• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What a Guy.

Tam

Well-known member
Bill O'Reilly just had a segment on about the legal fees that Sarah Palin has had to cover because of the phony ethics lawsuits that the wackos from the left have filed against her to bankrupt her and destroy her reputation. The legal fees are racking up fast since the election and are already over $500,000. He told her on air if she started a legal defense fund he would mention it on his show and would also donate $1000 to the cause himself. What a guy!!!!! :)

By the way if Sarah has racked up a half mill in legal fees defending herself from 10 frivolous lawsuits, you have to wonder just how much Obama has racked up defending himself with the Birth Certificate lawsuits. I bet it is more than $12 which is the cost of a copy of his BC. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
YA, BUT--Obama doesn't have to pick up the tab, the AMERICAN TAXPAYERS pay his attorney fees. :mad: :twisted: :mad: :cry:

If I remember right Oldtimer is the one that claimed Obama's legal fees are now paid for by the Tax Payers. BUT if that is true then why did Clintons set up a legal defense fund to help cover his legal fees while in office? :?

Clinton Legal Fund Proves Inadequate; New Effort Sought
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: Wednesday, December 31, 1997
The trustees of President Clinton's legal defense fund said today that they would close their operation because campaign financing controversies and restrictions on the fund had slowed donations to a trickle.

But some friends and advisers of Mr. Clinton have already set about designing a new fund with greater leeway in raising money.

The friends and advisers have been trying to work out the details of establishing some sort of new legal defense fund, one that would have significantly fewer limits on how it could solicit money and how much an individual donor could give.

The new fund would be able to solicit donations actively, unlike the current one, which was prohibited under Federal ethics rulings from publicizing itself or seeking donors.

In addition, the limit for each donor would be raised to $5,000 or $10,000 from $1,000 a year, some of the advisers said today. The fund is likely to be established in the next few months.

The original fund was set up to help cover the legal bills of Mr. Clinton and his wife, Hillary. Now that the fund is going out of business, it will leave the Clintons with unpaid legal expenses totaling nearly $3 million, with expectations that those bills could grow by at least an additional $1 million.

The Presidential Legal Expense Trust, begun in 1994, will be dissolved soon, said Michael H. Cardozo, the executive director of the fund and one of its trustees. It will not accept any checks dated after Wednesday, Dec. 31, he said.

Mr. Cardozo told reporters today that the trustees believed the steep decline in donations was ''due in large measure to the political climate which prevails today, with numerous highly publicized campaign finance related investigations.''

He acknowledged that the legal defense fund was hurt by revelations that it had been offered, but declined to accept, more than $639,000 in questionable donations solicited by Yah Lin Trie, a former Arkansas restaurateur and longtime friend of Mr. Clinton. Mr. Trie has been a prominent figure in some of the campaign finance scandals.

Although no one suggested that the defense fund did anything improper, its officials found themselves testifying before a grand jury and Congressional committees about those donations. As a result, the fund set up for the Clintons' defense was obliged to spend tens of thousands of dollars on its own legal defense.

''The notoriety associated with that incident had a chilling effect on contributions to the trust fund,'' Mr. Cardozo said.

But Mr. Cardozo also noted that the fund was hampered by a ruling of the Office of Government Ethics, which prohibited any fund official from soliciting donations. He said that because the fund was unable to publicize its mission, people who might have given did not even know of the fund's existence.

As a result, he said, the trustees concluded that the ''donations dwindled to a point where it was futile to continue the trust.''

Advisers to Mr. Clinton have said that the ruling from the Government ethics office, a semi-independent agency within the Executive branch, was based on the legal structure of the current fund with Mr. and Mrs. Clinton as the initial grantors to the fund. The ethics office ruled that the fund, its trustees and officers were, in effect, extensions of the Clintons themselves and thus were bound by the same restrictions barring them from making direct solicitations.

''Everybody else who has set up a defense fund has made it a freestanding, independent body,'' said an adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The adviser said that the new fund would be freestanding and thus avoid the prohibition on solicitation. But the adviser cautioned that any fund would retain the same prohibitions as the current one against accepting donations from lobbyists, Government officials, foreigners and political action committees.

Mr. Cardozo said there was deep regret among the trustees that they could not completely pay Mr. Clinton's legal bills. In the past three years, the legal defense fund took in $1.3 million and paid legal bills totaling $766,134, mostly related to the Whitewater investigation by the special prosecutor, Kenneth W. Starr.

To demonstrate how donations have been falling, Mr. Cardozo said that the fund received $199,279 in the first six months of 1996, and $62,065 in the second six months of that year. In contrast, it took in only $79,000 in the first 11 months of 1997.

The White House issued a statement from Mr. Clinton expressing his gratitude to the trustees and the fund's co-chairmen, The Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach and the 9,292 contributors.

He added that, ''In light of the trustees decision to dissolve the trust, we have asked the Counsel's office to advise us concerning the ethical and legal requirements that would govern any future efforts to address both the substantial legal fees already accumulated and those that will be generated by the need for ongoing representation.''

In addition to any money the Clintons could receive from a new fund, Mr. Clinton would be free to raise money directly and in unlimited amounts once he leaves office. As President he may not accept such gifts nor can he even accept free legal services.

Most of the payments from the defense fund went to the law firm of Williams & Connolly, which has represented Mr. Clinton in matters involving Whitewater and, more recently, issues involving political fund-raising.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/31/us/clinton-legal-fund-proves-inadequate-new-effort-sought.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Clinton,%20Bill
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Tam said:
Bill O'Reilly just had a segment on about the legal fees that Sarah Palin has had to cover because of the phony ethics lawsuits that the wackos from the left have filed against her to bankrupt her and destroy her reputation. The legal fees are racking up fast since the election and are already over $500,000. He told her on air if she started a legal defense fund he would mention it on his show and would also donate $1000 to the cause himself. What a guy!!!!! :)

By the way if Sarah has racked up a half mill in legal fees defending herself from 10 frivolous lawsuits, you have to wonder just how much Obama has racked up defending himself with the Birth Certificate lawsuits. I bet it is more than $12 which is the cost of a copy of his BC. :wink:

She's spent half a million on 10 suits and how many suits has Obama been in and still is involved in? I think this is the SMOKING GUN.
 

TSR

Well-known member
One thing O'Reilly needs to do is take a lesson from Lou Dobbs. When you are reading viewers e-mails, just read those that require no response. Its not hardly living up to Fox's alledged "Fair and balanced policy" for O'reilly to respond in a negative way to an e-mail knowing the author has no rebuttal. Yep, What a guy, "fair and balanced"? :???:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
TSR said:
One thing O'Reilly needs to do is take a lesson from Lou Dobbs. When you are reading viewers e-mails, just read those that require no response. Its not hardly living up to Fox's alledged "Fair and balanced policy" for O'reilly to respond in a negative way to an e-mail knowing the author has no rebuttal. Yep, What a guy, "fair and balanced"? :???:

He seldom responds to ALL...just those that deserve it whether he agrees or disagrees. If he disagrees he's entitled to give "the other side" which I would say "balances it out".
 

TSR

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
TSR said:
One thing O'Reilly needs to do is take a lesson from Lou Dobbs. When you are reading viewers e-mails, just read those that require no response. Its not hardly living up to Fox's alledged "Fair and balanced policy" for O'reilly to respond in a negative way to an e-mail knowing the author has no rebuttal. Yep, What a guy, "fair and balanced"? :???:

He seldom responds to ALL...just those that deserve it whether he agrees or disagrees. If he disagrees he's entitled to give "the other side" which I would say "balances it out".

"Just those that deserve it" in his opinion. And the ones where he can defend himself without rebuttal which takes out the balance. Do his guests get to respond numerous times? Yes. So I stand by what I said, he could take a lesson from Lou.
 

Tam

Well-known member
TSR said:
TexasBred said:
TSR said:
One thing O'Reilly needs to do is take a lesson from Lou Dobbs. When you are reading viewers e-mails, just read those that require no response. Its not hardly living up to Fox's alledged "Fair and balanced policy" for O'reilly to respond in a negative way to an e-mail knowing the author has no rebuttal. Yep, What a guy, "fair and balanced"? :???:

He seldom responds to ALL...just those that deserve it whether he agrees or disagrees. If he disagrees he's entitled to give "the other side" which I would say "balances it out".

"Just those that deserve it" in his opinion. And the ones where he can defend himself without rebuttal which takes out the balance. Do his guests get to respond numerous times? Yes. So I stand by what I said, he could take a lesson from Lou.

Most if not all emails are send to voice an opinion on something he has said on his show so he has his say and then the viewers have their say, does he not have the right to rebuttal? If they or you don't agree with the way he runs his email section then you or they have the right to email again or not email him at all since you know how the show works. Since he has been number one for 100 months I doubt he has to take lessons from Lou or anyone else. :wink: :lol:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
TSR said:
TexasBred said:
TSR said:
One thing O'Reilly needs to do is take a lesson from Lou Dobbs. When you are reading viewers e-mails, just read those that require no response. Its not hardly living up to Fox's alledged "Fair and balanced policy" for O'reilly to respond in a negative way to an e-mail knowing the author has no rebuttal. Yep, What a guy, "fair and balanced"? :???:

He seldom responds to ALL...just those that deserve it whether he agrees or disagrees. If he disagrees he's entitled to give "the other side" which I would say "balances it out".

"Just those that deserve it" in his opinion. And the ones where he can defend himself without rebuttal which takes out the balance. Do his guests get to respond numerous times? Yes. So I stand by what I said, he could take a lesson from Lou.

Seems balanced to me, they get their one say in the email, and then he gets his one say in response to it. How more balanced can you get everyone got one say? :?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
TSR said:
TexasBred said:
He seldom responds to ALL...just those that deserve it whether he agrees or disagrees. If he disagrees he's entitled to give "the other side" which I would say "balances it out".

"Just those that deserve it" in his opinion. And the ones where he can defend himself without rebuttal which takes out the balance. Do his guests get to respond numerous times? Yes. So I stand by what I said, he could take a lesson from Lou.

Seems balanced to me, they get their one say in the email, and then he gets his one say in response to it. How more balanced can you get everyone got one say? :?

Sounds almost like the presidential debates...you talk, I respond, time kills the whole discussion.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Who is Lou Dobbs? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink: :p

Lou is the true "fair and balanced" broadcater on CNN/HLN. You should tune in sometimes, you might just learn something from a broadcaster who wasn't afraid to criticize his own boss on national tv. That says somehting for Lou imo,whether you agree with him or not or his criticism. I also believe he is the one when his show was aired opposite Glen Beck, it wasn't long before Glen was off the air at that time for some reason. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Larrry said:
I suppose that if one doesn't like the way Bill does his show they can shut the tv off.

It totally amazes me how many people will b*tch about Bill and call him nasty names when all they have to do is CHANGE THE CHANNAL or Shut off the TV. :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Faster horses said:
Who is Lou Dobbs? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink: :p

Lou is the true "fair and balanced" broadcater on CNN/HLN. You should tune in sometimes, you might just learn something from a broadcaster who wasn't afraid to criticize his own boss on national tv. That says somehting for Lou imo,whether you agree with him or not or his criticism. I also believe he is the one when his show was aired opposite Glen Beck, it wasn't long before Glen was off the air at that time for some reason. :wink:

Lou Dobbs is the one that said:

Lou Dobbs
"Every American’s individual rights and freedoms are under assault. Instead of upholding the Bill of Rights and defending this country’s most precious and individual freedoms, the Obama administration is waging an all-out war against them. This administration is trampling all over fundamental American rights, from freedom of speech to gun ownership, both enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the First and Second Amendments to our constitution." To see our full report on this issue click here. We want to hear from you! Submit your iReports and become a part of the conversation on Lou Dobbs Tonight.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
TSR said:
Faster horses said:
Who is Lou Dobbs? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink: :p

Lou is the true "fair and balanced" broadcater on CNN/HLN. You should tune in sometimes, you might just learn something from a broadcaster who wasn't afraid to criticize his own boss on national tv. That says somehting for Lou imo,whether you agree with him or not or his criticism. I also believe he is the one when his show was aired opposite Glen Beck, it wasn't long before Glen was off the air at that time for some reason. :wink:

The numbers disagree:

The top ten programs for Q1 are listed below — incidentally, the same order held for March 2009.

Top 10 Cable News Programs, Q1 2009 (by total viewers)
1. The O'Reilly Factor: 3,438,000 total viewers
2. Hannity: 2,579,000 total viewers
3. Glenn Beck: 2,271,000 total viewers
4. Special Report with Bret Baier: 2,092,000 total viewers
5. On the Record with Greta Van Susteren: 1,977,000 total viewers
6. The FOX Report with Shepard Smith: 1,927,000 total viewers
7. The O'Reilly Factor (repeat): 1,457,000 total viewers
8. America's Newsroom: 1,445,000 total viewers
9. Your World with Neil Cavuto: 1,428,000 total viewers
10. Countdown with Keith Olbermann: 1,327,000 total viewers
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
TSR said:
Faster horses said:
Who is Lou Dobbs? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink: :p

Lou is the true "fair and balanced" broadcater on CNN/HLN. You should tune in sometimes, you might just learn something from a broadcaster who wasn't afraid to criticize his own boss on national tv. That says somehting for Lou imo,whether you agree with him or not or his criticism. I also believe he is the one when his show was aired opposite Glen Beck, it wasn't long before Glen was off the air at that time for some reason. :wink:

Lou Dobbs is the one that said:

Lou Dobbs
"Every American’s individual rights and freedoms are under assault. Instead of upholding the Bill of Rights and defending this country’s most precious and individual freedoms, the Obama administration is waging an all-out war against them. This administration is trampling all over fundamental American rights, from freedom of speech to gun ownership, both enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the First and Second Amendments to our constitution." To see our full report on this issue click here. We want to hear from you! Submit your iReports and become a part of the conversation on Lou Dobbs Tonight.

Yep and he said similar (maybe worse) things about the previous administration's attacks on the constitution. I can't say I disagree with him on either account but I have yet to see anything passed by Congress yet have you?
On Meet the Press this Sunday President Obama was asked if the US should do something legislatively about all the guns entering Mexico via the border from the US that were going to the cartels? He replied that he thought more personel was the right way to address this problem, not through legislation regarding guns.
 

Mike

Well-known member
On Meet the Press this Sunday President Obama was asked if the US should do something legislatively about all the guns entering Mexico via the border from the US that were going to the cartels? He replied that he thought more personel was the right way to address this problem, not through legislation regarding guns.

He really had no other choice but to say this. When his AG floated the trial balloon over limiting guns to help Mexico it created an outrage.

In other words..........he Flip-Flopped. Again...... :lol: :lol:
 
Top