What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You donât need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
77 Comments
- slugicide, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Wikipedia on Judicial Watch:
"Judicial Watch receives funding from mainly conservative sources."
"They have also received a great deal of funding from Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative anti-Clinton billioniare Richard Mellon Scaife."
and
"Judicial Watch describes itself as "a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation" [...]"
Always examine the source. Always. - strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25I don't like Hillary Clinton and I can't believe I'm defending her but her inclusion on this list seems like a cheap shot. Judicial Watch has a long standing vendetta against the Clinton's.
- NoOneButMe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Anyone else like how all the Republican scandals are from this year/last year, whereas they had to go back to 2000 - aka last term - to find something on Clinton?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27I can add one to the list.
George W. Bush, President (R-TX)
Throughout his two terms, Bush and his cabinet have treasonously deceived and lied to the American public. They have wasted American tax dollars, and have driven the country's deficit into the billions. - PPoff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19The only weapons we have against corrupt politicians is publicity and the vote. Good submission.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Can I ask you a very serious question.... WHY??
I honestly have no idea why everyone on Digg seems to have such a negative view of Hillary, did I miss something big in the news that she did SOOOOOO wrong that makes her this "Queen Bitch" she is portrayed as?? - thelonious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I agree with the first part of your statement. However, this submission is ***** weak...
We can still drop the F-bomb on Digg, right? - HHarrelson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Where's Cheney?
- shankie86, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Where is bush this list?? this is biased
- checuervo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7While it is true that this is a conservative group with a conservative spin most likely ... I do miss this breed of conservative. Reading that article, it seems they have a moral code that they stick by. They don't just "play to the base" and change stances when the feel like it. Plus, they don't bow to the will of the Bush White House, with at least two important lawsuits against them.
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Jack Abramoff is a lobbyist/businessman, how's he a politician?
- dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Re: Hillary's entry
Wikipedia says that her campaign financer, David Rosen, was indicted for underreporting contributions at a Hollywood fundraiser, but was acquitted by a jury on all counts.
So... maybe, maybe not. Probably depends on which way you lean. I don't like her (though I lean left), but maybe that's because she's pro video game censorship.
Edit (cite): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This article is a hatchet job on Hillary Clinton.
Notice that apart from Clintons no details are given.
Notice that all the republicans named are former congressmen or, in one case, soon-to-be former.
Notice how the only story there which not everyone already knew about was Clintons.
And why didn't you know about the Clinton scandal? Well, possibly because the site did not present ALL details:
"Clinton's former finance director, David Rosen, was indicted on January 7, 2005 on campaign finance charges related to a fund-raising event produced by Peter F. Paul. --- On May 27, 2005, the jury acquitted Rosen on all counts [67]. On January 5, 2006 it was reported that Clinton's campaign group agreed to pay a $35,000 fine related to the underreporting of the fundraiser's expenses. [68]
Peter Paul has also filed a civil suit in this matter. [69] On April 10, 2006, the judge in charge of the case removed Hillary Clinton as a defendant, citing a lack of evidence. However, Hillary Clinton may still be called to testify as a witness in the case."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies#Hollywood_fundraiser - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Judicial Watch, who made this list, is representing convicted fraudster Peter F Paul who's suing Hillary Clinton - the very case they list as "proof" that Hillary Clinton is corrupt.
I'd say that means it's Judicial Watch who's unethical and corrupt. - dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're right. We should just never report on political corruption, because it's a given. Accept corrupt leaders and save yourself the trouble. While you're at it, just don't vote either. Every politician is the same, right?
- archemedes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Considering all the money and backstabbing required to win a political office nowadays, anybody holding a political office is automatically morally unqualified to hold that office. Sad. And scary.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Oh this is so obviously bull sh*t. Offer up doomed Republicans in order to seem non biased. Then attach the Dems you want to remove from the running. Weak. It is 3:30 am and i don't have time to read the comments but i hope i am not the first to say this. goodnight.
- MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It may be a conservative website but the majority on the list are republicans.
- biotch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Rumsfeld?
- duzytata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Marked as inaccurate. It's a well known fact that Judicial Watch receives millions of dollars in funding from mega conservatives. See slugicide's post above.
- biotch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hilary at number 2?! for campaign funding from the year 2000? HAHAHAHA
Thats a load of conservative BS.
This "think tank" is heavily funded by conservatives including a billionaire who is a huge outspoken critic of the Clintons. And why the hell is Reid on the list just for not reporting a sale of land with congress? Its not like he stole any money or didnt pay taxes or voted on laws that helped his random land deal. He just failed to report it to congress ... big deal
Every republican on that list should be above Hillary and Reid and they forgot Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scalia, Frist (R-TN) , and Burns (R-MT)
Oh and big surprise all the republicans on the list are already caught or on their way out while the Dems on the list are still in power.
such a joke... burried inaccurate - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Judicial Watch is a well-known neocon group funded by Scaife. If you don't know who that ***** is, I believe you will be interested in Googling him. The group was originally created for the purpose of suing the Clinton administration in every way they could think of (of course you don't hear ONE Republican talking about abuse of lawsuits when these cases were filed).
Buried. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh, I forgot: Judicial Watch, who published this list, _is representing the convicted criminal Peter Paul against Hillary Clinton_.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul
Judicial Watch should put themselves on that list. - ricree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@MiddleGirth
"Who wants to buy off a politician who isn't in the majority?"
Apparently whoever was paying off William "freezer full of cash" Jefferson. The people who reelected him should be absolutely ashamed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Why? Because they're not republicans!
- stickaffgoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10i can't believe there aren't more from texas... yuck, yuck. texas always seems to be leading the nation.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6lol, apparently you misunderstood my post. I was attempting to get to the root of this "cyber-stalking" of sorts that has apparently become the norm of late. Users, such as yourself, do a quick scan of someones previous diggs in a attempt to personalize their attack. It really is ridiculous, and just because someone dugg a story doesn't mean that they believe in everything the story has to tell...sometimes we digg things we are simply entertained by. and with that I bid you good day
- Ramtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Theres always millions of dollars to every story...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3no Ted Stevens???
- Rojer64, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I do not agree : the submission is too weak, the article too biased. Come on , this is ridiculous ! Is that it with corruption in washington ? What about MASSIVE lobbying from both foreign countries and economical interests ?
Mrs Clinton being fined 5% of unreported campaign submission ? Come on !
Now the cons are getting simply ridiculous : this strategy fools no one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3here's the original article on judicial watch...
http://www.judicialwatch.org/6091.shtml
pure conservative spin control. sets up future quotes like "hillary clinton was named number 2 on judicial watch's ten most corrupt." they even try to smear obama.
this is lame. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7More than the source I would be concerned about the accuracy of the findings. Would you say that the list is honest and accurate?
- dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Even if all of it is true, we have to be careful that the new age of "fair and balanced" reporting does not lead us to try to equalize the partisan reporting if the corruption is not equal on both sides.
I'm not saying one way or the other, but I've heard about a lot more corrupt Republicans than Democrats. Now, that just might be the liberal media talking. More likely it's just that Republicans have held more power recently, and so have had more chances at being corrupt. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6WOW, I really didn't realize that digg had come to such attacks as to list the other articles people have dugg before. MiddleGirth, don't be a douche. He clearly stated his opinion in his post, why do u have to assume that he has an ulterior motive based on his other diggs?
Honestly this ***** is getting kinda ridiculous... - neave, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Politicians are corrupt... and this is news?
- Irenaeous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Others are making this point, but it needs to be made and made more strongly.....
THIS IS A CHEAP SHOT AT HILLARY CLINTON.
Clinton, Reid, and Hastert are not impeached, forced to resign or charged with criminal activity. Yes, the actions mentioned look questionable, but are not illegal and probably not out of the ordinary. The whole point of the Judicial watch list was to put Hillary's name at the top between Abramoff and Cunningham -- likely the most financially corrupt in generations -- and tar her with guilt by association. - slugicide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6That's a problem, actually. He said/she said does not equal truth. If the truth were that, say, the top 10 most corrupt politicians were Democrats, yet the list included an equal amount of GOPers, the Right would be getting smeared.
- szembek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2#1 William Jefferson and all politicians who support his actions. He was caught red handed taking a bribe, AND caught with the cash from the bribe hidden in his office!!! Is there ever more of a reason to remove somebody from office immediately?!
- evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These are corrupt politicians....Not senile ones.
- amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He took advantage of his position to be a predator for male pages.
- pollypot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The only story that I hadn't heard yet was Clinton's. The rest is mainstream news.
- copywriteink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But that is the state of political affairs in the United States, with Katie Rees being placed under more scrutiny for what she did ten years ago than most of folks running the nation.
- evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's associated with Republicans.
- evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah but there is a lot of "Former"s in front of the Republicans, and none in front of the Democrats.
- rettski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2and to think we are paying their salaries.
- morem7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'm Shocked!!!
Some Dems are on the List!!! How could this have happened???
Of course it just shows what I have always believed-BOTH PARTIES Suck!!!
They BOTH trample our Freedoms EVERY Year!
For those that think last months elections are the start of the road to a better Gov.
get a grip! The Dems will just take our Freedoms away in different places...
History confirms this to be True... - jgrossma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@MiddleGirth
Depends on how you define "honest and accurate". The people on the list have engaged and corrupt and/or unethical activities but some of them are hardly among the most corrupt politicians of 2006. The allegations against Hillary are questionable at best, Alcee Hastings was caught (and punished) for corruption many years ago but has not even been accused of corruption in 2006 and Harry Reid's corruption was on a small scale and do not deserve mention when compared to the many, more significant scandals involving the 109th congress.
Also, Judcial Watch describes itself as conservative and has a established history of bias towards the GOP and receives most of its funding from right-wing republican activists making me wonder why all the Democrats on the list are currently in office and expected to seek reelection or run for higher office while the majority of the Republicans are not. - BigBazoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I read a great corruption expose' on incoming Democrats....very thorough and damning @
http://bigbazoo.blogspot.com
You gotta read about this corrupt new congress!! - VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1While I agree that Foley gives me the creeps, how does a sex scandal make one "corrupt?"
- kahunah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I believe that Judicial Watch is a con. I called them, and they transfered my to Geoff Lyon. I left him a message about the corrupt courts in Missouri. He never returned my call. After waiting approxiamtely three weeks, I called him. I explained to him how I was judicially raped by the Missouri Courts. He spent more time telling me about Washington cases that having any interest in my case. I would contend that he does not know Missouri law. He basically to me that I should just let it go, and move on. You can read my Motion for Rehearing at: http://www.kahunah.com/ED87871
All of my appeal is at http://www.kahunah.com/appeal
My complaint about the attorney that lied to the court is at http://www.kahunah.com/horowitz
I'm a veteran, and I'm fed up with the judicial corruption. -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is