At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Contoocook, N.H - Former President Bill Clinton said he was "shocked" by revelations that a top fundraiser for his wife is a fugitive from justice and claimed he didn't even know what "HillRaiser" Norman Hsu did for a living.
"You could have knocked me over with a straw, especially when I heard the L.A. people had been allegedly looking for him for 15 years when he was in plain view," he told Newsday while touring a county fair in rural New Hampshire Sunday.
"I never knew how he made a living or anything, but I was shocked," said Clinton of Hsu, who has made millions as an investor in tetxtile and other businesses.
Bwahhhaahhhaaahhhaa !! I imagine him saying that if he knew the guy was in trouble he would've pardoned him when he had the chance . Just think of all that extra yuan he could've collected for the Clinton Library !
I'm just wondering who had the time and resources to research this story and tip off the Wall Street Journal about the Hsu connection. I see the Goracle's hands all over it.
What did you expect the "don" to fireback?! Upper echelon politics is large business and many politicians are on the take. There's no excuse, just reality.
I dunno. If people give money to a candidate, they expect to be paid back in one form or another. Lots of crooks give money to lots of politicians. That includes crooks who haven't been convicted yet. If you're gonna allow people to contribute, people (some of whom you DON'T want to contribute) are gonna. There aren't enough cops to check everybody out. They're busy in bathrooms.
If we financed elections, this wouldn't happen, and we'd get much better candidates.
There are some of you who would say that if we did that, the rich guy would be prevented from exercising his "free speech" rights. To that, I say BUNK. He can stand on the corner and speak anything he wants. He just can't use the PUBLIC airways anymore than any other candidate can.
That way, we'd eliminate all the bad stuff and everything would be wonderful.
There are some things that WE as citizens own outright and shouldn't give up to corporate interests. Our elections, our water and our highways are just some of these things.
excon
PS> I suppose the intent of your post is to show the hypocrisy of the Democrats...... However, I'm not persuaded.
I dunno. If people give money to a candidate, they expect to be paid back in one form or another. Lots of crooks give money to lots of politicians. That includes crooks who haven't been convicted yet.
I agree with Excon. Many politicians don't care about where the money comes from. It's not even their concern nor do they want to know. In return, there's a favor. It can always be denied.
If we financed elections, this wouldn't happen, and we'd get much better candidates.
so now the libertarians want us to publically finance campaigns ? I say all the silly regulations make it more expensive for the average person to contribute and have a say . This just doesn't affect national elections but local elections as well. The libertarian position it seems to me would be that the idea of wasting taxpayer money on political campaigns and attacks is repellent . It's a violation of our rights and a clear case of Government spending that oversteps sensible bounds.
What next then ? The government decides which candidates are worthy of running and being publically financed ? Sounds like tyranny to me .
I lean towards less restrictions but I want full disclosure and transparency before the money is spent . All attempts to conceal the source should be dealt with harshly .
and yes ;it is a free speech issue. Both campaigns in 2004 tried to censure the messages of '527 groups' that ran campaign adds against their candidates because they claimed the ads were lies . Public financing would also do more towards government controlling the message. I say I trust the public to determine the truth of the message without the govenment editing the content .
Quote:
[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed to secure the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.... In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government, but the people -- individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees -- who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign."
Did you hear the latest tom? The LA Times obtained emails showing her campaign ignored the warnings about Hsu.
Quote:
Confronted with new evidence that it had ignored warnings about fundraiser Norman Hsu, the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D- N.Y., announced late Monday that it was returning $850,000 from 260 donors associated with Hsu.
The announcement was made minutes after the Los Angeles Times asked Clinton officials to respond to mid-June campaign e-mails the newspaper obtained that dismissed concerns about Hsu and his business practices.
“I can tell you with 100 [percent] certainty that Norman Hsu is not involved in a Ponzi scheme,” wrote Samantha Wolf, the Clinton campaign’s West Coast finance director at the time who has since left the campaign. “He is completely legit.”
She wrote the e-mail to a party official who was asking questions about Hsu and his reputation in the financial world.
Here's another kicker, though. I searched for this in the LA Times yesterday and could not find it, so I did an exact search for the opening line as it appeared in our paper and had 2 hits yesterday. One was the LA Times which showed the Google preview as I entered it, but takes you to this article:
Quote:
Confronted with the possibility that disgraced fundraiser Norman Hsu might be running an illicit investment scheme, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign announced late Monday that it was returning $850,000 from 260 donors associated with Hsu.
The amount is one of the largest ever returned by a single candidate, and the action marked a sharp turn for the Clinton campaign.
What's up with that? The second article sounds much more sympathetic to Clinton. From "confronted with new evidence that it had ignored warnings" to "confronted with the possibility that disgraced fundraiser Norman Hsu might be running an illicit investment scheme" is not so subtle a difference if you ask me. Did someone do a little arm twisting to get those changes?
Nice of them to spin it in Evita's favor. Yeah ;the Clintons are the epitome of ethical campaigning !
$850 grand ? I thought the amt. returned was in the range of $26 grand. Its pretty sneaky to return $26 grand and tell people that you returned it all. Even this $850 grand is a tip of the iceberg . If it wasn't for John Fund at Wall Street Journal keeping on the case this whole story would've been swept under the rug. Then if it had been reported on again next week their mantra would've been "old news" .
I wrote to her and Shmucky and suggested they should return all Moveon.org pac money as well as to publicly disavow any association with the defamatory full page ad they took out about General Petraeus . And while we are at it .......I want to know who financed the ad. A full page ad in the Slimes goes in excess of $100 grand.
Hillary is amBushing the right... She's no dummy..
George Bush had a brain. His brain knew how to campaign. He knew how to stay on message. He took dirty money - ala Abramoff. He knew how to control the conversation. He knew how to win.
Hillary watched and learned. What??? She shouldn't have??? It's still dirty rotten politics - no question - but it's nothing more than what Karl Rove did. I'm not surprised that you guys don't like it.
Hillary is amBushing the right... She's no dummy..
George Bush had a brain. His brain knew how to campaign. He knew how to stay on message. He took dirty money - ala Abramoff. He knew how to control the conversation. He knew how to win.
Hillary watched and learned. What??? She shouldn't have??? It's still dirty rotten politics - no question - but it's nothing more than what Karl Rove did. I'm not surprised that you guys don't like it.
Ex, I don't like it on either side, but I especially don't like it that the media downplays it when a Democrat is involved (see above) and hammers on it long past relevance when a Republican is involved.
Linear Mode
