Hillary (Clinton) Just as Dirty as Bill (Clinton)
The Clintons are quite something. No wonder they got married. They’re two peas in a pod.
WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton’s campaign couldn’t explain yesterday why it blew off warnings about felon-turned-fund-raiser Norman Hsu – and the Daily News learned FBI agents are collecting e-mail evidence in the widening scandal.
Clinton was forced Monday to give back a whopping $850,000 raised by convicted scam artist Hsu after learning his investment ventures were being probed by the FBI as a potential Ponzi scheme.
She earlier gave to charity $23,000 Hsu donated himself after reports revealed he fled sentencing for a $1 million scam in California in 1992.
Yesterday, the campaign insisted it did all it should to vet Hsu after California businessman Jack Cassidy warned in June that Hsu’s investment operation was fishy. Cassidy e-mailed his tips to the California Democratic Party, which forwarded them to the Clinton campaign.
Cassidy did not want to talk about the case, saying he doesn’t want to jeopardize the FBI’s efforts. But he wants Hsu prosecuted. He told The News that Hsu was a reverse Robin Hood – “a hood robbin’ the poor to give to the rich.”
His warning “prompted a search of publicly available information, which did not reveal Mr. Hsu’s decade-plus-old warrant,” said Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson. He would not say why the campaign didn’t follow up on specifics Cassidy included to explain his suspicions.
“They knew [about Hsu], and they knew back in June,” a source told The News.
But are they really going to give the money back? Not a chance. Check out this convoluted quasi-money laundering scheme the Clintonites have come up with.
[N]ine months into her campaign, Mrs. Clinton is grappling with exactly the situation she feared — giving up nearly $900,000 that had been donated or raised by Norman Hsu, a one-time fugitive and one of her top fund-raisers, whose actions raise serious questions about how well the campaign vetted its donors. As a result, Mrs. Clinton now finds herself linked to a convicted criminal who brought in tens of thousands of dollars from potentially tainted sources.
The campaign is refunding $850,000 to these donors, viewing the money as tainted. Yet the campaign is also risking another public relations mess by saying that it would take back the money if it clearly came from the donor’s bank account, not from Mr. Hsu or another source. The risk is that Mrs. Clinton will appear to want more cash no matter whether it was once colored by a disgraced donor.
The campaign will try to get most of the donors to give the money back right after the refunds, said a senior Democratic strategist who advises Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. “That’s the plan,” the strategist said.
So let me get this straight:
Hsu wants to give the Clintons more money than is allowed by law. He gives the money to numerous donors who then take it and give it to the Clintons. The Clintons realize that it’s “tainted” money, so they give it back to the donors. You know, the same donors that shouldn’t have had it to begin with? Now she wants to turn around and get the money back. Money that she should never have had.
See-Dubya over at Michelle Malkin’s blog says it well:
If the worry is that Hsu was using at least some of these people as fronts so that he could exceed the federal limits on how much he could donate to Hillary, then how will the money be any less tainted if they re-gift it to her? I.e., if Hsu cuts John Doe a check for $100,000 and asks him to spread it around among Democrats A-Z, then giving that money back to John so that he can give it right back to you doesn’t “cleanse” it. It’s Hsu’s money; John never should have had it in the first place. If you donate the money to charity and then hit John up for a donation from his own bank account, that’s fine. But that ain’t what she’s planning to do. Exit question: Why not at least wait until the DOJ investigation of Hsu’s bundled donations is over so you know which donors are clean and which aren’t?
I almost wrote that this was unbelievable, but you know what, it really isn’t. These are the Clintons we are dealing with.
Original links:
Clinton Sees Fear Realized in Trouble With Donor.
Team Clinton can’t explain ignoring warnings on Hsu.
Hillary was warned about Hsu.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I THINK IT WOULD BE SAD IF HILLARY CLINTON WAS NOMINATED AS PRESIDENT, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WOMAN. SOME MUSLIMS WILL NOT EVEN GAZE UPON A WOMAN WHEN SHE IS SPEAKING DIRECTLY, THEREFORE, A MAN SHOULD BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT GIVEN THE FACT OF THE SITUATION IN THE WORLD.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
That is the silliest logic I think I’ve ever heard, Donna…
September 14th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Jason,
Explain to us why this is the “silliest logic” you’ve ever heard.
I’m looking forward to the “logic” you use as you try to explain away the way women are viewed and treated in Islamic countries.
Go ahead…I’m waiting…
September 14th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
This isn’t about how women are viewed in Islamic countries–it’s about *not* voting for someone based on how they may be viewed by other countries–employing Donna’s logic, we should really be voting for a communist president, as they would be better at dealing with N. Korea and China! Or perhaps we should vote for a Muslim as president to better deal with the terrorist threats from Muslim extremists? (I can imagine the headlines I’d read here then: “Extremist in White House: End Times Just Around Corner!!”) I mean, I’m sure Donna certainly wouldn’t have voted for a Jew in WWII era, would she? Think of how Hitler viewed them!!
Need I spell out the silliness more?
September 14th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Can I just say that I dont think Hillary should not be president simply because she is a woman. I think she should not be president because she has a history of lying and cheating (not to mention the people who have died because of dealings that involved her). She is a Socialist at heart. All these things AND the fact that Bill would be First um, First……. Man?
September 14th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
LOL!! Well, I think they’d most likely call him the “First Husband” or “First Gentlemen,” or whatever they can think of that roles off the tongue much like “Fist Lady.”
She does have some socialististic flairs, I’ll agree on that. I’m not so sure about the lying and cheating (at least, no more than we perceive any politician to be guilty of these things…), but at least that’s a bit more concrete than basing a vote on what other types of goverments operate in the world…
September 17th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Jason,
You dodged Donna comment. She said:
“I THINK IT WOULD BE SAD IF HILLARY CLINTON WAS NOMINATED AS PRESIDENT, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WOMAN.”
Can you deny that in the majority of Muslims countries, women are looked down on, suppressed and in many cases, treated as property?
Can you guarantee that in our current situation or terrorism against everything American, that the Islamic world will not perceive a country run by a woman as even “weaker” than they currently see us and act according in their dealing with us?
Can you say without a doubt that despite what the leadership of these countries say to her face that within the population, this would be just another rally point for hating us?
I think you cannot. Donna makes a valid point and you counter with your famous “apples to oranges” logic.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I did no such thing–you asked to explain what I thought was silly–I did so.
In regards to how women are treated in Muslim countries–yes, they are treated badly in most respects, and lack a lot of basic human right which people must continue to be made aware of and fight against.
A woman leader in a free nation would have more empathy with these plights, have better connections for such causes as she has a vested interest as a leader of free women, and would be better able to meet these challenges (IMHO) than any man could.
Further, I could give two craps if they thought we looked “weaker” in their eyes–looking strong in their eyes hasn’t exactly gotten us anywhere anyway, has it? If they underestimate women, a woman leader has a much better chance of showing them up. Additionally, many Muslim leaders meet with the female leaders of other countries all the time–they recognize the fact that they need to regardless of the leader’s gender if they wish to get anything accomplished on a global scale (such as getting imports and exports to market, oil revenues…)
Big whoopie if the Muslims see a woman as “weaker.” What better way to prove them wrong than by showing them she isn’t? If they miss the point, that’s their issue which we will continue to meet and fight against (though dare I say, not necessarily with a war).
And no one can say anything without a doubt when it comes to the future and what may or may not happen–we can only make an educated best guess–and I dare say, to NOT vote for a woman simply because she is a woman is sexism at its worst. To say a woman can’t be tough on terrorism, or stand up to extremists, is Donna’s own short-sided, small-faithed view of women as leaders…
I, on the other hand, know a strong leader has nothing to dowith what is (or isn’t) between one’s legs. It’s an inner strength, a part of one’s character, that makes a great leader. Most people recognize a good leader when they see one (whether or not they agree with said leader’s stance…), and adjust accordingly. The leaders of Muslim countries may play to their countries stereotypes with propaganda or what-have-you, but they do–and would–meet with the leader of the United States no matter what their gender…
As a side note, Condi Rice meets with Arab leaders all the time–and she’s a woman… Would you say we have been hampered by having her a secretary of state (regardless of whether one agrees with W’s objectives)?