Thread: What is Hillary hiding?

Does anyone believe even half of these claims from Hillary and her people at The Times?

She attended both the Republican National Convention in Miami (bunking at the Fontainebleu Hotel, ordering room service for the first time — cereal and a daintily wrapped peach) and the Democratic donnybrook in Chicago (smelling tear gas at Grant Park, watching a toilet fly out the window of the Hilton hotel).

Was Ms. Rodham a delegate? A reporter? If not, then how did she have the credentials to gain access to either of these conventions?

Not to mention the time or the money.

“She was not an antiwar radical trying to create a mass movement,” said Ellen DuBois, who, with Ms. Rodham, was an organizer of a student strike that April.

No, Hillary was never a radical. She was just an organizer of student “strikes” and “teach-ins.” A fine distinction, at least to the Solons at the New York Times.

Apparently organizing a “strike” is much better than shutting down the college. But is there any real difference?

Still we are told that going to demonstrations, organizing strikes and doing teach-ins is somehow far different (and far better than) “manning the barricades.”

(Does the author of this article think that there were actual barricades around in 1968?)

Clearly, Ms. Rodham was just your typical college student, spending her time campaigning for Gene McCarthy and going to political conventions and various demonstrations.

How could Hillary be a radical, anyway? As the article points out, she “kept her toe in the Republican Party”:

She might have been the only 20-year-old in America who worked on the antiwar presidential campaign of Senator Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire that winter and for the hawkish Republican congressman Melvin Laird in Washington that summer.

When we read the fine print, however, we learn that Ms. Rodham was assigned an internship with the hateful Republicans so that she could “understand completely what [her] own transformation represent[ed].”

In other words, this was done to show Hillary how far she now was from the GOP’s hateful warmongering and bigoted ways.

After Dr. King’s assassination provoked riots in cities and unrest on campuses, Ms. Rodham worried that protesters would shut down Wellesley (not constructive). She helped organize a two-day strike (more pragmatic) and worked closely with Wellesley’s few black students (only 6 in her class of 401) in reaching moderate, achievable change — such as recruiting more black students and hiring black professors (there had been none). Eschewing megaphones and sit-ins, she organized meetings, lectures and seminars, designed to be educational

Yes, Ms. Rodham was oh-so-concerned about her close black friends.

So much so that she “left” the Republican Party because of the racism she perceived in the “veiled messages” delivered at its Miami convention.

Mind you, this was a mere four years after the GOP got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed over the furious objections of the Democrat Party. (Including Bill Clinton’s mentor J. William Fulbright, who led two filibusters against it, and Al Gore, Sr. who voted against it.)

And lest we forget Hillary denounced as “out of touch” the black liberal Republican Edward Brooke, in her world-famous valedictorian speech one year later.

Luckily, Ms. Rodham’s concerns for racial equality did not prevent her from attending a college that only admitted 6 blacks in a class of 401.

But, honestly, does anybody really believe anything in this article? Even the remaining (and increasingly rare) subscribers to the New York Times?

Still, I guess we had better get used to these kind of fables.

For, this being the official start of the campaign season, from today onward The Times will be publishing endless propaganda and outright lies to help elect their boss, “the Hill.”

Of course one may well ask how that will that be any different from what the Times has written about Hillary hitherto?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/n...s-college-days

http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-cont.../hilldirty.jpg

In case you missed reading this http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...orruption.html there is a Clinton Connection ....

[quote]Let’s start with Sammy Rivera, the mayor of Passaic and a prominent friend of Hillary. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ruption-sting/

According to FBI special agent James Breen, Rivera allegedly promised to deliver a majority of votes on the Passaic City Council to drive city insurance brokerage business to a front company set up by the FBI. Federal agents posing as company executives offered a $50,000 payment to Mr. Rivera in return for the business. Rivera accepted an initial installment of $5,000, according to the complaint. Here’s a glimpse of how Rivera operated:

On or about August 29, 2007, defendant RIVERA, Key Employee 1 and another key employee of the City of Passaic (“Key Employee 2”) met with CW-1 and CW-2 in Passaic, New Jersey. During the meeting, defendant RIVERA advocated for having the Insurance Brokerage Business provide insurance brokerage services to the City of Passaic.

When Key Employee 2 questioned the presentation of the Insurance Brokerage Business, defendant RIVERA concluded the meeting by stating, “I make the fucking decision. And the Council. And believe me, I’ve got the four fucking votes on the Council. So let’s stop bullshitting, and let’s get this thing rolling.”

Here’s the cached version of Hillary’s announcement of her campaign Hispanic Leadership Council, on which Rivera sat until…today. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...n t=firefox-a

Now you see him, now you don’t.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/r.../view/?id=2242



Curiouser and curiouser

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2007/...curiouser.html


New York Times reporter Mike McIntyre has gotten access to one month's financial records for Norman Hsu.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us...gewanted=print

The records show that Components Ltd., a company controlled by Mr. Hsu that has no obvious business purpose and appears to exist only on paper, has paid a total of more than $100,000 to at least nine people who made campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton and others through Mr. Hsu. The payments occurred in the spring of 2003, several months before Mr. Hsu emerged as a contributor to Democrats and more than a year before he started bundling checks from those same people for various campaigns. In all, he has raised more than $1 million for Democrats.

The records make clear that the group was more than just a loose collection of friends, family and co-workers that bundlers typically rely on when raising money for a candidate. Rather, each person had a direct financial relationship with Mr. Hsu, either receiving money from his company or paying into it, even though many of them appear to have other jobs or businesses independent of him. The purpose of the payments, and whether they related to business costs, fees or expenses, is unclear.

The records included a bank statement and a set of canceled checks for Components Ltd. that were made available to The New York Times for review by someone associated with Mr. Hsu. Because they covered only a single month in 2003, it could not be determined if the pattern of payments to the nine people was a singular occurrence, or continued closer in proximity to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions that Mr. Hsu eventually bundled.

It's clear that there was some very shady financial hocus-pocus going on to garner the donations that Hsu bundled and gave to Democratic politicians. The mystery still remaining is where the money came from. There is no indication that he was actually earning any money to use to shell out to the dummy donors.

Clinton to return $850,000 raised by Hsu
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
Mon Sep 10, 7:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign said Monday it will return $850,000 in donations raised by Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, who is under federal investigation for allegedly violating election laws.

Clinton, D-N.Y., previously had planned only to give to charity $23,000 she received from Hsu for her presidential and senatorial campaigns and to her political action committee, HillPac.

The FBI is investigating whether Hsu paid so-called straw donors to send campaign contributions to Clinton and other candidates, a law enforcement official said Monday.

"In light of recent events and allegations that Mr. Norman Hsu engaged in an illegal investment scheme, we have decided out of an abundance of caution to return the money he raised for our campaign," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said in a statement Monday night. "An estimated 260 donors this week will receive refunds totaling approximately $850,000 from the campaign."

Wolfson said the Clinton campaign also will vigorously review its fundraisers, including thorough criminal background checks, in the future. "In any instances where a source of a bundler's income is in question, the campaign will take affirmative steps to verify its origin," he said.

The amount that the campaign identified as raised by Hsu would make him one of her top fundraisers. During the first six months of this year, her presidential campaign raised $52 million from individual contributors, second to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who raised $58.5 million.

Since 2004, Hsu has donated $260,000 to Democratic Party groups and federal candidates, and raised hundreds of thousands of additional dollars. He was regarded as a top party fundraiser until recent reports surfaced that he was wanted on a warrant in California in connection with a 1991 grand theft charge.

Federal authorities are looking into whether Hsu leaned on investors to contribute to political candidates after paying them big earnings from a shady business venture he was running, the law enforcement official said. Such a scam — using conduit contributors known as straw donors — is a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limits how much money individuals can give to candidates and political committees.

The FBI may be looking at other potential charges as well, according to the law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

In addition to the $260,000 he contributed to federal candidates, Hsu also contributed at least $330,000 to state Democratic candidates and state party committees and ballot initiatives during the 2004 and 2006 election cycles. Among the state officials who received money were New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Both have said they would divest their campaigns of the donations.

Additionally, last week Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said he would donate nearly $40,000 in contributions, and Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said he had donated a $1,000 contribution to a charity that helps soldiers.

The purpose of Hsu's business venture was unclear. The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that it was an investment pool that had recently drawn the suspicion of associates who questioned its legality.

An attorney for Hsu did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

Hsu remained hospitalized in Grand Junction, Colo., where he has been since last week after failing to show up for a California court hearing. It was unclear when he might be returned to California to face the felony theft case.

Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a grand theft charge that accused him of defrauding investors of $1 million. He was facing up to three years in prison when he skipped town before his sentencing in 1992. He finally surrendered to the arrest warrant Aug. 31, but disappeared before last week's hearing where he was expected to turn over his passport and ask a judge to cut his $2 million bail in half.

Wolfson said the Clinton campaign was "unaware of Mr. Hsu's decade-plus old warrant," despite what he described as a thorough review of public records.

Since Thursday, Hsu has been at the Colorado hospital, when he was taken from an eastbound Amtrak train for treatment of an undisclosed ailment. He'd failed to show up for the hearing a day earlier. He is expected to be taken to the Mesa County Jail in Colorado to await extradition proceedings in state court once he is well enough to leave the hospital.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/...omBaOX_eaMwfIE

An estimated 260 donors this week will receive refunds totaling approximately $850,000 from the campaign."

If the funds were not theirs but Hsu's and were in fact donated illegally why are they being returned ?? What happened to donating it to charity ?? How much of that money is going to end up back in Clintons coffers ??

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

Clinton returns money, sets precedent
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Sep 11, 6:24 PM ET

WASHINGTON - 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.

Clinton's decision also underscores the price — financial and political — that her campaign is paying for failing to spot trouble with the fundraiser, Norman Hsu, even after receiving a warning. The campaign announced it would now conduct background checks on its fundraisers, an extraordinary and potentially time consuming step.

By returning the money, Clinton also puts pressure on presidential rivals and other politicians with rainmakers who have dubious pasts or who have employed questionable fundraising tactics, including the campaigns of Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Hsu, a Hong Kong native who appeared suddenly in the New York political scene about four years ago, is under guard in a Colorado hospital after failing to show up for a bail hearing last week in California. He had been wanted as a fugitive for skipping sentencing on a 1991 grand theft case to which he had pleaded no contest.

In the past two weeks, news reports raised questions about his fundraising practices and revealed his fugitive status. Law enforcement authorities said the FBI is now investigating whether Hsu paid donors to contribute to politicians. His lawyer has said Hsu did not break the law and that donors he solicited contributed their own money.

Despite his high-profile political activity, California authorities were apparently unaware of his whereabouts. And despite his abrupt entry into the circle of political money "bundlers" during the 2004 election, politicians did not inquire about his past.

"There were a few people who were scratching their heads, that he was being so generous," said John Catsimatidis, a New York businessman and longtime Clinton money man. "But he was a pleasant guy and nobody thought anything of it."

The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that an Irvine, Calif., businessman cautioned the Clinton campaign in June that he suspected Hsu was running an investment scam. The newspaper said the campaign's former finance director for Western states, Samantha Wolf, denied the claim and pronounced Hsu "completely legit."

Asked Tuesday what the campaign did in response to the warning, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said: "It prompted another search of publicly available information which did not reveal the decade-plus old warrant."

Caught flat-footed by the Hsu revelations, the Clinton camp said it will now take extra steps to examine their fundraisers, including conducting criminal background checks.

"In any instances where a source of a bundler's income is in question, the campaign will take affirmative steps to verify its origin," Wolfson said.

Larry Noble, former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission, said Clinton raised the bar on how to respond to troublesome fundraising.

"At one time the standard was if a person is convicted of a crime I'll return the money; then it was if they are indicted," Noble said. "What we're seeing now is the Clinton campaign being very proactive about trying to get out in front of what experience has shown can be a very distracting story."

Aggressive vetting of bundlers, Noble said, "is a big step because, one, it's going to take resources and, two, it may well turn off or insult some fundraisers."

With the cost of campaigns increasing exponentially, candidates are under increasing pressure to rely on fundraisers, or money "bundlers," who help solicit money on their behalf. This election, money is even more important because several presidential candidates plan to forgo public financing.

Clinton has raised $52 million from individual contributors, second only to Obama who has raised $58 million.

"A great deal of fundraising comes from people who are established, have homes, people in the community," Catsimatidis said. "I'd say 99.9 percent. But there is that oddball that occurs once in a while. It happens and one has to be on the watch for that."

Last month, lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, who represented assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, was indicted on charges of conspiring to make more than $125,000 in illegal contributions to Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign. Fieger pleaded not guilty and authorities have said the Edwards campaign was unaware of the activity.

Edwards campaign spokesman Eric Schultz said the campaign will await the outcome of the case against Fieger before acting on the money he helped raise.

"From Day One, the campaign has taken their lead from and cooperated fully with the Department of Justice," Schultz said. "Once this prosecution concludes, if Geoffrey Fieger is found guilty, the campaign will donate all the money in question to charity."

He said the campaign, like Clinton's has also stepped up its vetting of fundraisers.

"We have always had an extensive vetting process for our raisers, but based on the Hsu revelations, and to err on the side of caution, we have begun doing criminal background checks as well," he said.

Obama has already given to charity money that Hsu contributed to his Senate campaign in 2004 and to his political action committee in 2005. Hsu did not assist Obama's presidential campaign but he helped host one fundraiser for Obama during his Senate run. Obama's campaign sent letters to donors potentially affiliated with Hsu, seeking assurances that the money they donated was their own.

Campaign spokesman Bill Burton said the campaign was not returning any money from those donors yet because it was still awaiting their response.

Obama has also given to charity about $37,000 in contributions to his Senate campaign and political action committee that were linked to Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who faces extortion and fraud charges related to an Illinois public pension fund. Rezko also raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama's state legislative and Senate races. And while Obama has divested his campaign of money from some Rezko associates, he has kept money from others.

"We're constantly reviewing and updating our processes for vetting donations and donors, and we'll continue to do that," Burton said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/...rkkExGfQys0NUE

Clinton fund raising probed

10-06-2004

FUND-RAISING QUESTIONS: The Justice Department is setting its sights on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign in pursuit of suspected fund-raising violations. In targeting a rising star in the Democratic Party, prosecutors are trying to gain the cooperation of the indicted businessman who raised the accusations, interviews and documents indicate.

The Justice Department is setting its sights on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign in pursuit of suspected fund-raising violations. In targeting a rising star in the Democratic Party, prosecutors are trying to gain the cooperation of the indicted businessman who raised the accusations, interviews and documents indicate.

The FBI has told a U.S. magistrate in Los Angeles that it has evidence that the former first lady's campaign deliberately understated its fund-raising costs so it would have more money to spend on elections. And prosecutors say one of her fund-raisers helped because he wanted a pardon from her husband.

Noel Hillman, the Justice Department's top public-corruption lawyer and a career official, has met three times — most recently in May — with attorneys for Peter Paul to discuss a plea deal. Justice wants to interview Mr. Paul to see whether he can substantiate his accusations that Mrs. Clinton's campaign engaged in wrongdoing, the defense attorneys said.

Mr. Paul is a three-time felon who hosted a Hollywood fund-raising event for Mrs. Clinton in 2000 and is facing stock-fraud charges in New York. He says he underwrote most of the costs for the event. Prosecutors contend that he did so in an effort to win a pardon from President Clinton.

Attorneys for Mrs. Clinton and the former chief fund-raiser for New York Senate 2000, David Rosen, say their clients have done nothing wrong. "New York Senate 2000 properly reported all donations in 2000," said David Kendall, Mrs. Clinton's attorney.

The investigation, which has dragged on for more than three years, could cast a shadow over the senator's career. Mrs. Clinton is considered a possible presidential candidate in 2008 if Sen. John Kerry loses this year. But she first faces a re-election battle in 2006 — possibly against former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani or New York Gov. George E. Pataki.

Most accusations of campaign-finance irregularities are handled administratively through the Federal Election Commission, although the Justice Department has investigated such matters in the past. During the Clinton administration, when Attorney General Janet Reno ran the Justice Department, a department campaign-finance task force charged more than two dozen persons and two corporations with fund-raising abuses that occurred in the 1996 election cycle. Many of the abuses involved Democratic fund raising.

Documents show an FBI agent told the Los Angeles magistrate two years ago that the government thinks Mrs. Clinton's campaign understated its costs for the Paul fund-raiser. "The event's costs exceeded $1 million, but the required forms filed by New York Senate 2000 ... months after the event incorrectly disclosed that the cost of the event was only $523,000," said the 2002 FBI affidavit, which was unsealed in the summer. "It appears that the true cost of the event was deliberately understated in order to increase the amount of funds available to New York Senate 2000 for federal campaign activities." The document also said a $366,000 donation to the gala was incorrectly listed as coming from the company that Mr. Paul co-founded, Stan Lee Media, when it really came from Mr. Paul personally.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5533-2869r.htm

Sen. Clinton's Finance Director Indicted
By LARRY MARGASAK

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director has been indicted on charges of causing false campaign finance reports to be filed with the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department said Friday.

The indictment of David Rosen, unsealed in Los Angeles, focuses on his fund-raising for an Aug. 12, 2000, gala for Clinton in Los Angeles. The New York Democrat was still first lady at the time.

While the event allegedly cost more than $1.2 million, the indictment said, Rosen reported contributions of about $400,000, knowing the figure to be false.

The indictment charged that Rosen provided some documents to the an FEC compliance officer but withheld the true costs of the event and provided false documents to substantiate the lower figure.

In one instance, Rosen obtained and delivered a fraudulent invoice stating the cost of a concert associated with the gala was $200,000 when he know that figure was false, according to the indictment. The actual cost of the concert was more than $600,000.

Each of the four counts of making a false statement carries a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines upon conviction.

01/07/05 17:05

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto... 0040621NYR109

Sen. Clinton's Financing in the Spotlight
By PAUL CHAVEZ

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Campaign donations made more than four years ago at a celebrity-studded Hollywood gala have led to a federal criminal trial against a former finance director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could hamper her future campaigns.

The trial set to open Tuesday focuses on a lavish August 2000 political party at a tony Brentwood estate that drew dozens of A-list guests and performers, including Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Cher, Diana Ross and Muhammad Ali.

Clinton hasn't been linked to charges that the cost of the event was vastly underreported, but Republicans will be watching for any ammunition they can use against the Democrat, considered an early front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination.

David Rosen, who was Clinton's finance director during her 2000 U.S. Senate run, faces three counts of filing a false statement. An FBI agent speculated in an affidavit that Rosen was trying to duck federal financing rules so the campaign would have more money to spend on other expenses.

Rosen pleaded not guilty in January. He could face up to 15 years in prison and $750,000 in fines if convicted.

The party, called a ``Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton,'' included both a dinner and a concert. About 350 people accepted invitations to both, which cost $25,000 a couple. About 1,200 people purchased $1,000 tickets just for the concert.

Many people got complimentary tickets and campaign reports never gave a full accounting of the total money taken in. However, organizers reported raising nearly $1.1 million for a joint committee benefiting Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign and the national and state-level Democratic parties.

Rosen, 40, reported the event was underwritten by about $400,000 worth of ``in kind'' contributions - goods and services provided for free or below cost - but Peter F. Paul, a three-time convicted felon who pleaded guilty in March to securities fraud charges, has told prosecutors he gave the campaign at least $1.1 million for the affair.

Paul has filed a lawsuit claiming he bankrolled the gala on a promise that former President Clinton would become a ``goodwill ambassador'' for his Internet media company. He is ready to testify against Rosen, according to his attorney, Joseph Conway.

Another of the event's organizers, the man who corralled the celebrities, said Rosen was a ``decent person'' who faced a devil's choice: risk getting fired by exposing the gala's skyrocketing tab or cover up its true cost. ``David I don't think deserves to go to jail,'' co-organizer Aaron Tonken said in a recent interview from prison, where he is serving 63 months for unrelated charges of defrauding charities of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Tonken believes the Federal Election Commission should fine Hillary Clinton's campaign. To build its case, the government enlisted Raymond Reggie, a prominent political consultant whose sister is married to U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy. Prosecutors have not named Reggie, but two sources familiar with the case said he is the ``cooperating witness'' identified in court documents.

During a secretly recorded conversation with Reggie in September 2002, prosecutors said Rosen made incriminating statements they will introduce at trial. Reggie pleaded guilty last month in Louisiana to unrelated bank fraud charges.

A request for an interview with Hillary Clinton was referred to her lawyer, David Kendall, who would not comment. Last year, Kendall told The Associated Press that Clinton's campaign properly reported all donations in 2000.

Rosen's attorney, Paul Mark Sandler, also declined to comment.

It is not the first time a Clinton campaign has been under scrutiny. President Clinton's 1996 campaign was dogged by allegations of illegal fundraising from overseas donors. ``Things like this have occurred along the way in the Clinton national role and they have handled it,'' said Lee Miringoff, an independent pollster and director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

The key, he said, is whether ``fingerprints lead back to her.''

Government lawyers won't say publicly why they believe Rosen might have underreported the cost. But one theory suggests it would have allowed Clinton's campaign to spend more money on essentials such as advertising.

Under arcane campaign finance rules of the time, reporting the event's actual cost would have forced the campaign to forfeit coveted ``hard money,'' according to Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who now leads the campaign-finance watchdog Center for Responsive Politics.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...=20050421LA201

05/08/05

Clinton Sees Fear Realized in Trouble With Donor
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/us...prod=permalink

The campaign is refunding $850,000 to [Hsu’s bundled] 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.

See-Dubya follows the tainted rinse-and-spin cycle:

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?

Answer: Because they don’t care.




I got an e-mail from a law enforcement source this week wondering how Hillary Clinton could possibly have been ignorant of Norman Hsu’s shenanigans given that both she and her husband are protected by Secret Service:

Hsu as a key Dem fundraiser had access to VIP among the Dem party like the Clintons. Both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are protected by the Secret Service. SOP for law enforcement protection details is to check the criminal background of those who might come in contact with the protectees.

As you probably are already aware, it is well known that usually the Secret Service asks for, at a minimum, full legal name, DOB and SSN of those who get anywhere near/attend events with, SS protectees, so they can run a record check. (FYI the Secret Service record check is, ‘unofficially’, considered one of the most extensive that can be done by US law enforcement.)

So if the Secret Service knew for years that Hsu was a wanted FUGITIVE why did they:

1. Not do anything?

2. Allow him anywhere near any important (high value) targets like either of the Clintons?

Alternatively, if the SS did not do its basic ‘due diligence’ check then the questions are even more pointed:

1. Why not? Who ordered them not to do it, and why? (What did the Clinton’s know and when did they know it?)

2. Was the Clinton (and by extension the Democrat fundraising machine) so focused on money that they would violate basic security protacal… letting a wanted, fugitive, felon (of questionable background — from part of the world where their are many hostile to US governmental interests) get into the “inner circle” simply because of the cash?

how Hillary Clinton could possibly have been ignorant of Norman Hsu’s shenanigans given that both she and her husband are protected by Secret Service:

Hsu as a key Dem fundraiser had access to VIP among the Dem party like the Clintons. Both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are protected by the Secret Service. SOP for law enforcement protection details is to check the criminal background of those who might come in contact with the protectees.

As you probably are already aware, it is well known that usually the Secret Service asks for, at a minimum, full legal name, DOB and SSN of those who get anywhere near/attend events with, SS protectees, so they can run a record check. (FYI the Secret Service record check is, ‘unofficially’, considered one of the most extensive that can be done by US law enforcement.)

Clinton Campaign Cites Flawed Background Check
No Evidence of Fundraiser's Lawsuits or Bankruptcy Turned Up in Records Search, Spokesman Says
By John Solomon, Matthew Mosk and Anne E. Kornblut -- Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 12, 2007; A03

A spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign yesterday blamed a faulty background check for the campaign's failure to raise any questions about Norman Hsu, a previously unknown businessman who suddenly became one of its biggest fundraisers.

Though a commonly used public record search shows that Hsu had multiple business lawsuits filed against him dating to 1985, filed for bankruptcy in 1990, and was a defendant in two 1991 California court matters listed as possible criminal cases, the campaign said its computer checks used insufficient search terms that did not include the two middle names Hsu used in the California case. "In all of these searches, the campaign used the name Norman Hsu, which, like the search results of other committees and campaigns, did not turn up disqualifying information," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson explained.

Now, the FBI is conducting preliminary inquiries into allegations it has received about Hsu's fundraising and business dealings, according to a senior law enforcement official, who added that none has reached a point of warranting the opening of a formal investigation.

Hsu's troubled past eluded the Clinton campaign's detection even though he was a well-known figure who frequently appeared at campaign events and was one of the top 15 fundraisers for Clinton's 2008 presidential bid. He raised $850,000 in just eight months, more than most such "bundlers" connected to any candidate, without raising red flags.

Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe -- famous for his careful, methodical courting of big donors and fundraisers -- said in an interview yesterday that he does not know where Hsu came from. "I don't know how he became involved in the Clinton campaign," McAuliffe said. "I've never asked the man for a check."

Hsu twice attended events sponsored by Bill Clinton's global charitable effort, putting up $15,000 each time as an entrance fee. The donations allowed him to mingle with the corporate executives typically attracted by the former president's charitable endeavors.

Bill Clinton's aides said they knew little about Hsu's own businesses, save that he was involved somehow in the apparel business. Shortly after questions arose in late August about Hsu's background, the Clinton Global Initiative refunded the $30,000 -- more than a week before Hillary Clinton's campaign decided to refund the $850,000 that Hsu had raised.

The Clinton campaign has promised that future fundraisers will undergo criminal background checks. But many questions remain about the events leading to the donations.

That such a basic mistake could slip through the famously disciplined Clinton campaign has raised eyebrows among strategists in both parties. Clinton herself is known for doing background research on people before she meets them, digging for personal details she can introduce into a conversation. The sheer amount Hsu raised as a virtual unknown in a short period of time should have raised questions, some say.

"He is a bundler on steroids," said veteran Republican campaign lawyer Jan W. Baran. "Just think back to the 2004 campaigns: The highest level of bundler recognition was $250,000, and that was at the end of the campaign. Here we are in September of '07, and this guy has apparently raised $850,000 in a matter of months. And for that same reason, he probably should have set off alarm bells."

Hsu was unknown in political circles until late 2003, when he wrote his first political check to then-presidential candidate John F. Kerry. He was not anonymous for long. As the amounts he raised for Democrats across the country approached $1 million, Hsu's reputation as a source of political money soared.

"Norman's name was a name floating out there as someone who could deliver big-time," said a Democratic fundraising consultant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the Hsu case. Hsu was based in New York, making it natural for Clinton's Senate finance team to gravitate toward him, the consultant said.

But several former regional fundraising advisers to the Clintons said in interviews yesterday that they could not recall whom, if anyone, had vouched for Hsu when he started raising money for the senator.

McAuliffe, the man who built his reputation by raising huge sums for Bill Clinton, said it was not until 15 months after Hsu wrote his first check to Clinton's Senate bid that they met, "and I had very little interaction with him after."

Major Clinton donors said this represents a departure for a campaign that prides itself on preparation and will not hesitate to lavish attention on those who raise money.

Irvine, Calif., businessman Jack Cassidy told the FBI that he sent at least three e-mails to a Clinton campaign official on the West Coast this summer, specifically raising concerns that Hsu was engaged in a risky investment scheme and was using Hillary Clinton's name "in vain" to solicit people for his business proposition, according to a person directly familiar with the matter.

Cassidy's concern was that Hsu was using the Clintons to give credence to his business venture, the source said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing FBI inquiry.

Cassidy also raised his concerns with local police, the local prosecutor, California Democratic Party officials and the FBI, which dispatched agents to interview him and collect documents in recent weeks about Hsu's business and fundraising activities.

Clinton spokesman Wolfson said the campaign did an initial public records search in January when Hsu began raising money. The inquiries from Cassidy this summer prompted the campaign to do a second vetting of Hsu, which turned up nothing derogatory. "When the concerns were raised, we again checked publicly available information and unfortunately did not find this decade-plus old warrant," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102337_pf.html

Federal Agencies Unofficially Probing Hsu Scandal Number [At Least] 4
http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/suitab...l-agencie.html

The Wall Street Journal reported nearly two weeks ago that the Department of Justice was investigating Norman Hsu's three-year fundraising bonanza for Hillary Clinton and dozens of other Democrats for possible campaign finance violations.

If it wasn't already, the FBI got involved when Hsu skipped bail last week, thus reclaiming his fugitive status, and is now investigating Hsu's most recent investment schemes, which are beginning to smell remarkably similar to the swindling that earned him his felony conviction back in the early 90s.

When Hsu was discovered "freaking out" on an Amtrak train in Grand Junction, Colorado the day after he disappeared, a Federal Election Commission official wouldn't confirm that the FEC was investigating the Hsu scandal, "as federal law requires any enforcement measures be kept confidential until they are concluded." But for our unofficial score-keeping purposes, let's go ahead and assume they've taken an interest.

And if my SiteMeter logs are any indication, the SEC was in the mix by this afternoon, looking closely at Next Components, one of Hsu's apparently bogus business entities (and one apparently at the center of the possible massive investment fraud sketched out just this morning).



There's no other earthly reason to squander an hour on this site.

Hsu vs. Abramoff
[Update: At $2.4 million and counting, Hsu is drifting dangerously into Abramoff territory...]

With the Norman Hsu fundraising scandal hitting $1.6 million and counting, I thought it was about time to size this ignominy up against that gold standard of modern political corruption, the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

While it was largely hailed in the media as a Republican issue, it's a seldom reported fact that more than 30% of the Abramoff-linked monies actually went to Democrats. By comparison, less than 1/10th of one percent of the circumspect Hsu fundraising went to Republicans.

The million-and-a-half-plus in cold, hard cash that Hsu and his cohorts have poured into Democrat coffers compares to roughly $2.6 million in entertainment and gifts that Abramoff steered to Republicans.


For those keeping score at home, Abramoff was sentenced to nearly 6 years in prison for his fraud and corruption convictions. Hsu already faces 3 years behind bars on a previous investor swindling conviction, from which he's been a fugitive since the early 1990s, while the FEC and the DOJ have recently launched probes to investigate Hsu's suspicious fundraising activities.

I'll update this chart in place as additional data are culled, so feel free to hotlink it at this address if you'd like to embed a real-time Corrupt-o-Meter as Hsu looks to challenge Abramoff for ultimate scandal supremacy.

http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/suitab...-abramoff.html

Hsu case takes strange turn
By PAT MILTON, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 15 minutes ago

NEW YORK - The saga of the scandal-plagued Democratic fundraiser with ties to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton took another strange twist after he mailed a suicide note last week to a legal organization.

A person who saw the letter said Thursday that the note from Norman Hsu explicitly stated that he "intended to commit suicide." The person declined to reveal the exact phrasing, but said it was not rambling in nature.

The individual spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about it.

The letter arrived at the New York offices of the Innocence Project as Hsu was in the midst of a bizarre legal odyssey stemming from a 1991 grand theft case. Hsu has been wanted as a fugitive for missing his sentencing in the case. He failed to show up for a bail hearing last week in California and was arrested at a Colorado hospital after being taken off an Amtrak train.

Hsu was a leading money "bundler" for Clinton, earning the title of HillRaiser for his efforts. Her campaign is returning $850,000 in contributions linked to Hsu.

On Thursday, in Grand Junction, Colo., Mesa County Judge Bruce Raaum set $5 million cash bail on the California grand theft charge over the objections of prosecutors who wanted bail set at $50 million. That means Hsu would have to post the entire $5 million, in cash.

Federal charges of unlawful flight were being dropped.

County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger argued that Hsu posed a flight risk because he previously skipped the California case in which he posted $2 million bail.

Hsu's attorney, Eric Elliff, argued that $50 million was ridiculous. But the judge set the bond, saying that "$2 million wasn't enough to keep Mr. Hsu from running. We'll see if $5 million will do it."

Elliff said Hsu was willing to waive extradition and is eager to get back to California. But the judge set a hearing for next Wednesday in which Hsu can formally waive extradition, which would clear the way for California officials to transport him.

Hsu appeared via video from the Mesa County jail, dressed in a yellow jail shirt. He blinked frequently and nodded, answering "Yes" when asked if he understood the California charge and saying "Thank you" in a low voice when the hearing ended.

In arguing for higher bail, Hautzinger mentioned the letter that Hsu had sent to the Innocence Project and others, saying it showed Hsu was "despondent and may hurt himself."

Asked if Hsu would post bail, Elliff said, "I don't know. $5 million is an awfully large amount of money for anyone to gather up, especially when you are in custody."

Hsu was booked into jail Wednesday night after being released from St. Mary's Hospital. Officials have declined to say why he was hospitalized but emphasized Thursday he was not under suicide watch in jail.

Innocence Project officials would not provide the specific details of the letter, but spokesman Eric Ferrero said a FedEx package arrived at the group's Manhattan office last Thursday. A receptionist gave the letter to the executive director, Madeline DeLone.

"We were all concerned for his safety. We knew we needed to try to reach him right away. We wanted to make sure he was safe," said Ferrero.

They tried Hsu's cell phone, but there was no answer and the voicemail was full.

Innocence Project officials then tried to reach Hsu's attorney and faxed a copy of the letter to the California attorney general's office, which is handling the case.

"We sent the letter to law enforcement in California in the event they could help him in time and also because they were handling an active case there involving him," said Ferrero.

The letter was one page, typewritten and signed by Hsu. It was sent overnight delivery.

Details of the letter were first reported Thursday by The Wall Street Journal.

Hsu has been a benefactor of the Innocence Project, a legal group that helps prove prisoners' innocence through DNA testing.

"Norman Hsu has been a strong, committed supporter of ours for years. I believe he saw a report about our work and thought it was good work and worthy of supporting," Ferrero said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/...MYP1O.HA6s0NUE