So it turns out that George Soros' Open Society Institute was helping to subsidize the defense of Lynne Stewart -- the lawyer found guilty of giving aid to Islamic terrorists.

Shouldn't someone be asking Hillary Clinton if she feels that Soros' funding of Stewart was wrong? And how does she feel about using the Soros-subsidized Center for American Progress as her pre-presidential run think tank?

The story matters because, in fact, Lynne Stewart was a traitor. She was found guilty of conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists, defrauding the United States, and making false statements. If that isn't "adhering to [the United States'] enemies, giving them aid and comfort" (U.S. Constitution, Art. III, Section 3), I don't know what is.

The Constitution also says that "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Perhaps that's why she wasn't tried for treason. Even so, apparently prosecutors had Stewart on tape providing cover for an Arab translator as he relayed Islamic [terrorist] Group messages to the group's spirital leader, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. The sheik, of course, is in prison for life, having been convicted in 1995 of conspiracy to bomb bridges, tunnels and other landmark buildings in Manhattan. Please note that his followers were some of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, in a warm-up exercise for 9/11.

What does it say about any Democrats -- especially Hillary Clinton -- who would cozy up to someone subsidizing the defense of a traitor? Is Soros really a bedpartner that the Democrats want?