What About The Other $977,000?
Hillary's 2 Percent Solution
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Democratic presidential wannabee, Hillary Clinton, will donate to charity $23,000 of the contributions she has received from her fugitive fundraiser.
Why only $23,000? The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] reports that Hillary's fugitive fundraiser, also known as Norman Hsu, has raised over $1 million for Hillary's Presidential campaign:
Beyond his $23,000 in personal contributions to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hsu had raised well over $1 million for the New York senator's presidential campaign, making him one of her top 20 "bundlers.
As recently as Tuesday, Hillary's campaign was touting Hsu's integrity saying, "there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question."
After the Los Angeles Times reported that Hsu pleaded no contest to a grand theft charge, agreed to accept up to three years in prison, failed to show up for a sentencing hearing, and then disappeared, Hillary changed her tune. At least she changed her tune for 2 percent of the money Hsu raised for Hillary.
I don't get it. All of the money raised by Hillary's fugitive fundraiser is equally tainted. The entire $1 million should be given to charity, not just 2 percent of the funds raised by Hsu. Maybe Hillary is consulting with Al Gore, who remains unaware of any controlling legal authority.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Senator Johnson Will Run for Reelection — Comments (23) »
What About The Other $977,000? 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"Assume a citizen, Joe, decided to donate to Clinton based at least in part on a solicitation from Hsu. How was Joe's money 'tainted', exactly?"
It might depend on how Joe's donation was structured, which means investigating every Joe donation associated with Hsu. This degeneration into technicalities and minutiae will easily kill a story which, as bs says below, is already too boring and complicated for the MSM. I'm sure many bloggers will dutifully report the details, hoping for some outrage, but it will come to naught.
Hillary knows this, which is why she blithely goes on doing this kind of stuff. Wasn't just a month ago that damning video linking Hillary to some other grifter was supposed to sink her campaign or something? I'm really starting to believe that most people just say, "Aww, that Hillary, there she goes again. I just don't know what I'm gonna do with her."
Maybe electing her President will take her mind off the money--at least after her first term. Sometimes you've just got let the kids run wild before they'll take a nap.
We're not the ones who gave up $23,000 of the money that the man funnelled into Sen. Clinton's warchest.
OP suggested two things:
1) all of the $1MM are tainted - the $977,000 outstanding is "is equally tainted" as the $23,000 which Hsu donated from his own funds.
2) the $977,000 should be given to charity the same as the $23,000.
Re: 1, it seems the only thing offered up as an explanation for the 'taint' is a grand theft charge against Hsu. That is a reasonable explanation to explain a taint on the $23,000 that Hsu donated from his own funds - funds which are now suspect of including money he illegally acquired from someone else.
What accounts for the taint on the $977,000? I am making an assumption (perhaps incorrectly) that those funds were donated by other persons than Hsu, who are under no suspicion of having illegally acquired the money. If there's additional evidence that Hsu somehow defrauded those persons from those funds and that but for some such additional activity on Hsu's behalf they never would have donated to Clinton, then let that case be made. It hasn't so far.
Which leads to 2. In the absence of a better explanation for why the money is tainted, it seems to me there is no taint over the $977,000 - it certainly isn't "equally tainted" unless the funds came from pools of money acquired through grand theft. But lets grant for the sake of argument that the money carries some "lesser taint". Why suggest the funds be given to charity rather than returned to the original donors? We can identify the donors quite easily, right? If the lesser taint was caused by Hsu and not the donor, why punish the donor by re-directing their money to some charity? Doesn't make sense, compared with giving the money back to the donors.
"If the lesser taint was caused by Hsu and not the donor, why punish the donor by re-directing their money to some charity? Doesn't make sense, compared with giving the money back to the donors."
Once you give money to a Democrat, you never get any of it back. It always gets redistributed to someone more deserving! :D
It will be interesting to see which "charities" end up with the money. Just kidding...I hope.
This story has no legs. It will be forgotten in a week. As another very observant poster said on a related thread, this story would have to be summarized into a couple of sentences for the average schmuck to understand. And the MSM isn't going to do that - they are going to bury it on page 20, right behind the story about that record-setting watermelon.
The only way this goes anywhere is if OsamaObama or Edwards presses it. And I suspect Shrillary isn't the only one who's been sticking her hand in the cookie jar, so they won't say anything.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
You're not suggesting we should talk about it LESS as a result, are you?
One could have said the same thing about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their story...
Get it all in the public record, of course, but the Hsu story did not come out weeks before the election wearing a magic hat while slaughterung VC amid machine-gun fire and hand grenades. Regrettably, this is a "dog bites man" story about Hillary.
To use the current popular phrase, I'm "just sayin'"
The trick will be to distill the problem into 3- and 4-letter words that the general publick can absorb. Oh, and either blanket the blogging universe or somehow find a way to get it trumpeted in the MSM. Not sure how that succeeded with the Swifties, but maybe the same strategery is in order...
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
On the indictment:
"Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton associated with, and accepted $1 million in funding from, known felon Norman Hsu."
As a headline:
"Hillary Clinton accepts funding from known felon Norman Hsu"
In conversation:
"Hey, guess who is going to be the first person President Hillary Clinton pardons?"
Of course you're right that this story has no legs, but that's because the MSM is dedicated to getting the Party of the Donkey back into the White House.
I think this story is only picking up steam. First, let's remember that we are no longer in a monolithic media. This story can be moved by the blogs for a long time. Even if the media totally ignores, blogs like ours won't.
The reason that this story has legs in my opinion is it isn't very complicated. That is one. The main problem with Whitewater is it was too complicated for anyone to understand. The same thing happened with Wilson and Plame. This story is simple. A criminal contributes to Hillary, he uses straw contributors, who just happen to live at his previous address, and their son just happens to be employed by said criminal, to funnel even more money to Hillary. That is easy to follow.
The third reason is this is par for the course for Hillary. This is all that is wrong with her. Does anyone really doubt that this will be the last scandal that will come out regarding Hillary? I don't. This is the drip factor.
Watch this story get propped up by blogs like this for a while until the MSM can no longer ignore it anymore.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
The main problem with Whitewater is it was too complicated for anyone to understand.
and the fact that they never actually found any wrongdoing by the Clintons.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
either died, disappeared, or left the country. Again, though, no one can understand what any of it meant so it was difficult to draw conclusions about Whitewater.
This is much easier to follow. Here is a felon, who not only funnels money to Clinton, but uses straw contributors to funnel even more money. This one is easy to follow. You can claim that this is guilt by association, however I will say, drip, drip, drip. This is now the second significant donor with a rap sheet. Gee, I guess Hillary just stumbles upon criminals with deep pockets. How many campaign finance scandals is Hillary tied to: this one, Peter Paul, the Chinese, am I missing any? Gee, I guess it is all mere coincidence.
How many scandals in total is Hillary tied to, too many to count.
By the way, here is Dick Morris' latest column on Hillary...
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=437
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Here is a felon, who not only funnels money to Clinton, but uses straw contributors to funnel even more money
You got evidence to support this claim?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
that he is a felon is public record. That he funnels money is also public record. After all, she just gave his contribution to charity. That he uses straw contributors to funnel more money can be inferred. You see the Paws live in a modest 1200 square foot home. They are middle class and yet somehow they have contributed six figures to Hillary's campaign. Somehow, their address is also the previous address of Mr. Hsu and also, Mr. Hsu just also happens to employ their son. Gee, I wonder what is going on.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Since you already know the income of the "straw" contributors I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to provide this to the readers here at RS.
If you had that information you might actually have a story.
Or is this just more shoot from the hip from you?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
the father makes 64K per year and the mother is a homemaker...
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/28/poor-sf-family-coincidentally-dona...
Here is the important part...
"It isn’t obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess. Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple’s grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to “attendance liaison” at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund…"
In my business a straw buyer is a borrower, set up specifically to get a loan, even the person buying the house is someone totally different, and usually less qualified. In this case a straw contributor is set up so that the real contributor can either hide their influence, or possibly, so they can get around campaign finance limits.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Hillary is as predictable as Old Faithful.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/30/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
These are the sorts of stories that completely desensitize the regular Joe to these sorts of charges. All you guys are trying to do is extend the guilt by association meme that comes with this story.
Equating that others made because of this guy with this guys donations is a pretty large leap.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
For those of you who don't know, a Bob Dole fund-raiser plead guilty of reimbursing his employers for donating thousands of dollars to Bob Dole and the RNC in 1996.
Does anyone know what Dole did with the money?
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10D13FA355D0C728DDDAE08...
with felonies and take 'em both to trial.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
We waited a decade to nail Dole after all. We have to be fair. We let Dole run for president and everything.
Deal?
What was Hsu doing as a fund raiser? Talking to people and getting them to donate their money to Clinton?
Assume a citizen, Joe, decided to donate to Clinton based at least in part on a solicitation from Hsu. How was Joe's money 'tainted', exactly? In other words, what is the connection between Hsu's grand theft - which may explain the source of and cast a taint on Hsu's own money - and Joe's money?
Why do you think Joe's money ought to be redirected from Joe's original purpose and given to charity instead? If you really have a case that the money was 'tainted' from being somehow connected with a solicitous action by Hsu and not by the original donor, isn't it more logical to ask that the funds be returned directly to the persons who donated them, at which point they can decide if they feel they were in some manner deceived by Hsu, and whether said deception causes them to decide not to re-donate the funds as they had originally intended?