Report: Democratic congressional nominee bounced checks to Biden, state party

Christopher Hale, a candidate for the 4th Congressional District who won the Democratic nomination despite fraud allegations dating back to his time as the head of a Catholic nonprofit in Washington, bounced checks to presidential candidate Joe Biden and the state party, according to the Tennessee Lookout.

According to Lookout reporter Nate Rau, Hale bounced a $2,000 check to attend a Biden fundraiser last year. Another $2,500 to the Tennessee Democratic Party didn’t clear in July 2019. Haile issued a series of denials about failing to cover his checks. He told the Lookout he had been invited to the Biden fundraiser by host Bill Freeman without being required to pay. He said he was unaware of a problem with the check to the state party.

After losing a previous bid for the Democratic nomination in the 4th District, Hale proposed launching a political action committee to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to support campaigns. While he did found the Our Tennessee PAC, it has since shown no fundraising activity, according to campaign finance reports.

State Rep. Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville) said Hale told her he planned to raise between $150,000 and $200,000.

“He told me, and he told a lot of people, he was going to raise all this money and he never did,” shesaid.

Read the full report here.

9 Responses to Report: Democratic congressional nominee bounced checks to Biden, state party

  • Avatar
    Stuart I. Anderson says:

    It seems in Mr. Hale the Democrats have a nominee where the personal so perfectly reflects the political. A perfect throwaway candidate good for illustrative purposes. Thankfully House Freedom Caucus member the great Rep. Scott DesJarlais (Heritage-87%) will be going back to the House where in the current congressional term he has a Heritage score of 100% – PERFECT!

  • Avatar
    Scherry Fouke says:

    Mr. Anderson, your remarks are not only unnecessary, they are, sadly, a reflection of unwelcome rhetoric.

    Mr. Hale is not a suitable candidate for office. His background and the report of his behavior in this article are enough to pull back his candidacy and wait for some resolution. I say this as a Democrat who, like most in our party, seeks integrity in a candidate. That is all that needs to be said.

    What is more unsettling is that your remarks reveal only too clearly the danger of projecting onto someone else, the charges of which one is also guilty. Namely, your personal reflects your political and your political reflects your personal, also.

    You lift up Representative Scott DesJarlais as being great, as going back to the House and as having a Heritage score in the current term of 100%.

    I live in East Tennessee and have nothing to do with Dr. DesJarlais, yet I am well aware of his history and of the numerous charges made against him, all of which were (and continue to be) deeply serious. When brought to light, Dr. DesJarlais cried that he had a change of heart and that God had forgiven him… and he was elected. Is that all that was required of him to become a suitable candidate for elected office? And would you grant Mr. Hale the same grace? or mercy? or forgiveness?

    Dr. DesJarlais was not a suitable candidate for public office and is not now a suitable candidate for office. He should not have been allowed to go forward as a “candidate good for illustrative purposes.”

    But beyond that and more egregious to me, you would hold up a Heritage score as a marker of perfection?? Sir, that tells the rest of us about the relationship between your personal and your political.

    For those of us who do not regard the Heritage Foundation or the scorecard of its sister group, Heritage Action for America, as the rule of what is best for this country, your measuring stick is also a “perfect throwaway, good for illustrative purposes” and serves to reveal where your personal and political agenda rests.

    For most in this country, the Constitution and its Amendments provide the authority for making judgments about matters political. It begins, “we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…” Those words carry far more weight than does the Heritage Foundation.

    If you should choose to read the Preamble a few times and allow yourself time to reflect on it, I think you will find in the Preamble and subsequent amendments, governing authority, a vision for the country, a confession of the need for continuing to seek ongoing perfection in union and…lastly, it provides processes for deciding what is best for the country. Outranks the Heritage Foundation in all areas, don’t you think?

    • Avatar
      Stuart I. Anderson says:

      The libertarian in me makes me unusually slow to critique other people’s personal lives, most especially regarding alleged transgressions that occurred a long time ago. Insofar as Mr. Hale allegedly committed felonies the conservative in me would like to see him charged, tried and if convicted go to jail for a sufficient length of time so as to serve as a deterrent to others tempted to commit the same felonies. No “. . .grace or mercy or forgiveness” on my part is needed and if and when he serves his time I will be happy to consider his candidacy if he at least runs as a Republcan .

      The bottom line to all of this Scherry is that we are electing in this case a legislator, not an intimate friend, roommate, spouse, preacher, or religious icon. It’s sort of like hiring an electrician or a plumber. Can they do the job is the only question. The “job” in this case is simply saying “Yay” when legislation is needed and “Nay” when it’s not. I am a conservative so I obviously want a legislator who will view legislation with a small government federalist worldview and vote accordingly. Heritage Action, The Club For Growth, American Conservative Union simply keep score. The modern day Scott DesJarlais obviously is a happily married man with a voting record that shows that he takes that worldview very seriously in his deliberations so I am happy to be one of his ardent supporters and the fact that the liberal Democrats have almost no chance whatsoever disturbing his time in office no matter the personal rectitude of their nominee.

      • Avatar
        MARLE says:

        If you re-read your last paragraph…..the answer is a resounding “NO”. Nothing supersedes a Heritage, ACU and/or Club for Growth Score for Stuart.

        You must be new around these parts as the saying goes.

    • Avatar
      Donna Locke says:

      Scherry, U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais is a more than suitable candidate for office. He said he would go to Congress and do certain things and vote a certain way, and he has done that. He is my congressman. I am independent and hold views and beliefs different from Scott’s on a number of issues, but in terms of my triaged priorities, such as immigration control, he is way good enough to send back to Washington.

    • Avatar
      Perry Aubric says:

      Cherry, Stuart is a pathetic partisan jerk whose only interest in life and politics is getting more money in his own pocket and to hell with everyone else, especially anyone a different color or poor.

  • Avatar
    Michael Lottman says:

    Sounds like the old Democratic circular firing squad to me. I thought he would have been a
    great state chair.

  • Avatar
    Phil Lassiter says:

    How about an article on Cameron Sexton and Glen Casada’s attempt to do away with the electoral college a few years ago? I remember I was a volunteer reporter for a conservative website when the Tepublican caucus revolted against them for the effort It’s timely in subject matter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *