I am surprised to see this kind of hate article in the Huffington Post. The "lies" Geoffrey Dunn cites are not based on evidence.

In the current investigation I think the issue here is that it costs so much to run for office in the US and especially for President, that candidates have to get as many big contributions as they can just to stay in the race. It is hard to avoid the appearance of influence even is there is no actual influence. WE NEED TO HAVE PUBLIC FINANCING OF ALL PUBLIC OFFICES TO AVOID THIS KIND OF THING. Incidentally Gov. Richardson has tried unsuccessfully to get finance reforms through the legislature here in New Mexico.

Bill Richardson has done much for education, health and the economy in New Mexico, a poverty stricken state that is trying to pull itself up by its bootstraps. He was the only presidential candidate that wanted to get out of Iraq NOW. He would have been better than Hillary for Secretary of State because he is more diplomatic and has less baggage. He speaks Spanish fluently and has lived in a foreign country which means he thinks people in other countries should have rights too.

He's a good fund raiser. He also got contributions from people like me, a retired teacher, who doesn't have that much money but who wanted to see a good man get elected president of the US.

What is the difference between what Bill Richardson is being accused of and Hillary and Bill Clinton? Shouldn't Hillary rescind her nomination offering based on Richardson's precedent?

I'll wait until I see the actual evidence IF Richardson is ever indicted.

More Clintonite whining about the fact that Richardson chose the better candidate instead of the candidate he had worked for in the past.

Shocking as it might seem to my fellow Liberals, being a Democrat does not automatically make a politician above repreach. You are certainly free to defend Bill Richardson but you need to do a better job than some of the nasty, ill-conceived comments printed here. Rather than cherry picking one point from the piece to express your outrage at the reporter, how about an intelligent dissent based on the entirety of his article? Sorry to tell you but, taken as a whole, it's a dead on indictment of a politician who has always been something of an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. It's one thing to exaggerate but this guy has a penchant for making up fantastic tales that are easily disproven. He's a ham-handed opportunist who habitually leads with his "ignorance is bliss" persona. I remember his horrible performance at the HRC Presidential Forum where, in response to a question from Melissa Etheridge, he declared his belief that being gay was something people choose. Etheridge gave him TWO opportunities to clarify his answer and he stood firm...until the backlash hit him like a tornado. Less that 24 hours later he retracted his statement, claiming he didn't understand the question. I'm not sure which is worse, his jaw dropping original answer or his pathetic CYA retraction.