game played against backtrack because of his father’s failure to be around

        • Lulu says:

          Ann TALKED about it as a mind game. I do not think Romney does it as such. It is part of his mental preparation and he has done it for years according to Ann.

      • Lulu says:

        There is pen and paper on the lecterns. They do not bring it with them. This standard for pretty much every debate as well as a glass of water. Romney takes the pen and writes Dad or something on the paper at the debate before it begins according to Ann.

    • Lulu says:

      The theory — extensively documented by the liberal blog Daily Kos and picked up on the Daily Beast and elsewhere — focuses on a brief moment as Romney took the stage, pulled something out of his pocket, and put it on the podium.

      But according to a Romney aide the object was simply a handkerchief, not an illicit list of zingers.

      “It’s a handkerchief,” the aide said simply in response to the post.

      Romney can be seen at another moment in the debate using the handkerchief.
      http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/romney-cheat-sheet-was-a-handkerchief-campaign

      These people are crazy. Obama needed a handkerchief instead of picking his nose as mentioned in another thread.

    • HELENK says:

      little bit desperate aren”t they?????

    • yttik says:

      Obama could write crib notes all over his body and he still wouldn’t be able to defend his own polices.

    • fif says:

      Oh for the love of Gawd, how pathetic can they be? Talk about delusion!

  6. HELENK says:

    can we believe him??

  7. tommy says:

    FTR, after Stormin Mormon ate Captain Dicks lunch, the progs have become hysterical and particularly vile. They usually reserve this kind of hate for women like Palin and Bachmann. I know how wingnutty the repubs can be, but the progs have overtaken the pathetic wingnutty republicans. I wonder when the liberal wing of the democratic party will be in control. Right now, its the so-called progressive wing thats in control. And they are way worse than the repubs.

  8. carol haka says:

    Romney did have a cheat sheet. It was written on the back of Obamas head – that explains why Obama had to keep his head down while Romney looked over at him. For 90 minutes.

  9. carol haka says:

    Thought you might be interested in this article: tfm.usc.edu/autumn-2012/create

  10. votermom says:

    Sarah tweeted a link to the Breitbart article.

  11. HELENK says:

    got this website from a commenter at Katz Porch

    http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/states/

    good information

  12. angienc says:

    Blockbuster scandal? I don’t want to be a downer, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

    The MSM is letting Obama get away with Benghazi-gate. IMO, hanky-gate will get more play than this donor scandal.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Yeah, after the Hannity blustering over a video ending the campaign, I’ll wait for a little more meat on the bone 😀

      • myiq2xu says:

        Here’s a clue: When you have a real gamechanger you don’t advertise it, you drop that bomb as soon as possible.

        If you drop it, they will come.

        • DeniseVB says:

          This is why I’m backing off Breitbart and Fox links, too much “film at 11” crap. And when did Bill O’Really get so annoying? Gack.

          As someone suggested on an earlier thread, no matter who wins, we should go after the media malpractice. I lived through the Bush attacks and the Obama drool buckets, and both #fail.

  13. HELENK says:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/260523-mccain-graham-tell-contractors-issue-layoff-notices

    here is a scandal getting little notice
    backtrack to contractors: do not send out notices as the law requires, wait until after the election, we will pay your legal bills

    now
    Senators Linsey and McCain send letters to contractors,, send out notices as required by law or you are on your own for legal bills

  14. votermom says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/05/dont-be-fooled-that-debate-was-big-deal/

    Don’t Be Fooled, That Debate Was a Big Deal
    Mitt Romney beat the britches off of President Obama in their first debate, including the devastating sound bite “you’ve been president for four years.”

    It was the most-watched debate in 20 years and was the most decisive victory by a challenger in at least that long, but to look at the news today, you might be tempted to think it really didn’t matter.

    Another month of essentially flat job growth is being trumpeted as just the comeback the president needed, with reporters, addicted to the top-line unemployment rate, freaking out about the fact that the measure fell below 8 percent.

    • angienc says:

      Obama didn’t lose the debate — Obama got beat.

      Huge difference — and everyone living in Realville knows it.

      • britgirls says:

        Exactly! 70 million people are supposed to ignore what they saw with their own eyes? I don’t think so.

        • myiq2xu says:

          The people that really matter in this election are the ones who won’t be watching the news shows and reading blogs anyway.

          But they did watch the debate.

  15. fif says:

    It won’t matter, they’ll find a way to bury or justify it. There is do much to hold them accountable for & it won’t stick because there’s an entire media cabal shielding & promoting him. Only the voters can make a difference now.

  16. yttik says:

    I don’t think voters pay much attention to scandals. There’s just too many of them now days.

    But Obama’s ego sure does! Palin tweeted this article about donors and suggested it might in part, explain his poor debate performance.

    What do voters pay attention to? I’m telling you, it’s still as mysterious to me as ever, but they look for strength and alertness. Bush for all his problems, came across better then half asleep, long winded John Kerry. That’s why Romney’s debate performance was so powerful, he made Obama look disinterested and half asleep. We like our President’s to look alert and alive.

  17. tommy says:

    Don’t know if this is true, but according to a few repub sources, Ryan is being primed NOT to run over Biden, but just match him. Yeah, that would be a dissapointment for the repub wingnuts, but its supposed to be eleventy dimensional chess. They supposedly are being respectful bout Bidens age and his blue-collar followers, and want to pull them to the GOP brand. I personally hope that Ryan destroys Biden. But thats just me.

    • yttik says:

      It’s good advice. Ryan doesn’t want to come across as a bully. I’m actually a bit concerned about Ryan, he’s got a lot of energy and he’s going to need to tone it down and keep it simple in the debate.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Wonder what advice Sarah got going against Biden ? She clearly defeated him, but Biden “won”. With hopes Ryan is studying that tape.

      I haven’t seen or read Game Change, but didn’t they say Sarah was rocking in a corner having a meltdown (EMMY WINNING JULIANNE MOORE !!!!!1!!) during debate prep? Heh.

    • angienc says:

      I think people underrate Old Joe — now listen, I’m not a fan, the man is as big of a hack as you’d expect a guy who was in the senate for 36 years to be. But as much as he royally fucks up, this debate isn’t going to be his first time at the rodeo and he most certainly is NOT going to perform as Obama did Wednesday night.

      Further, I think people overrate Ryan — he has energy, he can explain himself very well, but Cicero he ain’t.

      None of that is to say I expect Ryan to lose to Biden, but I do think people on the right are going into the Biden/Ryan debate with unrealistic low/high expectations for both in that it will probably be a Ryan “win” but it isn’t going to be the rout that we just saw in the Romney/Obama where even the MSM couldn’t deny it and it never was going to be. Those “sources” are trying to get expectations more in line with reality so the right isn’t disappointed.

    • DM says:

      I think that’s what will happen. I think it will be an even match. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Biden is strong in FP and Ryan in economic issues.

  18. votermom says:

    He he he

    check the date on the link

    • cj says:

      … with the assistance of our Hollywood writers Big Guy was right back on the stump yesterday, staging a one-man do-over. Only this time he had TOTUS stand in for Romney:

      Back in the game, back in his comfort zone; debating himself. And WINNING!

      http://www.michellesmirror.com/

      • DeniseVB says:

        MOTUS is my daily drive by sanity check and always good for a laugh.

        I told my husband I’ll “see” him again mid-November, with Preezy Election season, I just don’t have time for him….lol….then I realized what a relief that was for him, it’s in the middle of his Fantasy Football season too. This is how you stay married for 43 years 😀

  19. cj says:

    Hilarious post today:

    …with the assistance of our Hollywood writers Big Guy was right back on the stump yesterday, staging a one-man do-over. Only this time he had TOTUS stand in for Romney:

    Back in the game, back in his comfort zone; debating himself. And WINNING!

    http://www.michellesmirror.com/

  20. DM says:

    Deutsche Bank Chief U.S. Economist Joseph Lavorgna questions the unemployment numbers because according to the BLS report more than half a million jobs were created last month, get this, in government and other non-private entities (foundations?) Never mind that our economy is expected to have slowed down to just over 1% this past quarter.

    […]
    The household survey indicated that employment rose by 873,000 — and of that, 575,000 jobs were “non-private,” which includes government jobs, self-employed people and unpaid people. That kind of job growth hasn’t been seen on the household survey since September 2000, Lavorgna noted. On a two-month basis, the household survey has shown the largest growth in government jobs — 604,000 — since 1948, Lavorgna added. Barrons.com’s Randall Forsyth wrote earlier that part-time workers accounted for much of the growth on the household survey, and those workers were not working part-time voluntarily. (here’s a link to the relevant tables in the household survey)

    “It doesn’t fundamentally makes sense to me,” Lavorgna said in an interview. “It doesn’t pass muster with respect to how the economy has been performing to this point in time. Over the past 10 years, GDP and unemployment are inversely correlated. Basically when GDP goes up, unemployment goes down. That’s a very tight relationship. When [GDP] downshifts in the second quarter and then downshifts in the third quarter and unemployment is down that is unusual.”

    Lavorgna is puzzled by the discrepancy. “I’m not sure exactly what the statistical anomaly is in the data.” It could have to do with aggressive attempts to make seasonal adjustments, or perhaps some statistical measuring issues — a mischaracterization of people working temporarily on election campaigns, for instance.
    […]
    http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2012/10/05/economist-questions-growth-in-government-jobs/

  21. votermom says:

    Jack Welch tells WSJ he’s not kidding

    http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-welch-tweet-obama-jobs-report-numbers-skew-manipulate-2012-10

    The Journal’s Kate Linebaugh breaks down Welch’s argument. His first question: How the unemployment rate can keep up with population growth without a net job growth of 150,000 to 200,000 per month.
    And he also drew skepticism to the household survey that showed growth of 873,000 jobs in the month:
    “The economy doesn’t feel like it added 873,000 jobs in September,” Welch told the WSJ. “There are a number of things here that are open to discussion.”

    • DM says:

      Yeah, and over half a million jobs came from non-private employers. Is the post office hiring people? Are we hiring for a new census? WTF?

    • DM says:

      The numbers look cooked. About 60,000 households receive the survey from the BLS to find out how many people are looking for jobs, who found jobs, etc. Maybe OFA is reporting all those new jobs to the BLS. They are paid $1.00 per month, hence they are employed.

    • Mary says:

      For what it’s worth, I read on Hot Air that Obama’s Labor Dept added 800,000 part-time stay-at-home jobs that had never been included to the numbers for the first time.

      These jobs are not subject to unemployment taxes—-could be selling on Ebay or watching a neighbor’s kid before and after school.

      But they’ve never been included in the survey before, and that’s what gave the new numbers.

      Not sure if that’s true, but there it is.

  22. simofish says:

    doesn’t matter how many excuses Obama makes – high altitude, sleepy, anniversary, etc – he still got his ass handed to him

  23. tommy says:

    I’m laughing my a** off, cos I just got a little info from the other side of the aisle. You ain’t gonna hear this on the regular news, but a couple of dem insiders state that Harry Reid is livid, absolutely pi**ed off with O’s debate performance. He called up Captain Dick, and scolded him like a child (lots of profanities). Told Captain Dick that he aims to retire as head honcho of the senate, and that there would be a cascading effect on the dem senate hopefuls with the disastrous O debate performance. He also instructed Captain Dick to be disciplined bout practising for the next 2 debates, get the talking points pat, and tear into Romney frequently. Lol, Reid ain’t happy at all.

    • Lulu says:

      If Harry is pissed all of the Dem Senators are pissed (and probably Dem Congress also). They have been carrying his freight for years and this is what they get back. Nothing. No sharing of campaign funds, no appearances because he is often unpopular in their districts, nada. Now he screws up the debates because he can’t be bothered to learn anything and the stink will rub off on down ticket races. Harry deserves it and so does Obama.

      • carol haka says:

        The only way we ever get rid of nancy harry lewis the rest of the loser race baiting asswipes is for them to drop stone dead – do not resusitate. 👿

        • tommy says:

          This reminds me of a song from my younger, drunker rock@roll years. ‘Only the good die young, all the evil seem to last forever’. Don’t remember the name of the song, the band etc. Lol

      • DeniseVB says:

        It’s the down ticket affect. The more Republicans that are engerized to vote, the more GOP candidates will win their state and local elections ! Right now, my sleepy bedroom community is awake 😀

    • r u reddy says:

      I remember reading that it was Reid specifically who spent real time and effort talking Obama into running for President in 2008. Supposedly Obama himself thought he should wait but Reid said it was 2008 or never. If that is true, then Reid has himself to thank for this outcome to his beloved Senatorial career.

  24. wmcb says:

    Interesting note about Obama’s “big” crowds: He is almost solely relying on college campuses anymore. The college admin helpfully cancels classes for the day, and encourages all students to attend as a “historic learning experience.”

    Even that little trick isn’t giving him huge crowds, but take note. He very rarely does rallies anywhere OTHER than college campuses now. He is using them to maintain the illusion.

    • Mary says:

      I noticed the press is doing close-up shots —no wide angle crowd shots—presumably because his crowds are not as big as they used to be.

  25. carol haka says:

    Welch on fox now!

  26. leslie says:

    I just returned from an appointment and 5 of the women who were around me were talking about the debates and then about the state of the economy. 4 of the women are from the Ukraine . All are citizens and all 5 women vote. They are all planning to vote for Romney. 2 of the Ukrainian women were specifically concerned about the socialist type of governing of Obama. And said they were frightened that this country resembles the country they left. another woman said the unemployment problem effected her educated son so that he has been bartending instead of whatever area he was educated in. A different woman joined in saying she was from Israel and she and her husband were voting Romney BUT none of their friends are. Her husband is no longer speaking to his family. He sese Israel at great risk.
    It was interesting. I’ve never heard politics or the economy discussed here. This is a nail salon – these are loud and boisterous and fun-loving women who mostly focus on their nails, rings clothes, hair, and travels. I’ve been going there for about 3 years. They never had a teevee until last week. They had a news channel on – not the soaps or novellas. The women who I go to said that lodal Russian television was talking about the debate and how Obama was crushed, and Romney was the victor. I’m thinking this is what we need – everywhere. I mentioned the decline in unemployment. They all stared at me and aske if I seriously believed it? They aren’t having any of this propaganda. Not one bit.

Comments are closed.