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.


Bill Clinton 'shocked' Hillary donor was a fugitive -- Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usclin0903,0,6566532.story)

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.

Just another example of Bill-ary's "Don't ask, don't ask" policy...

Bwahhhaahhhaaahhhaa!

.

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.



Bobby

Hello tom:

I don't know. 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 going to allow people to contribute, people (some of whom you DON'T want to contribute) are going to. 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.

Hello tom:

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.




Bobby

If we financed elections, this wouldn't happen, and we'd get much better candidates.




So now the libertarians want us to publicly 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 publicly 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 government editing the content .



[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." SCOTUS Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Did you hear the latest tom? The LA Times obtained emails showing her campaign ignored the warnings about Hsu.


Confronted with new evidence that it had ignored warnings (http://www.buffalonews.com/nationalworld/national/story/160136.html) 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 (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hsu11sep11,1,4569445.story?coll=la-headlines-nation):


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.

OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/)

Steve ; al-AP is running damage control for shrillary

Clinton Returns Money, Sets Precedent (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RJHC901&show_article=1&cat=0)

Hello:

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.

excon

Hello:

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.

excon

I thought Hillary learned it from her husband (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy). Maybe the Brain learned it from Bill, too.

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.

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.

I wrote Rep. Thornberry, and Sens. Cornyn and Hutchinson yesterday and told them I was fed up with the nonsense that passes for leadership these days and suggested the GOP get a spine.

You know Soros and "a partner" pledged $5 million to MoveOn for the 2004 election, so I'm sure he's still filling their coffers. Now get this, MoveOn got a discount for their ad (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2007/09/11/moveon-org-gets-discount-rate-betray-us-advocacy-ad), "Jake Tapper at ABC News reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for its full page anti-war advocacy sliming of General David Petraeus."


Steve ; al-AP is running damage control for shrillary

Right, when Hillary gets caught she's the new standard-bearer...


In returning $850,000 to donors associated with a disgraced fundraiser, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sets a significant new standard for how campaigns should respond in the face of potential scandal.

I guess they're going to have to work on a new angle though, Shrillary's scandals are beginning to pile up (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/03/wapo-reports-another-clinton-campaign-contribution-fiasco-media-will-):


Now, as reported by the Post, there's a third scandal involving the front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination which, given past precedent, might also not receive the kind of attention the press would give the matter if Hillary had an "R" next to her name (emphasis added throughout):


Sant S. Chatwal, an Indian American businessman, has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns, even as he battled governments on two continents to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens.

The founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers" while they press to raise record amounts.

Hadn't heard anything about this? Well, how could you, for Google news and LexisNexis searches produced virtually nothing about this man's connections to the Clinton campaign.

Regardless, somehow this is the third known individual in seven years to be able to contribute to Mrs. Clinton despite serious legal troubles:


Yet none of the legal and financial woes -- occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents -- raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation. Chatwal recently said he plans to help raise $5 million from Indian Americans for Clinton's presidential bid.

Asked whether anything in Chatwal's background caused concerns about his activities on behalf of the campaign, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer answered, "No." He declined last week to be more specific, saying only that major fundraisers are routinely vetted "through publicly available records."

As media have been pounding the table about a GOP culture of corruption for several years, can you imagine such revelations concerning a Republican candidate for president not generating a massive media firestorm 24 hours a day, seven days a week until said candidate was likely forced to leave the race?

Do you think Katie, Charlie, and Brian will be reporting this new revelation about the Clinton campaign this evening?

It seems a metaphysical certitude that the answer to both questions is a loud, resounding "No."

What a disgrace.

Indeed.

K. I'll grant the left has the print media, but the right has dibs on talk radio. It evens out, doncha think?

Ex, I'll grant the right has dibs on talk radio, but what the rest? A sampling of last week's cable news numbers (http://insidecable.blogsome.com/category/ratings/):

[QUOTE]P2+ Total Day
FNC – 929,000 viewers
CNN – 509,000 viewers
MSNBC – 376,000 viewers
CNBC – 225,000 viewers
HLN – 276,000 viewers

Non FNC viewers - 1,386,000

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 1,640,000 viewers
CNN – 697,000 viewers
MSNBC – 566,000 viewers
CNBC – 238,000 viewers
HLN – 590,000 viewers

Non FNC viewers - 2,091,000

While Fox may lead the pack individually, overall the other cable news networks have more viewers. That's just CABLE ratings, the latest network nightly news ratings (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/tv/5128063.html):

ABC's "World News" - 7.81 million
NBC "Nightly News" - 7.78 million
"CBS Evening News" - 5.5 million

That's 21.09 million (23.18 million including cable) to Fox's 1.64 million prime time viewers. I like to come armed with facts, you should know that :)

Hello again, Steve:

I still think it evens out. If you just count heads, the libs win. But if you're counting the ones who talk the loudest and influence the most, Fox rules.

Really... No, I don't understand it either.

excon

The fun(ds) just keeps coming:


BRISTOW, Va. -- When Hillary Rodham Clinton held an intimate fund-raising event at her Washington home in late March, Pamela Layton donated $4,600, the maximum allowed by law, to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.

But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were reimbursed by her husband's boss for the donations. "It wasn't personal money. It was all corporate money (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119025305222133413.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)," Mrs. Layton said outside her home here. "I don't even like Hillary. I'm a Republican."

The boss is William Danielczyk, founder of a Washington-area private-equity firm and a major fund-raising "bundler" for Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Layton's gift was one of more than a dozen donations that night from people with Republican ties or no history of political giving. Mr. Danielczyk and his family, employees and friends donated a total of $120,000 to Mrs. Clinton in the days around the fund-raiser.

In an interview, Mr. Danielczyk said he "did not and would not" reimburse employees or others for their political donations. Such reimbursement would be illegal. Mr. Danielczyk said he was a co-host for the event at Mrs. Clinton's home. "Everybody was asked to contribute," he said, "some said yes and some said no." He added, "No arm was twisted."...

Asked about the donations bundled by Mr. Danielczyk, Mrs. Clinton's campaign said yesterday it would return the $9,200 donated by Mr. and Mrs. Layton.

How did Mr. Danielczyk convince so many Republicans to give to Hillary if there wasn't some tit for tat going on here?

I also noticed in the article that Dr. Death's attorney was indicted for "laundering $127,000 in illegal campaign contributions through dozens of employees to the 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards." He was just set up by Bush, though.