The American Spectator

Linda| 12.29.10 @ 7:02PM

This smacks of, if you'll pardon the expression, a witch hunt. Anything at all to discredit and smear O'Donnell.

JASmius| 12.29.10 @ 7:31PM

This smacks to me of the Obamedia herd instinct overwhelming recognition of what's in its own, and its party's, best interests. I would think that the AP would want to see Christine O'Donnell keep running against Tom Carper and Chris Coons until the end of time - wouldn't that make Delaware's the two safest seats in the U.S. Senate?

Ditto this "top Republican source"'s anonymous rumor-mongering, if s/he is (presumably) a Castleite. The disastrous, buffoonish campaign CO'D ran, made all the more so for how foolishly high-profile the TPers hyped it, should discredit her once and for all - why try to jump up and down on the ashes and run any risk of turning her into a sympathetic figure, especially if the allegation(s) prove to be false?

Of course, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they turned out to be true. But why not let that process work itself out first? Let her reputation continue decomposing on its own.

Interloper| 12.29.10 @ 7:34PM

A person gets an opportunity to refute charges after she is accused, indicted and goes to trial, not while she is being investigated. Nor is O'Donnell necessarily being investigated by the FBI. Her reported activities would violate several state and federal laws.

As for the allegations, O'Donnell has admitted using campaign funds to pay her rent and other expenses. That is expressly forbidden by election law. She has also passed money from campaign funds on to her mother and sister under thinly veiled pretexts. Her foreclosed house was bought cheaply by a boyfriend who also happened to be own her payroll as campaign lawyer. It does not look good for her at all. At 41, she may finally have to get an actual job to repay these misappropriated funds.

Interested Conservative| 12.29.10 @ 11:08PM

Careful there interloper. You may have misstated the applicable law. Of more interest is the fairly generic set of facts rimless here. Probably half of congress, and more than half of the democrats, likely violate some of these presumed allegations. And that's not even getting to the "ethical" issues of spouses on payrolls which deal with candidates and issues.

So far this report hasn't got past being a fabrication on its way to being a smear.

rigdum funidos| 12.31.10 @ 3:00PM

not so fast. whether we like it or not, many if not most politicians have their spouse on the payroll, some time or the other; and if her campaign headquarters were in her house, as she says, then she can legitimately charge some rent to the campaign. and so forth. does anybody really think she is a threat in Delaware politics? Why not just leave her alone?

section9| 12.29.10 @ 10:19PM

Be warned. This is how the Obama Justice Department operates. I suspect that they had their front group, CREW, bring the complaint. Then they swooped in with the investigation. The same thing will happen to Palin or any other Republican who opposses Obama.

dems like odonnell| 12.30.10 @ 12:42AM

Obama & his cronies are behind this witch hunt against O'Donnell? Why? That wouldn;t make any sense. She beat a solid Republican candidate in the primary which allowed a Democrat to win the Senate seat! Having Christine O'Donnell around is good for the Democratic party!!!

handbags| 12.29.10 @ 10:36PM

good post!thanks !

Cris Worth| 12.30.10 @ 1:23AM

This is a continuation of the Roe v. Wade Preservation Society against any would be pro-life senate candidate GOP or otherwise. Joe Miller and Sharron Angle are other examples. Remember senators consent on all federal judiciary appointments therefore any shading of the senate to a more pro-life position must be nipped in the bud.

AR Ar ar| 12.30.10 @ 7:27AM

"Having Christine O'Donnell around is good for the Democratic party!!!

Just like having Mike Castle around is good for the Democrats. I'd go with the girl in this case every time.

skedaddle| 12.30.10 @ 7:45AM

This could easily be the RINO wing of the Republican party teaching a lesson to any upstarts who might try to knock them off their gravy train. RINOs are at least as dangerous as Dems.

Clint| 12.30.10 @ 7:46AM

What force behind The Federal Investigation ?
Delaware's Joe Biden ?
Figure it out.

George| 12.30.10 @ 9:56AM

My knowledge of federal election law is a bit dated since I have not kept up in recent years. Federal law prohibits the use of campaign funds for personal use. But in a series of advisory opinions the FEC has allowed all sorts of uses of campaign funds that did not involve direct campaign activities. And if I recall correctly, they even said that the campaign can pay the candidate a salary for the candidate. Of course, the cnadiate has to pay income taxes on this "income." My guess is that Ms. O'Donnell paid personal expenses directly rather than pay herself a salary. I think they may have a hard time proving criminal intent, unless they can show she was warned about her activities and continued them anyway. I wonder when the feds are going to really look at all the foreign donations Obama received in 2008--also against federal law.

Dale Cord| 12.30.10 @ 11:43AM

2011 a year that will live in Infamy. Future school history books will read: The year the Muslims conquered the United States of America. With not so much as a whimper from its cowardly military leaders, and name calling armchair patriots. Disgraceful,Shameful there are no words to adequately describe her defeat. As the 300 Spartans strength and ingenuity conquered all of those who challenged them, so a small band of renegades conquered the greatest country the world has known. When Davids rock slued Goliath. It also foretold a warning. "The bigger they are,the harder they Fall." Our country lost its battle of survival when it became intoxicated with its deceptive mentality, that it did not need its Creator anymore, and wisdom no longer was apart of its citizens physiology to survive.

Banjo| 12.30.10 @ 1:22PM

Can we just forget about this woman? Even Delaware must have had a conservative without her baggage and Obama-like resume of nothing much to speak of.

mzk1| 12.30.10 @ 2:26PM

Wasn't she already in a heresy trial? You know, being asked if she believed in evolution? By someone whose religion (atheism) required such a belief?

Or was that someone else?

handbags| 12.30.10 @ 9:46PM

good post!

Interloper| 12.31.10 @ 6:45AM

I thought everyone knew this information, but perhaps it did not seep into the bunkers of the far Right. The matter of Christine O'Donnell misusing campaign funds arose before she was even thought of as having any chance of beating another Republican candidate. This was her fourth or fifth run for office and her third try for the U.S. Senate. Before this perennial candidacy, she set up a 'group' consisting of herself that subsisted on speaking fees for appearances promoting abstinence, even by adults, and her appearances on "Politically Incorrect" and an occasional other TV show.

In short, she hasn't held a job for at least a decade, apparently longer. Running for office became a way for O'Donnell to support herself. Delaware Republican officials had been warning her about her activities for years. In fact, her own treasurers reported the malfeasance. Once O'Donnell became high profile, she was exposed. Consequences are now following.

Note that no conspiracy mongering whatsoever is needed to understand why O'Donnell is in hot water.

Matt, Esq| 12.31.10 @ 10:45AM

"If she is under federal investigation she has the constitutional right to face her accusers and call their evidence into question." These rights exist at trial and not before. This is an investigation so her right to confront her accuser and evidence against her have not been triggered. If you don't understand the constitution, don't quote its rights so inaccurately.

"The onus is on the federal government to prove her guilt." Again, you are stating the law for a criminal trial. The Government must meet its burden at trial. There is nothing else to prove otherwise. She can either cooperate with an investigation, exercise her right NOT to incriminate herself, but there is no "burden" at this stage.

This hyperbole and misusing the law to sell your point are horribly misleading and disingenuous.

rigdum funidos| 12.31.10 @ 3:04PM

so you think it would be perfectly OK for the FBI to leak to the press unproven and defamatory information about a citizen? the problem isn't the trial--it is being tried in the press by Melanie Sloan and her friends from Delaware.