I don't know about the "qid pro quo".( poet and don't realize it!:-)
But that needs to be looked at for what's stated about Slick, too. Fair enough?
I'm not sure who is the bigger fraud, the author of the article or the individual who posted it.
I won't quibble about the "Jr." even though it's wrong, but two gross errors in the same sentence makes the whole "hit piece" intensely suspect and easy for me to reject in it's entirety.
In 1988, Daddy Bush, the 41st was running against Dukakkis and "W" wasn't governor! Maw Richards was!!!
Honest to goodness, do you self annointed purists, obsessive cynics and obnoxious Liberaltarians actually think a candidate, or their volunteers can afford to be so picky that they can hire private investigators to research all the dirty laundry of each and every possible contributor?
The few hundred thousand contributed by this entity was a drop in the bucket compared to the millions "W" raised in a relatively short time. At least he didn't rob a reservation of poor Indians in El Reno, OK and then have his Secretary of Interior turn around and screw them out of any kind of consideration for their money.
Democrats have always believed, as Jesse Unruh of CA once said: "If you can't take their money, drink their booze, screw their women and still vote against 'em, you're in the wrong business!" At least Republicans do legitimate things to make government more business friendly to provide legitimate employment for alla yew union, purists, cynics and annoying gripers that keep borrowing this pap from the Demonicrats, trying to support moral equivalence when there is NONE!!!
(/ranting & raving)(grin)
No doubt there will be congressional hearings on why Enron self-imploded. You can be assured that any malfeasance by Clinton related to Enron will NOT be investigated. Besides, there is nothing in this article that would indicate anything illegal was done by Clinton or Bush. Nothing here but innuendo, IMHO. It's a smear job, nothing more.