Based upon the information provided, I don't see what the crime was....In a limited partnership, there is a gen. partner and limited partners
Perhaps you need to read it again. The PENSION FUND put up the money. There is no mention of debt, thus, there is no liability for a general to be liable for. Whether McAuliffe was a general or a limited is unknown, but it doesn't matter -- the only difference between a general and a limited partner is the nature and extent of debt one is liable for; in this case, no debt, no liability. The Pension Fund put up the money.
Perhaps you're a little inexperienced. But I'm not; I've handled hundreds of real estate transactions. I can assure you that for a man to put up $100 and get back $2.45 million, SOMETHING happened under the table. No question about it. It is the same nasty, reeking deal that Hillary got with the commodity transaction. BTW, nowhere was it indicated that McAuliffe was a general while the other guys were limiteds
Frankly, this is typical of a liberal. Because the transaction appears in form to be legal, they assume it IS legal. But the law often looks not at the form of a transaction but at its substance. This deal stinks, and we're going to see more about it (IF the liberal media has an ounce of backbone about them).
However, there is an important point made in the article by the DNC person......Bush is president and that's a considerably more important position than the rep. from New York. |
