O'Donnell filed false
financial reports and
is deeply in debt


By MELANIE SLOAN • September 29, 2010


Following Christine O'Donnell's surprising upset
victory over Congressman Mike Castle, I learned that
in the last days before the primary election, Ms.
O'Donnell's former campaign manager, Kristin
Murray, made robocalls informing voters that Ms.
O'Donnell "was living on campaign donations --
using them for rent and personal expenses, while
leaving her workers unpaid and piling up
thousands in debt."

I also spoke to former campaign staff member David
Keegan, who made similar comments and provided
details. As a former prosecutor heading up an
organization that focuses on money and politics, I
realized Ms. O'Donnell had embezzled campaign
funds to support herself.

As a result, my organization, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
quickly filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and asked the Delaware U.S.
Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation.

Did Ms. O'Donnell respond by publicly justifying
her expenditures to the media and the public? Did
she explain how she had managed to eat and pay
rent on the mere $5,800 income she disclosed for
2009?

No. Instead, while decrying Washington, she left it
to her newly hired expensive Washington lawyer
(finally, a legitimate campaign expense!), well-
known Republican insider Cleta Mitchell, not to
defend her conduct, but to mount an attack against
CREW.

Ms. Mitchell threatened to sue CREW for libel, while
in the same breath, lying about CREW's record,
calling us a Democratic front group. Clearly, Ms.
Mitchell hoped to change the subject from Ms.
O'Donnell's conduct to CREW's. But don't expect a
lawsuit; truth is a defense to a libel claim.

As Ms. O'Donnell's former staff members reported,
she used tens of thousands of dollars from her c

ampaign to finance her personal life. For example,
in March and April 2009, Ms. O'Donnell paid her
rent out of her campaign account, but called the
payments expense reimbursements.

She also claimed other personal expenses, such as
meals, gas and even a bowling outing, were
campaign related.


In addition, Ms. O'Donnell, who had no campaign
treasurer, personally filed in the reports she
submitted to the FEC. Without any oversight, it was
easy for her to file reports falsely claiming
expenditures for rent, meals and the like were
campaign related. Knowingly filing false reports
with the FEC is a federal crime.

Finally, by treating campaign funds like her own
money, those funds became income and like all
other income, should have been reported to the IRS.
But given that Ms. O'Donnell lied on her FEC forms,
it is highly unlikely she declared this income on her
tax returns meaning she likely committed a third
crime: tax evasion.

If Ms. O'Donnell were to sue CREW for libel, the
court would allow us to prove we had told the truth.
We would be granted the right to depose witnesses
under oath, including not just former campaign
staffers such as Mr. Keegan and Ms. Murray, as well
as Ms. O'Donnell's four former campaign treasurers,
but also Ms. O'Donnell herself. We would have the
chance to ask detailed questions about how Ms.
O'Donnell supported herself on just $5,800, and we
could question and demand records and receipts
for each so-called campaign expenditure. And of
course, CREW would be free to make all of that
information public.

No lawyer, not even one as poorly versed in libel
law as Ms. Mitchell appears to be, would put her
aspiring political candidate through that. So a
lawsuit is probably not forthcoming.

Ms. Mitchell also has stated that Ms. O'Donnell will
go back and "correct" FEC forms that might have "
mistakenly" listed expenses incorrectly. Further,
Ms. Mitchell has suggested Ms. O'Donnell will
retroactively take a salary from the campaign, which
would make the rent payments permissible. If this
sounds legally dubious, that's because it is.

While candidates legally can collect a salary from
their campaign, they can't do so retroactively. Just
like a bank robber can't go back in time and claim
the stolen money was actually a "security consulting
fee," Ms. O'Donnell can't turn back the clock either.

Ms. O'Donnell would prefer Delawareans focus not
on her actions, but on CREW's motives. First, CREW
is a nonpartisan organization with a long record of
taking on unethical politicians regardless of party
affiliation. But more important, Christine O'Donnell
is running to serve the people of Delaware as their
elected representative in the United States Senate --
a position that demands integrity and honesty.

Sadly, Ms. O'Donnell has demonstrated neither.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.


File downloads

* DOCUMENT: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Complaint Letter to the
FEC Regarding Christine O'Donnell
* DOCUMENTS: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Exhibits of Evidence
Regarding Christine O'Donnell

On the Web

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington


Ms. O'Donnell has several fans and supporters in rec.boats.




--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals / No Brains

"Secular Humourist" wrote in message ...


O'Donnell filed false
financial reports and
is deeply in debt


By MELANIE SLOAN • September 29, 2010


Following Christine O'Donnell's surprising upset
victory over Congressman Mike Castle, I learned that
in the last days before the primary election, Ms.
O'Donnell's former campaign manager, Kristin
Murray, made robocalls informing voters that Ms.
O'Donnell "was living on campaign donations --
using them for rent and personal expenses, while
leaving her workers unpaid and piling up
thousands in debt."

I also spoke to former campaign staff member David
Keegan, who made similar comments and provided
details. As a former prosecutor heading up an
organization that focuses on money and politics, I
realized Ms. O'Donnell had embezzled campaign
funds to support herself.

As a result, my organization, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
quickly filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and asked the Delaware U.S.
Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation.

Did Ms. O'Donnell respond by publicly justifying
her expenditures to the media and the public? Did
she explain how she had managed to eat and pay
rent on the mere $5,800 income she disclosed for
2009?

No. Instead, while decrying Washington, she left it
to her newly hired expensive Washington lawyer
(finally, a legitimate campaign expense!), well-
known Republican insider Cleta Mitchell, not to
defend her conduct, but to mount an attack against
CREW.

Ms. Mitchell threatened to sue CREW for libel, while
in the same breath, lying about CREW's record,
calling us a Democratic front group. Clearly, Ms.
Mitchell hoped to change the subject from Ms.
O'Donnell's conduct to CREW's. But don't expect a
lawsuit; truth is a defense to a libel claim.

As Ms. O'Donnell's former staff members reported,
she used tens of thousands of dollars from her c

ampaign to finance her personal life. For example,
in March and April 2009, Ms. O'Donnell paid her
rent out of her campaign account, but called the
payments expense reimbursements.

She also claimed other personal expenses, such as
meals, gas and even a bowling outing, were
campaign related.


In addition, Ms. O'Donnell, who had no campaign
treasurer, personally filed in the reports she
submitted to the FEC. Without any oversight, it was
easy for her to file reports falsely claiming
expenditures for rent, meals and the like were
campaign related. Knowingly filing false reports
with the FEC is a federal crime.

Finally, by treating campaign funds like her own
money, those funds became income and like all
other income, should have been reported to the IRS.
But given that Ms. O'Donnell lied on her FEC forms,
it is highly unlikely she declared this income on her
tax returns meaning she likely committed a third
crime: tax evasion.

If Ms. O'Donnell were to sue CREW for libel, the
court would allow us to prove we had told the truth.
We would be granted the right to depose witnesses
under oath, including not just former campaign
staffers such as Mr. Keegan and Ms. Murray, as well
as Ms. O'Donnell's four former campaign treasurers,
but also Ms. O'Donnell herself. We would have the
chance to ask detailed questions about how Ms.
O'Donnell supported herself on just $5,800, and we
could question and demand records and receipts
for each so-called campaign expenditure. And of
course, CREW would be free to make all of that
information public.

No lawyer, not even one as poorly versed in libel
law as Ms. Mitchell appears to be, would put her
aspiring political candidate through that. So a
lawsuit is probably not forthcoming.

Ms. Mitchell also has stated that Ms. O'Donnell will
go back and "correct" FEC forms that might have "
mistakenly" listed expenses incorrectly. Further,
Ms. Mitchell has suggested Ms. O'Donnell will
retroactively take a salary from the campaign, which
would make the rent payments permissible. If this
sounds legally dubious, that's because it is.

While candidates legally can collect a salary from
their campaign, they can't do so retroactively. Just
like a bank robber can't go back in time and claim
the stolen money was actually a "security consulting
fee," Ms. O'Donnell can't turn back the clock either.

Ms. O'Donnell would prefer Delawareans focus not
on her actions, but on CREW's motives. First, CREW
is a nonpartisan organization with a long record of
taking on unethical politicians regardless of party
affiliation. But more important, Christine O'Donnell
is running to serve the people of Delaware as their
elected representative in the United States Senate --
a position that demands integrity and honesty.

Sadly, Ms. O'Donnell has demonstrated neither.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.


File downloads

* DOCUMENT: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Complaint Letter to the
FEC Regarding Christine O'Donnell
* DOCUMENTS: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Exhibits of Evidence
Regarding Christine O'Donnell

On the Web

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington


Ms. O'Donnell has several fans and supporters in rec.boats.




--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals / No Brains


Thanks. I'll file that under business as usual for elected officials.

--
Harry
“The 'C' students run the world.”

On 9/29/2010 10:01 AM, Harry® wrote:
"Secular wrote in message ...


O'Donnell filed false
financial reports and
is deeply in debt


By MELANIE SLOAN • September 29, 2010


Following Christine O'Donnell's surprising upset
victory over Congressman Mike Castle, I learned that
in the last days before the primary election, Ms.
O'Donnell's former campaign manager, Kristin
Murray, made robocalls informing voters that Ms.
O'Donnell "was living on campaign donations --
using them for rent and personal expenses, while
leaving her workers unpaid and piling up
thousands in debt."

I also spoke to former campaign staff member David
Keegan, who made similar comments and provided
details. As a former prosecutor heading up an
organization that focuses on money and politics, I
realized Ms. O'Donnell had embezzled campaign
funds to support herself.

As a result, my organization, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
quickly filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and asked the Delaware U.S.
Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation.

Did Ms. O'Donnell respond by publicly justifying
her expenditures to the media and the public? Did
she explain how she had managed to eat and pay
rent on the mere $5,800 income she disclosed for
2009?

No. Instead, while decrying Washington, she left it
to her newly hired expensive Washington lawyer
(finally, a legitimate campaign expense!), well-
known Republican insider Cleta Mitchell, not to
defend her conduct, but to mount an attack against
CREW.

Ms. Mitchell threatened to sue CREW for libel, while
in the same breath, lying about CREW's record,
calling us a Democratic front group. Clearly, Ms.
Mitchell hoped to change the subject from Ms.
O'Donnell's conduct to CREW's. But don't expect a
lawsuit; truth is a defense to a libel claim.

As Ms. O'Donnell's former staff members reported,
she used tens of thousands of dollars from her c

ampaign to finance her personal life. For example,
in March and April 2009, Ms. O'Donnell paid her
rent out of her campaign account, but called the
payments expense reimbursements.

She also claimed other personal expenses, such as
meals, gas and even a bowling outing, were
campaign related.


In addition, Ms. O'Donnell, who had no campaign
treasurer, personally filed in the reports she
submitted to the FEC. Without any oversight, it was
easy for her to file reports falsely claiming
expenditures for rent, meals and the like were
campaign related. Knowingly filing false reports
with the FEC is a federal crime.

Finally, by treating campaign funds like her own
money, those funds became income and like all
other income, should have been reported to the IRS.
But given that Ms. O'Donnell lied on her FEC forms,
it is highly unlikely she declared this income on her
tax returns meaning she likely committed a third
crime: tax evasion.

If Ms. O'Donnell were to sue CREW for libel, the
court would allow us to prove we had told the truth.
We would be granted the right to depose witnesses
under oath, including not just former campaign
staffers such as Mr. Keegan and Ms. Murray, as well
as Ms. O'Donnell's four former campaign treasurers,
but also Ms. O'Donnell herself. We would have the
chance to ask detailed questions about how Ms.
O'Donnell supported herself on just $5,800, and we
could question and demand records and receipts
for each so-called campaign expenditure. And of
course, CREW would be free to make all of that
information public.

No lawyer, not even one as poorly versed in libel
law as Ms. Mitchell appears to be, would put her
aspiring political candidate through that. So a
lawsuit is probably not forthcoming.

Ms. Mitchell also has stated that Ms. O'Donnell will
go back and "correct" FEC forms that might have "
mistakenly" listed expenses incorrectly. Further,
Ms. Mitchell has suggested Ms. O'Donnell will
retroactively take a salary from the campaign, which
would make the rent payments permissible. If this
sounds legally dubious, that's because it is.

While candidates legally can collect a salary from
their campaign, they can't do so retroactively. Just
like a bank robber can't go back in time and claim
the stolen money was actually a "security consulting
fee," Ms. O'Donnell can't turn back the clock either.

Ms. O'Donnell would prefer Delawareans focus not
on her actions, but on CREW's motives. First, CREW
is a nonpartisan organization with a long record of
taking on unethical politicians regardless of party
affiliation. But more important, Christine O'Donnell
is running to serve the people of Delaware as their
elected representative in the United States Senate --
a position that demands integrity and honesty.

Sadly, Ms. O'Donnell has demonstrated neither.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.


File downloads

* DOCUMENT: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Complaint Letter to the
FEC Regarding Christine O'Donnell
* DOCUMENTS: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Exhibits of Evidence
Regarding Christine O'Donnell

On the Web

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington


Ms. O'Donnell has several fans and supporters in rec.boats.




--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals / No Brains


Thanks. I'll file that under business as usual for elected officials.

O'Donnell seems to set a new standard for stupidity in either party.

"Jim" wrote in message ...
On 9/29/2010 10:01 AM, Harry® wrote:
"Secular wrote in message ...


O'Donnell filed false
financial reports and
is deeply in debt


By MELANIE SLOAN • September 29, 2010


Following Christine O'Donnell's surprising upset
victory over Congressman Mike Castle, I learned that
in the last days before the primary election, Ms.
O'Donnell's former campaign manager, Kristin
Murray, made robocalls informing voters that Ms.
O'Donnell "was living on campaign donations --
using them for rent and personal expenses, while
leaving her workers unpaid and piling up
thousands in debt."

I also spoke to former campaign staff member David
Keegan, who made similar comments and provided
details. As a former prosecutor heading up an
organization that focuses on money and politics, I
realized Ms. O'Donnell had embezzled campaign
funds to support herself.

As a result, my organization, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
quickly filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and asked the Delaware U.S.
Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation.

Did Ms. O'Donnell respond by publicly justifying
her expenditures to the media and the public? Did
she explain how she had managed to eat and pay
rent on the mere $5,800 income she disclosed for
2009?

No. Instead, while decrying Washington, she left it
to her newly hired expensive Washington lawyer
(finally, a legitimate campaign expense!), well-
known Republican insider Cleta Mitchell, not to
defend her conduct, but to mount an attack against
CREW.

Ms. Mitchell threatened to sue CREW for libel, while
in the same breath, lying about CREW's record,
calling us a Democratic front group. Clearly, Ms.
Mitchell hoped to change the subject from Ms.
O'Donnell's conduct to CREW's. But don't expect a
lawsuit; truth is a defense to a libel claim.

As Ms. O'Donnell's former staff members reported,
she used tens of thousands of dollars from her c

ampaign to finance her personal life. For example,
in March and April 2009, Ms. O'Donnell paid her
rent out of her campaign account, but called the
payments expense reimbursements.

She also claimed other personal expenses, such as
meals, gas and even a bowling outing, were
campaign related.


In addition, Ms. O'Donnell, who had no campaign
treasurer, personally filed in the reports she
submitted to the FEC. Without any oversight, it was
easy for her to file reports falsely claiming
expenditures for rent, meals and the like were
campaign related. Knowingly filing false reports
with the FEC is a federal crime.

Finally, by treating campaign funds like her own
money, those funds became income and like all
other income, should have been reported to the IRS.
But given that Ms. O'Donnell lied on her FEC forms,
it is highly unlikely she declared this income on her
tax returns meaning she likely committed a third
crime: tax evasion.

If Ms. O'Donnell were to sue CREW for libel, the
court would allow us to prove we had told the truth.
We would be granted the right to depose witnesses
under oath, including not just former campaign
staffers such as Mr. Keegan and Ms. Murray, as well
as Ms. O'Donnell's four former campaign treasurers,
but also Ms. O'Donnell herself. We would have the
chance to ask detailed questions about how Ms.
O'Donnell supported herself on just $5,800, and we
could question and demand records and receipts
for each so-called campaign expenditure. And of
course, CREW would be free to make all of that
information public.

No lawyer, not even one as poorly versed in libel
law as Ms. Mitchell appears to be, would put her
aspiring political candidate through that. So a
lawsuit is probably not forthcoming.

Ms. Mitchell also has stated that Ms. O'Donnell will
go back and "correct" FEC forms that might have "
mistakenly" listed expenses incorrectly. Further,
Ms. Mitchell has suggested Ms. O'Donnell will
retroactively take a salary from the campaign, which
would make the rent payments permissible. If this
sounds legally dubious, that's because it is.

While candidates legally can collect a salary from
their campaign, they can't do so retroactively. Just
like a bank robber can't go back in time and claim
the stolen money was actually a "security consulting
fee," Ms. O'Donnell can't turn back the clock either.

Ms. O'Donnell would prefer Delawareans focus not
on her actions, but on CREW's motives. First, CREW
is a nonpartisan organization with a long record of
taking on unethical politicians regardless of party
affiliation. But more important, Christine O'Donnell
is running to serve the people of Delaware as their
elected representative in the United States Senate --
a position that demands integrity and honesty.

Sadly, Ms. O'Donnell has demonstrated neither.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.


File downloads

* DOCUMENT: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Complaint Letter to the
FEC Regarding Christine O'Donnell
* DOCUMENTS: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Exhibits of Evidence
Regarding Christine O'Donnell

On the Web

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington


Ms. O'Donnell has several fans and supporters in rec.boats.




--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals / No Brains


Thanks. I'll file that under business as usual for elected officials.

O'Donnell seems to set a new standard for stupidity in either party.


How soon we forget. I guess you don't remember the guy from Carolina who was quizzing an admiral about the prospect of Guam turning turtle or that Barney thinks that Fanny and Freddy are in fine shape or the presidential candidate who visited 57 states.

--
Harry
“The 'C' students run the world.”

"Jim" wrote in message
...
On 9/29/2010 10:01 AM, Harry® wrote:
"Secular wrote in message
...


O'Donnell filed false
financial reports and
is deeply in debt


By MELANIE SLOAN • September 29, 2010


Following Christine O'Donnell's surprising upset
victory over Congressman Mike Castle, I learned that
in the last days before the primary election, Ms.
O'Donnell's former campaign manager, Kristin
Murray, made robocalls informing voters that Ms.
O'Donnell "was living on campaign donations --
using them for rent and personal expenses, while
leaving her workers unpaid and piling up
thousands in debt."

I also spoke to former campaign staff member David
Keegan, who made similar comments and provided
details. As a former prosecutor heading up an
organization that focuses on money and politics, I
realized Ms. O'Donnell had embezzled campaign
funds to support herself.

As a result, my organization, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
quickly filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and asked the Delaware U.S.
Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation.

Did Ms. O'Donnell respond by publicly justifying
her expenditures to the media and the public? Did
she explain how she had managed to eat and pay
rent on the mere $5,800 income she disclosed for
2009?

No. Instead, while decrying Washington, she left it
to her newly hired expensive Washington lawyer
(finally, a legitimate campaign expense!), well-
known Republican insider Cleta Mitchell, not to
defend her conduct, but to mount an attack against
CREW.

Ms. Mitchell threatened to sue CREW for libel, while
in the same breath, lying about CREW's record,
calling us a Democratic front group. Clearly, Ms.
Mitchell hoped to change the subject from Ms.
O'Donnell's conduct to CREW's. But don't expect a
lawsuit; truth is a defense to a libel claim.

As Ms. O'Donnell's former staff members reported,
she used tens of thousands of dollars from her c

ampaign to finance her personal life. For example,
in March and April 2009, Ms. O'Donnell paid her
rent out of her campaign account, but called the
payments expense reimbursements.

She also claimed other personal expenses, such as
meals, gas and even a bowling outing, were
campaign related.


In addition, Ms. O'Donnell, who had no campaign
treasurer, personally filed in the reports she
submitted to the FEC. Without any oversight, it was
easy for her to file reports falsely claiming
expenditures for rent, meals and the like were
campaign related. Knowingly filing false reports
with the FEC is a federal crime.

Finally, by treating campaign funds like her own
money, those funds became income and like all
other income, should have been reported to the IRS.
But given that Ms. O'Donnell lied on her FEC forms,
it is highly unlikely she declared this income on her
tax returns meaning she likely committed a third
crime: tax evasion.

If Ms. O'Donnell were to sue CREW for libel, the
court would allow us to prove we had told the truth.
We would be granted the right to depose witnesses
under oath, including not just former campaign
staffers such as Mr. Keegan and Ms. Murray, as well
as Ms. O'Donnell's four former campaign treasurers,
but also Ms. O'Donnell herself. We would have the
chance to ask detailed questions about how Ms.
O'Donnell supported herself on just $5,800, and we
could question and demand records and receipts
for each so-called campaign expenditure. And of
course, CREW would be free to make all of that
information public.

No lawyer, not even one as poorly versed in libel
law as Ms. Mitchell appears to be, would put her
aspiring political candidate through that. So a
lawsuit is probably not forthcoming.

Ms. Mitchell also has stated that Ms. O'Donnell will
go back and "correct" FEC forms that might have "
mistakenly" listed expenses incorrectly. Further,
Ms. Mitchell has suggested Ms. O'Donnell will
retroactively take a salary from the campaign, which
would make the rent payments permissible. If this
sounds legally dubious, that's because it is.

While candidates legally can collect a salary from
their campaign, they can't do so retroactively. Just
like a bank robber can't go back in time and claim
the stolen money was actually a "security consulting
fee," Ms. O'Donnell can't turn back the clock either.

Ms. O'Donnell would prefer Delawareans focus not
on her actions, but on CREW's motives. First, CREW
is a nonpartisan organization with a long record of
taking on unethical politicians regardless of party
affiliation. But more important, Christine O'Donnell
is running to serve the people of Delaware as their
elected representative in the United States Senate --
a position that demands integrity and honesty.

Sadly, Ms. O'Donnell has demonstrated neither.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.


File downloads

* DOCUMENT: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Complaint Letter to the
FEC Regarding Christine O'Donnell
* DOCUMENTS: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Exhibits of Evidence
Regarding Christine O'Donnell

On the Web

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington


Ms. O'Donnell has several fans and supporters in rec.boats.




--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals / No Brains


Thanks. I'll file that under business as usual for elected officials.

O'Donnell seems to set a new standard for stupidity in either party.

Hey... she graduated from Oxford! Oh wait, she took a class in a building
rented out by Oxford.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/09/28/ch...ystery-solved/

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:58:24 -0400, Jim wrote:

On 9/29/2010 10:01 AM, Harry® wrote:
"Secular wrote in message ...


O'Donnell filed false
financial reports and
is deeply in debt


By MELANIE SLOAN • September 29, 2010


Following Christine O'Donnell's surprising upset
victory over Congressman Mike Castle, I learned that
in the last days before the primary election, Ms.
O'Donnell's former campaign manager, Kristin
Murray, made robocalls informing voters that Ms.
O'Donnell "was living on campaign donations --
using them for rent and personal expenses, while
leaving her workers unpaid and piling up
thousands in debt."

I also spoke to former campaign staff member David
Keegan, who made similar comments and provided
details. As a former prosecutor heading up an
organization that focuses on money and politics, I
realized Ms. O'Donnell had embezzled campaign
funds to support herself.

As a result, my organization, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
quickly filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and asked the Delaware U.S.
Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation.

Did Ms. O'Donnell respond by publicly justifying
her expenditures to the media and the public? Did
she explain how she had managed to eat and pay
rent on the mere $5,800 income she disclosed for
2009?

No. Instead, while decrying Washington, she left it
to her newly hired expensive Washington lawyer
(finally, a legitimate campaign expense!), well-
known Republican insider Cleta Mitchell, not to
defend her conduct, but to mount an attack against
CREW.

Ms. Mitchell threatened to sue CREW for libel, while
in the same breath, lying about CREW's record,
calling us a Democratic front group. Clearly, Ms.
Mitchell hoped to change the subject from Ms.
O'Donnell's conduct to CREW's. But don't expect a
lawsuit; truth is a defense to a libel claim.

As Ms. O'Donnell's former staff members reported,
she used tens of thousands of dollars from her c

ampaign to finance her personal life. For example,
in March and April 2009, Ms. O'Donnell paid her
rent out of her campaign account, but called the
payments expense reimbursements.

She also claimed other personal expenses, such as
meals, gas and even a bowling outing, were
campaign related.


In addition, Ms. O'Donnell, who had no campaign
treasurer, personally filed in the reports she
submitted to the FEC. Without any oversight, it was
easy for her to file reports falsely claiming
expenditures for rent, meals and the like were
campaign related. Knowingly filing false reports
with the FEC is a federal crime.

Finally, by treating campaign funds like her own
money, those funds became income and like all
other income, should have been reported to the IRS.
But given that Ms. O'Donnell lied on her FEC forms,
it is highly unlikely she declared this income on her
tax returns meaning she likely committed a third
crime: tax evasion.

If Ms. O'Donnell were to sue CREW for libel, the
court would allow us to prove we had told the truth.
We would be granted the right to depose witnesses
under oath, including not just former campaign
staffers such as Mr. Keegan and Ms. Murray, as well
as Ms. O'Donnell's four former campaign treasurers,
but also Ms. O'Donnell herself. We would have the
chance to ask detailed questions about how Ms.
O'Donnell supported herself on just $5,800, and we
could question and demand records and receipts
for each so-called campaign expenditure. And of
course, CREW would be free to make all of that
information public.

No lawyer, not even one as poorly versed in libel
law as Ms. Mitchell appears to be, would put her
aspiring political candidate through that. So a
lawsuit is probably not forthcoming.

Ms. Mitchell also has stated that Ms. O'Donnell will
go back and "correct" FEC forms that might have "
mistakenly" listed expenses incorrectly. Further,
Ms. Mitchell has suggested Ms. O'Donnell will
retroactively take a salary from the campaign, which
would make the rent payments permissible. If this
sounds legally dubious, that's because it is.

While candidates legally can collect a salary from
their campaign, they can't do so retroactively. Just
like a bank robber can't go back in time and claim
the stolen money was actually a "security consulting
fee," Ms. O'Donnell can't turn back the clock either.

Ms. O'Donnell would prefer Delawareans focus not
on her actions, but on CREW's motives. First, CREW
is a nonpartisan organization with a long record of
taking on unethical politicians regardless of party
affiliation. But more important, Christine O'Donnell
is running to serve the people of Delaware as their
elected representative in the United States Senate --
a position that demands integrity and honesty.

Sadly, Ms. O'Donnell has demonstrated neither.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.


File downloads

* DOCUMENT: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Complaint Letter to the
FEC Regarding Christine O'Donnell
* DOCUMENTS: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Exhibits of Evidence
Regarding Christine O'Donnell

On the Web

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington


Ms. O'Donnell has several fans and supporters in rec.boats.




--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals / No Brains


Thanks. I'll file that under business as usual for elected officials.

O'Donnell seems to set a new standard for stupidity in either party.

Stupidity and willful ignorance are two different things. She's not
stupid but, like her party's leader, Sarah Palin, she suffers from her
own desire to remain uninformed and in the dark. More in love with a
fantasy life than the hard work of dealing in realities.

Watching them is nearly as entertaining as watching a Monty Python
episode, without the humor.

On 9/29/10 3:06 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:58:24 -0400, wrote:

On 9/29/2010 10:01 AM, Harry® wrote:
"Secular wrote in message ...


O'Donnell filed false
financial reports and
is deeply in debt


By MELANIE SLOAN • September 29, 2010


Following Christine O'Donnell's surprising upset
victory over Congressman Mike Castle, I learned that
in the last days before the primary election, Ms.
O'Donnell's former campaign manager, Kristin
Murray, made robocalls informing voters that Ms.
O'Donnell "was living on campaign donations --
using them for rent and personal expenses, while
leaving her workers unpaid and piling up
thousands in debt."

I also spoke to former campaign staff member David
Keegan, who made similar comments and provided
details. As a former prosecutor heading up an
organization that focuses on money and politics, I
realized Ms. O'Donnell had embezzled campaign
funds to support herself.

As a result, my organization, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
quickly filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and asked the Delaware U.S.
Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation.

Did Ms. O'Donnell respond by publicly justifying
her expenditures to the media and the public? Did
she explain how she had managed to eat and pay
rent on the mere $5,800 income she disclosed for
2009?

No. Instead, while decrying Washington, she left it
to her newly hired expensive Washington lawyer
(finally, a legitimate campaign expense!), well-
known Republican insider Cleta Mitchell, not to
defend her conduct, but to mount an attack against
CREW.

Ms. Mitchell threatened to sue CREW for libel, while
in the same breath, lying about CREW's record,
calling us a Democratic front group. Clearly, Ms.
Mitchell hoped to change the subject from Ms.
O'Donnell's conduct to CREW's. But don't expect a
lawsuit; truth is a defense to a libel claim.

As Ms. O'Donnell's former staff members reported,
she used tens of thousands of dollars from her c

ampaign to finance her personal life. For example,
in March and April 2009, Ms. O'Donnell paid her
rent out of her campaign account, but called the
payments expense reimbursements.

She also claimed other personal expenses, such as
meals, gas and even a bowling outing, were
campaign related.


In addition, Ms. O'Donnell, who had no campaign
treasurer, personally filed in the reports she
submitted to the FEC. Without any oversight, it was
easy for her to file reports falsely claiming
expenditures for rent, meals and the like were
campaign related. Knowingly filing false reports
with the FEC is a federal crime.

Finally, by treating campaign funds like her own
money, those funds became income and like all
other income, should have been reported to the IRS.
But given that Ms. O'Donnell lied on her FEC forms,
it is highly unlikely she declared this income on her
tax returns meaning she likely committed a third
crime: tax evasion.

If Ms. O'Donnell were to sue CREW for libel, the
court would allow us to prove we had told the truth.
We would be granted the right to depose witnesses
under oath, including not just former campaign
staffers such as Mr. Keegan and Ms. Murray, as well
as Ms. O'Donnell's four former campaign treasurers,
but also Ms. O'Donnell herself. We would have the
chance to ask detailed questions about how Ms.
O'Donnell supported herself on just $5,800, and we
could question and demand records and receipts
for each so-called campaign expenditure. And of
course, CREW would be free to make all of that
information public.

No lawyer, not even one as poorly versed in libel
law as Ms. Mitchell appears to be, would put her
aspiring political candidate through that. So a
lawsuit is probably not forthcoming.

Ms. Mitchell also has stated that Ms. O'Donnell will
go back and "correct" FEC forms that might have "
mistakenly" listed expenses incorrectly. Further,
Ms. Mitchell has suggested Ms. O'Donnell will
retroactively take a salary from the campaign, which
would make the rent payments permissible. If this
sounds legally dubious, that's because it is.

While candidates legally can collect a salary from
their campaign, they can't do so retroactively. Just
like a bank robber can't go back in time and claim
the stolen money was actually a "security consulting
fee," Ms. O'Donnell can't turn back the clock either.

Ms. O'Donnell would prefer Delawareans focus not
on her actions, but on CREW's motives. First, CREW
is a nonpartisan organization with a long record of
taking on unethical politicians regardless of party
affiliation. But more important, Christine O'Donnell
is running to serve the people of Delaware as their
elected representative in the United States Senate --
a position that demands integrity and honesty.

Sadly, Ms. O'Donnell has demonstrated neither.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.


File downloads

* DOCUMENT: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Complaint Letter to the
FEC Regarding Christine O'Donnell
* DOCUMENTS: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Exhibits of Evidence
Regarding Christine O'Donnell

On the Web

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington


Ms. O'Donnell has several fans and supporters in rec.boats.




--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals / No Brains


Thanks. I'll file that under business as usual for elected officials.

O'Donnell seems to set a new standard for stupidity in either party.

Stupidity and willful ignorance are two different things. She's not
stupid but, like her party's leader, Sarah Palin, she suffers from her
own desire to remain uninformed and in the dark. More in love with a
fantasy life than the hard work of dealing in realities.

Watching them is nearly as entertaining as watching a Monty Python
episode, without the humor.

She's not stupid?

She disses evolution and thinks scientists have produced a mouse with a
human brain, and she's not talking about our boy Scott Ingersoll.
Wait...that would be a human with a mouse's brain.


--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:12:31 -0400, Secular Humourist
wrote:

On 9/29/10 3:06 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:58:24 -0400, wrote:

On 9/29/2010 10:01 AM, Harry® wrote:
"Secular wrote in message ...


O'Donnell filed false
financial reports and
is deeply in debt


By MELANIE SLOAN • September 29, 2010


Following Christine O'Donnell's surprising upset
victory over Congressman Mike Castle, I learned that
in the last days before the primary election, Ms.
O'Donnell's former campaign manager, Kristin
Murray, made robocalls informing voters that Ms.
O'Donnell "was living on campaign donations --
using them for rent and personal expenses, while
leaving her workers unpaid and piling up
thousands in debt."

I also spoke to former campaign staff member David
Keegan, who made similar comments and provided
details. As a former prosecutor heading up an
organization that focuses on money and politics, I
realized Ms. O'Donnell had embezzled campaign
funds to support herself.

As a result, my organization, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
quickly filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and asked the Delaware U.S.
Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation.

Did Ms. O'Donnell respond by publicly justifying
her expenditures to the media and the public? Did
she explain how she had managed to eat and pay
rent on the mere $5,800 income she disclosed for
2009?

No. Instead, while decrying Washington, she left it
to her newly hired expensive Washington lawyer
(finally, a legitimate campaign expense!), well-
known Republican insider Cleta Mitchell, not to
defend her conduct, but to mount an attack against
CREW.

Ms. Mitchell threatened to sue CREW for libel, while
in the same breath, lying about CREW's record,
calling us a Democratic front group. Clearly, Ms.
Mitchell hoped to change the subject from Ms.
O'Donnell's conduct to CREW's. But don't expect a
lawsuit; truth is a defense to a libel claim.

As Ms. O'Donnell's former staff members reported,
she used tens of thousands of dollars from her c

ampaign to finance her personal life. For example,
in March and April 2009, Ms. O'Donnell paid her
rent out of her campaign account, but called the
payments expense reimbursements.

She also claimed other personal expenses, such as
meals, gas and even a bowling outing, were
campaign related.


In addition, Ms. O'Donnell, who had no campaign
treasurer, personally filed in the reports she
submitted to the FEC. Without any oversight, it was
easy for her to file reports falsely claiming
expenditures for rent, meals and the like were
campaign related. Knowingly filing false reports
with the FEC is a federal crime.

Finally, by treating campaign funds like her own
money, those funds became income and like all
other income, should have been reported to the IRS.
But given that Ms. O'Donnell lied on her FEC forms,
it is highly unlikely she declared this income on her
tax returns meaning she likely committed a third
crime: tax evasion.

If Ms. O'Donnell were to sue CREW for libel, the
court would allow us to prove we had told the truth.
We would be granted the right to depose witnesses
under oath, including not just former campaign
staffers such as Mr. Keegan and Ms. Murray, as well
as Ms. O'Donnell's four former campaign treasurers,
but also Ms. O'Donnell herself. We would have the
chance to ask detailed questions about how Ms.
O'Donnell supported herself on just $5,800, and we
could question and demand records and receipts
for each so-called campaign expenditure. And of
course, CREW would be free to make all of that
information public.

No lawyer, not even one as poorly versed in libel
law as Ms. Mitchell appears to be, would put her
aspiring political candidate through that. So a
lawsuit is probably not forthcoming.

Ms. Mitchell also has stated that Ms. O'Donnell will
go back and "correct" FEC forms that might have "
mistakenly" listed expenses incorrectly. Further,
Ms. Mitchell has suggested Ms. O'Donnell will
retroactively take a salary from the campaign, which
would make the rent payments permissible. If this
sounds legally dubious, that's because it is.

While candidates legally can collect a salary from
their campaign, they can't do so retroactively. Just
like a bank robber can't go back in time and claim
the stolen money was actually a "security consulting
fee," Ms. O'Donnell can't turn back the clock either.

Ms. O'Donnell would prefer Delawareans focus not
on her actions, but on CREW's motives. First, CREW
is a nonpartisan organization with a long record of
taking on unethical politicians regardless of party
affiliation. But more important, Christine O'Donnell
is running to serve the people of Delaware as their
elected representative in the United States Senate --
a position that demands integrity and honesty.

Sadly, Ms. O'Donnell has demonstrated neither.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.


File downloads

* DOCUMENT: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Complaint Letter to the
FEC Regarding Christine O'Donnell
* DOCUMENTS: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Exhibits of Evidence
Regarding Christine O'Donnell

On the Web

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington


Ms. O'Donnell has several fans and supporters in rec.boats.




--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals / No Brains


Thanks. I'll file that under business as usual for elected officials.

O'Donnell seems to set a new standard for stupidity in either party.

Stupidity and willful ignorance are two different things. She's not
stupid but, like her party's leader, Sarah Palin, she suffers from her
own desire to remain uninformed and in the dark. More in love with a
fantasy life than the hard work of dealing in realities.

Watching them is nearly as entertaining as watching a Monty Python
episode, without the humor.

She's not stupid?

She disses evolution and thinks scientists have produced a mouse with a
human brain, and she's not talking about our boy Scott Ingersoll.
Wait...that would be a human with a mouse's brain.

Okay, perhaps she's just clever, which is among many forms of
intelligence.

She's also insane.

"Secular Humourist" wrote in message m...
On 9/29/10 3:06 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:58:24 -0400, wrote:

On 9/29/2010 10:01 AM, Harry® wrote:
"Secular wrote in message ...


O'Donnell filed false
financial reports and
is deeply in debt


By MELANIE SLOAN • September 29, 2010


Following Christine O'Donnell's surprising upset
victory over Congressman Mike Castle, I learned that
in the last days before the primary election, Ms.
O'Donnell's former campaign manager, Kristin
Murray, made robocalls informing voters that Ms.
O'Donnell "was living on campaign donations --
using them for rent and personal expenses, while
leaving her workers unpaid and piling up
thousands in debt."

I also spoke to former campaign staff member David
Keegan, who made similar comments and provided
details. As a former prosecutor heading up an
organization that focuses on money and politics, I
realized Ms. O'Donnell had embezzled campaign
funds to support herself.

As a result, my organization, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
quickly filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and asked the Delaware U.S.
Attorney's Office to open a criminal investigation.

Did Ms. O'Donnell respond by publicly justifying
her expenditures to the media and the public? Did
she explain how she had managed to eat and pay
rent on the mere $5,800 income she disclosed for
2009?

No. Instead, while decrying Washington, she left it
to her newly hired expensive Washington lawyer
(finally, a legitimate campaign expense!), well-
known Republican insider Cleta Mitchell, not to
defend her conduct, but to mount an attack against
CREW.

Ms. Mitchell threatened to sue CREW for libel, while
in the same breath, lying about CREW's record,
calling us a Democratic front group. Clearly, Ms.
Mitchell hoped to change the subject from Ms.
O'Donnell's conduct to CREW's. But don't expect a
lawsuit; truth is a defense to a libel claim.

As Ms. O'Donnell's former staff members reported,
she used tens of thousands of dollars from her c

ampaign to finance her personal life. For example,
in March and April 2009, Ms. O'Donnell paid her
rent out of her campaign account, but called the
payments expense reimbursements.

She also claimed other personal expenses, such as
meals, gas and even a bowling outing, were
campaign related.


In addition, Ms. O'Donnell, who had no campaign
treasurer, personally filed in the reports she
submitted to the FEC. Without any oversight, it was
easy for her to file reports falsely claiming
expenditures for rent, meals and the like were
campaign related. Knowingly filing false reports
with the FEC is a federal crime.

Finally, by treating campaign funds like her own
money, those funds became income and like all
other income, should have been reported to the IRS.
But given that Ms. O'Donnell lied on her FEC forms,
it is highly unlikely she declared this income on her
tax returns meaning she likely committed a third
crime: tax evasion.

If Ms. O'Donnell were to sue CREW for libel, the
court would allow us to prove we had told the truth.
We would be granted the right to depose witnesses
under oath, including not just former campaign
staffers such as Mr. Keegan and Ms. Murray, as well
as Ms. O'Donnell's four former campaign treasurers,
but also Ms. O'Donnell herself. We would have the
chance to ask detailed questions about how Ms.
O'Donnell supported herself on just $5,800, and we
could question and demand records and receipts
for each so-called campaign expenditure. And of
course, CREW would be free to make all of that
information public.

No lawyer, not even one as poorly versed in libel
law as Ms. Mitchell appears to be, would put her
aspiring political candidate through that. So a
lawsuit is probably not forthcoming.

Ms. Mitchell also has stated that Ms. O'Donnell will
go back and "correct" FEC forms that might have "
mistakenly" listed expenses incorrectly. Further,
Ms. Mitchell has suggested Ms. O'Donnell will
retroactively take a salary from the campaign, which
would make the rent payments permissible. If this
sounds legally dubious, that's because it is.

While candidates legally can collect a salary from
their campaign, they can't do so retroactively. Just
like a bank robber can't go back in time and claim
the stolen money was actually a "security consulting
fee," Ms. O'Donnell can't turn back the clock either.

Ms. O'Donnell would prefer Delawareans focus not
on her actions, but on CREW's motives. First, CREW
is a nonpartisan organization with a long record of
taking on unethical politicians regardless of party
affiliation. But more important, Christine O'Donnell
is running to serve the people of Delaware as their
elected representative in the United States Senate --
a position that demands integrity and honesty.

Sadly, Ms. O'Donnell has demonstrated neither.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C.


File downloads

* DOCUMENT: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Complaint Letter to the
FEC Regarding Christine O'Donnell
* DOCUMENTS: Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington: Exhibits of Evidence
Regarding Christine O'Donnell

On the Web

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington


Ms. O'Donnell has several fans and supporters in rec.boats.




--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals / No Brains


Thanks. I'll file that under business as usual for elected officials.

O'Donnell seems to set a new standard for stupidity in either party.

Stupidity and willful ignorance are two different things. She's not
stupid but, like her party's leader, Sarah Palin, she suffers from her
own desire to remain uninformed and in the dark. More in love with a
fantasy life than the hard work of dealing in realities.

Watching them is nearly as entertaining as watching a Monty Python
episode, without the humor.

She's not stupid?

She disses evolution and thinks scientists have produced a mouse with a
human brain, and she's not talking about our boy Scott Ingersoll.
Wait...that would be a human with a mouse's brain.


--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals

It's not hard to envision the working part of your brain fitting in a mouse's cranial cavity.

--
Harry
“The 'C' students run the world.”

"Secular Humourist" wrote in message
m...

She's not stupid?

She disses evolution and thinks scientists have produced a mouse with a
human brain, and she's not talking about our boy Scott Ingersoll.
Wait...that would be a human with a mouse's brain.


Yeah but... he has a mouse size body to go with it.
Does that count?