Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm

Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM ET
Filed Under:

By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.

Allegations:
Adrienne Slick, who worked at IPA for seven months in 2000 and 2001 as a business coordinator and is now part of the EEOC suit, told NBC News in an interview that the sexual harassment was oppressive. “I had multiple managers come at me, press themselves up against me ... ask me to go home with them, and to a hotel room so they could fulfill their fantasies," she said.

The EEOC lawyers say the man at the top of the firm -  IPA founder and Managing Director John R. Burgess - was among the worst offenders. The EEOC lawsuit claims, “The harassment emanated from the top:  the owner and Managing Director, John Burgess, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women.”

Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.

Still, none of that has stopped powerful politicians in both parties from being courted by Burgess and IPA. Since 2000, IPA officials and their family members have given Sen. Clinton at least $170,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns, federal campaign records show. Senator Clinton also spoke at a company event and rode on an IPA jet in 2004.

In May 2006, the New York Times brought Burgess's criminal history, and the allegations against IPA, to Sen. Clinton's attention. The May 7, 2006, article was titled “Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents.” In the article, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying the Senator was not aware of Burgess’s criminal past and "will be reviewing" the contributions.

Almost two years later, federal records indicate that Sen. Clinton still has not returned the IPA money. Howard Wolfson, her communications director, did not dispute the $170,000 figure in an email to NBC News. He said Senator Clinton was not aware of Burgess’s past legal problems when she first accepted the donations. "In 2000 and 2003 when Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted money from Burgess, it was not aware of his legal problems from the 1980s," he said.

However, there were public reports of allegations against Burgess as early as 2000. That’s the year that Inc. Magazine first reported that Burgess had patronized a prostitute and had pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny. And Senator Clinton’s campaign has accepted other contributions from other senior IPA officials as recently as last year, the campaign records show.

Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations.

Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.

Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment.

"The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women's issues and women," says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. "I don't think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked."

Adrienne Slick, the former IPA employee, says she's disappointed in any politician who would take or keep money from IPA. "This is not something that should be taken lightly, and to accept those funds makes a statement," she told NBC.

The EEOC lawyers would not comment on any aspect of the political donations, and confined their remarks solely to the lawsuit.

Clinton Campaign Response:
Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution." Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show.

IPA Reaction:
For its part, IPA vigorously denies any wrongdoing and said it has been fighting the EEOC lawsuit for more than six years. "Since a lawsuit was filed in June 2001, IPA has continually and consistently denied the allegations," IPA spokeswoman Jennifer Cumbee wrote in an email to NBC News. "At IPA, we have zero tolerance approach when it comes to sexual harassment."

Cumbee added: "This involves primarily claims by persons who worked a short time in the mid- to late 90s (although there are some persons who worked after that).  Immediately after the lawsuit was filed and by early 2001, IPA in an abundance of caution had its sexual harassment policy completely revised by competent outside professionals."

She says, "IPA has had no unresolved claim of harassment for several years now and any one of its 2,000 employees who violate the policy, after investigation, is dealt with swiftly." She would not comment directly on Slick’s claims, citing employee confidentiality. She said that the EEOC already has dropped some claimants from the suit. “All employee claims have been contested as many have no witnesses or records or current complaints,” Cumbee said.

The IPA spokeswoman did not dispute that Burgess had a criminal record from his days in New York. "All that you have asked, in regards to John Burgess, is a matter of public record," she wrote. “Mr. Burgess is not a felon and was never convicted or pled to a felony.” She said that it would be unfair to judge Burgess on two-decade-old crimes, and pointed out that Burgess and IPA are solid employers who donate generously to charities.

Comments

News flash to Mr. Wolfson: the EEOC has already ruled on this, and has decided to pursue the case on behalf of the 103 (103!) women accusing IPA of sexual harrasment.  The EEOC is not the judicial body, they are part of the executive branch of the federal government charged with enforcing federal laws regarding equal employment issues(sexual, racial, age, disabled, etc).

It's nonsense like this that brings negative press on the Clinton campaign, not some "conspiracy" against her or some weird obama-girlesque crush on Barack.  
Here is Hillary's message to women: sexual harassment doesn't exist until a jury has found someone guilty of it. Women who say they've been the victims of sexual harassment but who haven't been to court are out of luck with Hillary - she won't believe you. Very nice. I'm sure NOW will be very proud of her.
at what cross roads will it take for he r to realize that the voice of the women shoulnt be brandishing usback to the dark ages  when will the very brifgt women the everyday women take it upon thier own shoulders to have a voice and stand up against the teirany that clintontasia is causing....she steps on our necks mocking the progress so many truly note worthy
women across the years who truly did and do make a difference...she tells us on one side of her face how we need to be unified and she toils along side us...and with the other she has declared herselve as nothing less as the only savior for women kind...how fortunate she also believes shes the only women that can save our children for us as thou along with all our other ignoraances...were not even smart enough to raise our own children...she mocks us with the believe that we are stupid....how alteristic of her im so sure her presidency would pofit only us...please....much more of her and will be unburning our bras and giving back the pill
Why is it that no one is talking about this on other news brodcast is the media being bias for hillary, don't women need to know were their
champion & fighter gets her money.
never mind that she is the only one that has'nt
relesed their tax info.
this race for the next president should be very transparent considering that G.W. has been very
dishonest to the american people for 8 years.
do we really want to start this all over agian
People accuse blacks for voting for Barack because he's black & seem to have a promblem with it, they never stop to think that maybe the reason no one has any dirt on him is because he is telling the truth , wich is what all of us really want.
Its Ok that women vote for hillary because she's
a women & it's looked at upon as alright
because there has never been a woman president
& they should support her on that one reason .
I truly belive that the only way we can move this country forward is to turn the page on all of this lying,arrogancend & bigotry & truly be what we proclaim to be.
I support Obama & I will be glad when he the president But I will be his worst critic If he dos'nt show to be open & honest
Why is it that no one is talking about this on other news brodcast is the media being bias for hillary, don't women need to know were their
champion & fighter gets her money.
never mind that she is the only one that has'nt
relesed their tax info.
this race for the next president should be very transparent considering that G.W. has been very
dishonest to the american people for 8 years.
do we really want to start this all over agian
People accuse blacks for voting for Barack because he's black & seem to have a promblem with it, they never stop to think that maybe the reason no one has any dirt on him is because he is telling the truth , wich is what all of us really want.
Its Ok that women vote for hillary because she's
a women & it's looked at upon as alright
because there has never been a woman president
& they should support her on that one reason .
I truly belive that the only way we can move this country forward is to turn the page on all of this lying,arrogancend & bigotry & truly be what we proclaim to be.
I support Obama & I will be glad when he the president But I will be his worst critic If he dos'nt show to be open & honest
I recorded the debate the other night. When she is lying she looks away and can't hold eye contact. As I rewatched the debate with my wife it became quite clear that she is so desperate to win a vote she will do or say anything to try and fool people. Her healthcare plan should be called a plan for disaster because its all about her, her wallet and her winning. Don't allow yourselves to fall for anything that comes out of this womans mouth or for that matter, her husbands. This country needs a Clinton running our lives about as much as we need another Bush. John McCain, just how many times do you think you need to run and lose before you figure out
this country don't want you either?
Surprised she took the money? ME...not for a second. Anyone that would let a so called friend die in jail covering up her secrets so she didn't go to jail sure as hell don't have the right to be a president. She can't handle her campaign money, shes scared to let anyone see her tax returns she hasn't accomplished a damn thing here in NY and she don't care that her husband was the biggest embarassment to the presidency in history. To me putting Hillary in office could be compared to Raul taking over for Fidel. Things won't change and it will be the same o'l same o'l.
You might want to check into long-time Democratic Bundler and Clinton loyalist Myron Cherry;  He is intimately associated with IPA.  The reality is that with the large number of contributions involved, both campaigns are subject to 'bad actors'; this can't be helped - what matters more, is how the candidates respond once they are made aware of these unsavory donors.  Obama has acted in good faith (e.g. Rezko); Clinton evidently has not.  More is the pity.
Hillary has never been an advocate for sexually harrassed or sexually abused women.  Bill is notorious for sexually harrassing and sexually abusing women throughout his marriage to Hillary.  She did nothing to help these women.  What she did do is tarnish these women's reputation and covered up for Bill.  She is one sorry, selfish, and uncaring dame.  And this is what some of you want in the White House again??  God help us all.  
Hillary should return that money or donate it to charity.  However, since her campaign has had financial problems, she probably doesn't have that money anymore.  With her $35 Million intake from the backs of poor women and other women, she should not only return that money, but from the women she has harvested donations as well.  SHAME ON YOU, HILLARY CLINTON!!
HRC will do anything to be Elected. Sure she took the money. She doesn't care about women, I would like to see a women become President BUT NOT THIS ONE. Pelosi, Boxer anyone but Clinton. She takes money from anyone, that why she wont release the tax returns. If the Clintons have nothing to hide RELEASE THE TAX RETURNS!!!!!
This is a sad day for women across america. Even if they are not guulty, Hillary should have the decency and RESPECT for her fellow women to return the money.  How can her voters respect her and vote for her if she does not respect them. I am tired of the do-anyhting, say-anything type of politics. If there is any fallout from this, I assume she will be running to give the money back. But we will tell her Girl, too little, too late. Now, YOU GO GIRL - AWAY!
Hillary you are so pathetic. This is not the way to be a president; this is not presidential; you through several cheap shot against Obama and this is not fair.
Take the money Hillary , its not proven in court and besides , if the company is guilty then take it even fatser , its punishment :)

And slow your ROLLS Obama lovers....Obama Slapped our girl only so she can PUNCH HIM BACK

As for Texas & Ohio BA-ra-CK OFF!!!!!
If raising 3.5 million in Feb is true, it would seem that giving 170,000 back should be an easy decision to make...after all HRC is a fighter and supposed to be able to make hard decisions at 3am...she really should donate it to a battered womens shelter or something like that instead...maybe she too was too busy running for POTUS.
With a husband that is a predatory rapist, this is no surprise. Go to the internet and pull up the names of three (note the pattern) professional Black women ---Marian wright Edelman, Lani Guinier and Dr Joycelyn Elder---- to see how the Clintons threw them out of the truck without a moments hesitation. These are awful people!
The firm is innocent until proven guilty.  Charges do not always result in a guilty verdict. She is right to keep the funds.

Mark Hudson, San Diego, CA

~~~~~~~

true, innocent until proven guilty.

BUT it is taking the moral road to distance oneself against controversy especially when evidence is daunting. nobody else has any problems returning the money. and it's only 170K which to hillary is like 1700, or is it not? ;)

if she's running fro president and is now desperately appeals to WOMEN votes, playing th gender card, then she has to be well above the high road.
Now this company and then was also Walmart's exploitation of women. More than one instance of supporting mysgonist corporations is a trend in my book. Hillary's myth of identity is getting out of hand. I wonder what other double standards will come to light?
This is very odd.  Besides being very unseemly and unethical, it shows poor judgement and management skills.  Based on her 35 million she raised this month, she could have got that in a couple of hours.  Once this gets out it will undoubtably affect campaign contributions.
Aren't we all so high and mighty!  Sen. Clinton has said that she will review upon a verdict.  What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?  None of us really know what actually happened at this firm.  Let's hold our judgement until there is a finding.
I think campaign donations can be a bit of an issue when they come from individuals from a particular company.  I work for a company and my donations to Senator Obama are personal donations and have nothing to do with my employment.  She should return the donations of anyone accused  of any wrongdoing in this lawsuit.  

With that said, I do wonder why anyone would think that Hillary is an absolute champion of women's causes.  This article reminds me of the sexual harassment accusions of Bill Clinton.  Hillary certainly didn't stand up for Paula Jones and other women who accused her husband of sexual harassment.  They got run over by the Clinton bus.  You can admire Hillary for staying with Bill, but I can't imagine how I would stay with a man who had a 12 year affair, was accused of sexual harassment more than once, and lied about being involved in a sexual relationship with a young intern at the White House.  Most feminists and most women would have been long gone, but she stayed, likely to further her political career.  Hillary is a champion of women when it suits her.  She certainly isn't a champion of women sexually harassed by their boss.
Why is this not a front page story? I think all of America deserves to hear about this! I just happened to stumble across this buried deep on the MSNBC website while looking for something else. Is this a blatant cover-up on MSNBC's part? Even if the allegations are still unsettled, I think Clinton should do the right thing and distance herself from this group altogether, she should reject and denounce them outright, and return every cent of their corporate contributions to her campaign. Obviously the company made contributions by proxy, laundering money to her in the names of  their employees. This in itself is illegal!
Why haven't we heard about this in the Media?  The entire Media is spending their time boosting Hillary for the past week since they seem to think that if they don't the primaries will be over and they will have nothing to cover.
It is always ironic how the news media comes up with these smear headlines to discount what their main agenda are. Why have they not pointed out that Obama who proudly states has no lobbist support his campaign ( "Counterpunch.org) , VP nominee of Nader indicates he has five (5) suppporting his campaign. THe new media especially MSNBC makes me sick they succumb to smear like fox that they proudly compare themselves too, Again I ask who pays MSNBC's checks - we know who pays Fox's. Obama is not going to win as we do not need a liberal on training wheels.
It is always ironic how the news media comes up with these smear headlines to discount what their main agenda are. Why have they not pointed out that Obama who proudly states has no lobbist support his campaign ( "Counterpunch.org) , VP nominee of Nader indicates he has five (5) suppporting his campaign. THe new media especially MSNBC makes me sick they succumb to smear like fox that they proudly compare themselves too, Again I ask who pays MSNBC's checks - we know who pays Fox's. Obama is not going to win as we do not need a liberal on training wheels.
Funny, no other news stations, at least in Boston, have said a peep about this very relevant issue. Who is being 'protected' by the media now?

Hillary can't run a decent campaign how can she possibly run our country? I will quote a very good point that was made in a NewsWeek article now, "The much vaunted Clinton campaign operation, billed as the biggest, baddest game in town, had no post-Super Tuesday strategy because its leaders apparently didn't think one was needed. Whether that's due to arrogance or ignorance, it's the campaign equivalent of what President Bush did in invading Iraq without a post-Saddam plan."
(The entire article "Day of Reckoning" can be found here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/117151)

Hillary's supporters will say that Ms Clift appears to be an Obama supporter and maybe she is but I don't understand how you could not be myself. He has run a far superior campaign, he has brought republicans, independents and all races, genders, ages together to change our country. The people who say that he is just talk have clearly not done due diligence. If you are going to attack someone find out what they have to offer first. He has a very detailed Blueprint for Change (like how Hillary lifted the blueprint term recently) which breaks down his positions and solutions on all of the major issues. It only takes a click to educate yourself before attacking in an uninformed manor as most of Clinton's supporters and Clinton herself have been doing.

I personally am not surprised that Clinton would take money from a company like this. Clinton will do whatever it takes to win, too bad for her the American people know that and are showing that trying to win just to win, at any cost, is not the way to the White House. I guess some supporters of Hillary will say that the ends justify the means, I don't believe so. Whether you like Obama or not again, how you could not like him is beyond me, it seems like sheer stubbornness to me rather than really understanding what he has accomplished. If he can pull all of these people together as a candidate for the nomination think of what he can do in the White House with the members of congress and with other nations. I really liked Clinton but then I did my research thoroughly before making my decision and no the media didn't make me vote for Obama, I read through both of their positions on their websites and I watched their speeches and I looked up some stuff on factcheck.org and I came out of it realizing that they have the same dreams or aspirations for our country and they plan to achieve those dreams in similar ways. I really felt as though Obama wants these things because he cares about us and Hillary wants these things because she thinks it was what we want to hear. I felt that he was far more sincere and is far more interested in ending the bipartisan blockages that keep occurring in our government.

Wow, that was very long, and maybe not as intelligible as it could have been but I'm not going to edit or review it because those are my feelings and thoughts at this very moment. I feel very passionately about Obama and this primary season. It was the first time I'd voted in a primary and although my state chose Hillary I can sleep at night because I know that I voted with my head and not my uterus.
the contributor from Chicago, is right about one thing:  Obama should return that $2000.  After raising $50 mil in February, why does he need it? How does he reach the conclusion that hubby's money is bad, but wifey's isn't? Sounds like a contradiction in his message for change, etc.  It also raises a question to me about the effort made by his people to excuse the issue enough to keep a puny $2000 from one spouse instead of just taking the simple step of returning the whole thing and avoiding all controversy, like Kennedy and Cuomo did.  I also noticed the people who ridiculed Clinton for needing the $170,000 didn't notice the $2000 Obama kept.  It raises another question to me that his judgement over a trivial amount of money may be a sign of how he will handle bigger problems and controversies later. If he can't make a good choice on the small things, how can you trust him on the big things?  However small this may seem, it is still a sign that he plays the same political money grabs and issue equivocations as everybody: he preaches one thing and does another.   The finger pointing at Hillary is understandable based on the amount of money she received.  But Obama's choice is worse because he is the one that set himself up on a pedestal, he established the standard, he claim's he's different ,and when you paint yourself as an ethical and moral leader, then you need to live up to every minute detail. I never asked him to be the agent of change and ethical virtue in Washington, but now that he has told us he is, I will hold him to a higher standard than everyone else.  I consider it extremely poor judgement on his part to set a standard that he can't sustain and place himself in that dangerous position. The Republicans claimed a higher lever of moral superiority and look what happens whenever they're caught violating their own standards.  Watch the small cracks in Obama.  They are starting to show.
This isn't the first time the Clinton's have been in the news for questionable or suspicious contributions and the stories seem to fade into the sunset.  Why doesn't anyone question whether or not we want an ethical person in the White House or do we just believe that to be an oxymoron?  

Also, regarding the 3 AM video, why isn't the media showing Bill Clinton's video from Oct. 2004 where he says: "One of Clinton's laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes. You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."  Obama should use that as his approved message.
I'd really like to get more information on this campaign finance fraud trial that she is involved in CA with whistle-blower Peter Paul.  
After her "reject and denounce" self righteousness it is troubling to think a woman, trying her hardest to exploit the role of women, would not "reject and denounce" such support.  More troubling is that she did not "reject and denounce" her husband, not when he had the affair, but went on TV and Court and lied about it.  That is what Martha Stewart went to prison for, and here he is out campaigning and challenging the integrity of others. Something is wrong when American voters are blinded by the fact she is a woman, the exclusion of all else.
Get a clue! In the days of MONEY & POLITICS (money required to have any chance of election to office), every politician in every state has a blemish(es) on their campaign fundraising. And every evil SOB out there is looking for a way to get what they want by forking over some $$$'s. Put your money where you mouths are by pushing for government funded elections - OH, but then you'd have to fork over some money, which most folks will refuse to do! Can't have it both ways, it's called reality and has been around since DIRT!
Why is the media out to get Hillary? I am sure that every candidate has accepted donations from companies that may be a little shady. The fact is nobody in the company has been proven guilty of doing anything. In America we are innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody has been found guilty, this is kind of a mute point isn't it.
Sad.  She could do more for women's rights by denouncing the firm.  She should at the very least DENOUNCE the firm and REJECT the contributions.  It would be better for her to donate it to a victims of sexual harrassment advocacygroup.
I would  also like to know why msnbc always wants to mislead people?  Look at the title to his story, Senator Clinton accepts donation from troubled firm.............she accepted donations from people who work there, not the firm. This is exactly what everyone is talking about, unfair reporting.  If you want to report, DO IT FAIR......I'm sure if Obama accepted any money from anyone who worked there, you would not report it would  you???:?

HILLARY WILL BE PRESIDENT EVEN WITH THE LOPSISED REPORTING OF MSNBC AND THE REST OF THEM MEDIA.
Trina Sandy Hook, KY
Can the women in TX & OH see this important news about Hillary before going to vote on Tuesday?

Can CNN, MSNBC, Times & other papers report on this issue in detail so that the voters will have the necessary information on Hillary before they puch their valuable vote?
I do not mind if she keeps the money; however, she has no moral authority over other candidates' funds.
Come om people, You just wait to dig up the smallest piece of dirt, You think Obama can do no wrong, I bet if Obama said the earth is flat you would go right along with it. Obama is running for president, NOT AMERICAN IDOL!!!
The timing of this story, and what you're not reporting, is more than suspicious.  In all fairness, and using the same logic as you used in running this story, I'm perplexed why you haven't reported that after Obama admitted Rezkos financial help with his home, while knowing that Rezko was under indictment, that he chose not to return the money and/or the property that Rezko fronted for him?  Or is it just Hillary that is held to a higher standard of ethics?

The Obama supporters remind me of George W. Bush supporters, just as rapid and just as blind.

Hillary all the way.  Obama and his supporters are disgusting.
Why has CNN and Fox News not reported this -- they report everything else.  In my estimation, this impacts what Sen. Clinton's campaign is all about! Feminism and judgement! Give all those females out there supporting Sen. Clinton a chance to make a fair and informed vote in those states like Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont and Pennsylvania. (Saturday, March 1, 2008)
The timing of this story is suspect, released right before the all important contests in Texas and Ohio.  I think MSNBC should explain that.  MSNBC has been the most biased in their reporting of the Democratic race.  I say this even though I am a huge Obama supporter.
Um, 16,000 came from the CEO,   So what?  You trash Clinton as having no Morals,  Obama kept 2,000!!  

If I remember innocent until proven guilty!
It has been 20 years, still innocent.  The investigation has been going on for years.
this is ridiculous and once again shows nbc's bias, at least as far as their news department goes.

let's not forget about rezko and obama.

This is from the same woman who accepted contributions from people associated with a banned terrorist group in Sri Lanka called the LTTE (Just google: Hillary LTTE). Its quite a coincidence that after she accepted money from supporters of the banned LTTE terrorist organization, she actually came out with a statement sympathetic towards terrorism saying how we should "understand" terrorism and how it is simply a "tool" used throughout history. I am a Democrat and I am so utterly disgusted by Hillary Clinton's sleazy campaign and politics. She has no morals. All she cares about is her selfish self. I am so glad the Obama is running and I hope the people in Texas are wise enough to vote for Obama and reject Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as a President, just as George Bush was a disaster. I hope Hillary Clinton stops destroying the Democratic party with her vindictive politics.
NBC at its worst. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. IPA and its workers have not been convicted!
One of your ploys to divert people's attention from what is important. Issues! Issues! Issues!

By God's special grace, your schemes will fail when Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the nominee enroute to becoming the president.

Just like in your debate, you cut Mrs. Clinton off when she was trying to point out that the question asked Mr. Obama was about invading Iraq.

What happened to reporting news fair and balanced.

This is for Mike of Ohio:
You can say the case has been going on 6 years so something must be there!

On the flip side:  It has been 6 years, and they have not been able to go forward with anything, so....
Hello!  Anyone ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?  Besides most of the contribution came from the victims not the company.  If found guilty, HRC should return the $16000 that Burgess personnally gave.
MSNBC loves to tilt the facts to make it sound like Clinton is so so much worst that Obama when she isnt.  Obama and Clinton are the same when it comes to these types of issues.  Resko, etc,  I mean he kept money too! Again this isnt from the company but from people who work there, and this isnt a company that has been found guilty.
I am a Clinton Support, but will vote Obama if have too, but this is  a shame that so many within the Dem Party are attacking Clinton, while they think Obama doesnt partake in the sketchy-ness of politics.  It makes me not want to vote at all.
Why does it matter.  Would you take a millon dollars from a sex offender if he offered it to you with no strings attached (you could use it to fight sex offenses!)  What is sad is how companies (MSNBC) that are obligated to stand neutral and report the news, abuse their public power to slander a great woman with hopes to manipulate the public in a show of support for Obama. MSNBC keep your nose out of politics and just report the news.
This sounds very familiar. Remember that Peter Paul story HRC never admitted or returned to money to?
Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDRaB_ajLhg
Please all you undecided voters and females who are voting for HRC because of "whatever your reasons" I won't attempt to try to figure out why, Please join "THE MOVEMENT" "THE MOVEMENT,OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY "BY THE PEOPLE!
Wow, really necessary front page story...especially when so many have died in Gaza bombings today.  This is the type of pro-Obama slant that MSNBC has lately that is forcing me to look elsewhere for my news.


Send a comment

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

About the blog

Deep Background is NBC News’ investigative blog. It covers national security, terrorism, spies, Iraq, and politics, as well as government waste, fraud and abuse. It is edited by NBC News Senior Investigative Producer Jim Popkin.

Archives


Browse by topic:

Add this blog to your news reader