Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyRoger
Besides, it isn't bad new for Republicans, who have every reason to believe they will enjoy generous support from foreign corporations, just as they expect to bank millions of fresh crisp dollars from American corporate interests. Although they will sometimes scream about alleged or imagined foreign donations to Democrats, as some of them did in 2008, their own party’s record in soliciting support from dubious sources abroad is real, and worse.
|
Well Hillary must have gotten the heads up on this decision and didn't ever get the memo it was only good for Republicans!
The titular head of the Clintonistas now running the State Department together with Janet Napolitano at Department of Homeland Security somehow don’t see the perpetrator of the crime which lead to the largest fine in FEC history as a “criminal guilty of a crime of moral turpitude” which would bar him from travel to the US! Of course the Obamunists; know nothing, nothing!
”Last year, however, the Indonesian mogul finally made it to Arkansas. He traveled there during the first of two previously unreported trips he made in 2009 to the United States. He was allowed in only after receiving a waiver from a rule that forbids entry to foreigners guilty of "a crime involving moral turpitude," a term that government lawyers generally interpret to include fraud.
Riady's return to the United States poses a prickly question for Hillary Clinton's State Department: How and why did a foreign billionaire stained by Clinton-era scandals get a U.S. visa after being kept out for so long under the Bush administration?
The saga brought Riady and his family-run conglomerate, Lippo Group, an $8.6 million fine, the biggest penalty in the history of U.S. campaign finance violations.
The question of whether Riady would be able to return to the United States was first raised in 2000 during plea bargain negotiations. As part of the plea agreement, Riady agreed not to seek entry for two years. Riady, in his e-mail, said the lead prosecutor in the case, Daniel O'Brien, wrote a letter that "specifically stated that my crime was NOT moral turpitude." A copy of the letter on file with the Los Angeles court, however, includes no such statement by O'Brien. It notes only that the businessman might need a waiver if "the appropriate authorities determine that Riady has committed a crime of moral turpitude." The letter records that Riady had informed the U.S. government that he might seek to visit America in the future "for business or personal reasons" and says the businessman could use the letter to support an application for a waiver if he complies with the terms of the plea agreement.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010403106.html
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2001/January/017crm.htm