I guess all the info below happened after the hiatus I took on August 26th . However, I see that my last Richardson post is still up on Daily Puma. So maybe Alessandro will supplant it with this.
On March 22nd , 2008, Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama For President.
In August of that year a Federal Grand Jury probe began. December’s report of the Grand Jury investigation into a Pay for Play scheme involving Bill Richardson made the investigation known to us outside the mighty wheels of DC.
Then, In January 2009 Richardson announced he was withdrawing his name from consideration of the Commerce Secretary’s Position.
Lastly, August 27th 2009, the Justice Department announced that they were dropping the probe due to insufficient evidence. See USAToday’s report HERE.
Now it seems to me that anyone with half a Republican brain would be able to anticipate by August of 2008 that there was a good chance that the Republicans would lose the election. That being the case, the likelihood that there would changes in the Dept of Justice was pretty strong. Therefore, it was also likely that certain cases would receive might be subject to another review. So why initiate the probe at all? Was there really evidence and the Obama Administration is covering up as Sean Hannity suggests? Or is a closer truth that the previous administration, and/or right wing hotheads planned this?
From a Republican point of view it’s a win-win. Get Richardson out of any cabinet position (They had to know he would have been considered for Commerce.) blame the Democrats at the same time, and stain Richardson’s reputation.
I still don’t like the Richardson for what he did to HRC and ultimately how we wound up with Obama. Even so, in the matter of pay for play, in our justice system, he is an innocent man.
Grab and Keel 
stain Richardson’s reputation? Do you understand how much damage the muni-bond scandal has done? By the way Larry Langford down in Alabama just got convicted in 60 counts for the same type of influence peddling between financial groups and CDR financial products. Additionally the company at the heart of the Richardson scandal (CDR) just had its top three executives charged by the DOJ.
http://46in08.blogspot.com/search/label/CDR%20Muni-Bond%20Scandal
LikeLike
Here is the DOJ’s, CDR indictment announcement dated Oct 29th 2009
Financial Products and Services Firm, Two Executives, and One Former Executive Indicted for Roles in Conspiracies Involving Proceeds of Municipal Bonds
http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/nyfo102909a.htm
I see no references to possible partners in crime such as Richardson. The crimes are alleged to be been committed between “approximately 1998 and a least 2006”. The 2006 date parallels the time of the FBI’s CDR’s office raid.
As you can see, the CDR indictment was two months after the DOJ’s dismissal of the Richardson probe. So they must have enough evidence from another direction.
Therefore, at this point, unless some new information arrives, I have to return to the speculation that other forces were at work during the election. The whole thing smacks of what the right tried to do with the Clintons and the endless probing.
If you want me to agree with you regarding the inequities of political funding I will. I was the first one in an LA times blog last year to label the DNC/Obama “Grassroots” contributions as big business “Astroturf.
Unfortunately, until the campaign contributions system is rectified yet again, as well as the grip political parties have over have votes are managed in the states this won’t happen.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Politics/story?id=6586275&page=1
Indictment versus end of probe, scandal possibly created by other forces, conviction versus innuendo and suspicion. So let’s see, do I understand?
LikeLike
Just in case anybody needs to find dailypuma, it’s http://www.dailypuma.com
LikeLike