Hillary Not Hsu Happy
Hillary Clinton has decided to return some of the money donated to her campaign through Norman Hsu after learning of his outstanding warrant for fraud and failure to appear. She will direct $23,000 to charity, less than half of the amount identified by the Los Angeles Times that came from the Paw family, whose connections to Hsu led to his exposure as a convicted con man:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign said yesterday that it would give to charity $23,000 it had received from a prominent Democratic donor, and review thousands of dollars more that he had raised, after learning that the authorities in California had a warrant for his arrest stemming from a 1991 fraud case. ...On his own, Mr. Hsu wrote checks totaling $255,970 to a variety of Democratic candidates and committees since 2004. Even though he was a bundler for Mrs. Clinton, his largess was spread across the Democratic Party and included $5,000 to the political action committee of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois.
Last month, Mr. Hsu was among the honored guests at a fund-raiser for Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island, given by Stephen A. Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group at the New York Yacht Club.
Al Franken, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, said he would divest his campaign of Mr. Hsu’s donations, as did Representatives Michael M. Honda and Doris O. Matsui of California and Representative Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, all Democrats.
The New York Times neglects to mention the actual amounts that Hsu redirected to Hillary's coffers. The Paw family alone gave $55,000 over the last three years to Hillary's campaigns, bundled through Hsu. The Lee family in New York donated over $37,000 to Hillary through Hsu as well, for a total just shy of six figues. The charitable donations to which Hillary has committed amounts to 25% of Hsu's bundled donations from just the two families reported by the LAT.
Why not part with all of it? She's been raising at least 1000 times the amount of her divestment in each of the last two quarters. While she will certainly need the money, clearing her name should take a higher priority. Quarter-measures like this make her look as though she's only interested in token actions meant to take the heat off for just long enough to keep as much Hsu money as she can.
Beyond Hillary's peculiar pecunary posturing, the path of Norman Hsu seems rather amusing. The man convicted of fraud and wanted for fleeing his prison sentence did not seem unduly handicapped by either in his career. The famous liberal New School made him a trustee and became a trustee at its Eugene Lang College. That came after he started donating heavily to the Democratic Party in his new incarnation, and the failed businessman and convicted fraudster somehow generated large amounts of cash for these efforts, with "connections" (as the New York Times puts it) to clothing related businesses. None of these organizations ever did as much as a cursory check on the Hong Kong native.
Where did Hsu get all this money? That remains to be seen, and it may be the most interesting question yet. So far, his entire history has been one failed enterprise after another -- and yet as a fugitive on the run, he managed to manipulate millions of dollars for the Democrats. That's a pretty neat trick.
UPDATE: Added link to the Los Angeles Times story with the donation amounts that the New York Times failed to report. Here are the excerpts:
The Paws -- seven adults, most of whom live together in a small house near San Francisco International Airport -- apparently had never donated to national candidates until 2004. Over a three-year period, they gave $213,000, including $55,000 to Clinton and $14,000 to candidates for state-level offices in New York. ...Danny Lee, a manager at the packaging firm, has given $95,000 to federal Democratic campaigns -- $19,500 of which went to Clinton. Yu Fen Huang, who shares a New York house with Lee, has given $52,200 to Democrats, $8,800 to Clinton. Soe Lee has contributed $54,000 to Democrats, $8,800 to Clinton.
The amounts add up to $92,100 going directly to Clinton. She's giving up $23,000.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on August 30, 2007 10:04 AM | Comments (40) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (40)
Posted by RBMN | August 30, 2007 11:16 AM
Did Marc Rich write one of those "How I Did It" books? Or, did Hsu just figure it out himself?
Posted by Ken | August 30, 2007 11:20 AM
Hsu appears to be a money launderer. Some entity is providing large sums of money for him to clean through political donations, with the additional bonus of the resultant favors that will be provided if their choice of politician(s) gets elected.
Posted by rbj | August 30, 2007 11:29 AM
Funny thing, my local paper (Toledo Blade) entirely missed this story, except for today's item about Hilary's charity donation. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the paper's liberal slant.
Meanwhile, there's the huge Sen. Craig sex scandal.
Posted by brooklyn | August 30, 2007 11:32 AM
How could the Clinton Campaign not know he was wanted?
How do we really know they actually donate some of the money to charity?
What charity are we speaking of, the Bill Clinton Library?
What promises were made in return for this financial support?
Is there another foreign interest, like China from the past, involved with these donations?
There should be an audit, an FBI investigation, a Congressional hearing, etc...
Where is John McCain, after his foolish Campaign Finance Folly, calling for an investigation?
Posted by LuckyBogey | August 30, 2007 12:40 PM
Hilary was too quick to return the money. There is more to this story that is not being told? Why does the LAT say this goes back to only 2004 when there is clear evidence that Mr Hsu has been involved in funding the DNC and the Clintons as far back as 1995 in CA through Ted Sioeng and his family? What else is the LAT not telling us?
I wonder if Mr Hsu spent any nights in the Lincoln bedroom? Can anyone check the logs for his WH visits and any meetings between Mr Hsu and the 1st Lady during the Clinton years? If researching, keep an eye out for wives, children & their husbands, and maiden names? They seem to be very clever!
Posted by dhunter | August 30, 2007 12:44 PM
Maybe she can donate the illegaly gotten money that iis not hers to the ACLU, Move-On.OGR, Daily Kos, CAIR, Clintoon library, Earth First, PETA, or Hill and Bill (19 year old intern Monicas' boyfriend) retirement fund. Certainly wouldn't want it to go back to those fleeced out of it.
OOPS, I misspelled IS , better look up the meaning I forgot its' all about the meaning of IS.
ISn't there any controlling legal authority here?
Like my neighbor robbing the bank, me driving the getaway car, getting caught, then getting to give the money to my kids college fund at the bank, then running for Chairman of the Board of said bank.
Only a Dem could getaway with this Crap.
Posted by kingronjo | August 30, 2007 12:46 PM
the Clinton's have sold out the security of our country to the Red Chinese(how about that for a throwback to the Cold War). Back in the 1996 campaign Chinese fled the country and were jailed for giving bribes to Clinton officials (funny how only the bribers went to jail, and not the bribees).
I was watching Greta one night and Greta was interviewing a former Madam Nottoobright Asst Secy who is now her partner (I forget her name). This woman had the gonads to say that NKorea got the nukes under Bush' watch. Even Greta, with her left leanings, couldnt take that and reminded this flunky how Nottobright even admitted how they were hoodwinked by the NKoreans and gave away the fuel needed to them.
Look at the Red Chinese arsenal since Clinton left. Increased accuracy in their missiles, men in space, nuclear submarines, the breadth and scope of their advances are breathtaking. Until you realize that a few million dollars to the DNC and Clinton's re-election bought and paid for the transfer of sensitive technology to them. Technology which has endangered my family, and yours.
This is one investigation I would back Congress on 100% and say is absolutely vital to our national security. I know that Reid wont call for it, but perhaps McConnell will?
Posted by cathyf | August 30, 2007 1:09 PM
The bankruptcy court has detailed records of exactly how much money Hsu took from exactly which people. There is no reason why the "contributions" can't be given to the ripped-off investors and creditors. It would be one thing to donate it to charity if the victims couldn't be identified. But this is different -- the bankruptcy process details all of this out in precise amounts.
Posted by unclesmrgol | August 30, 2007 1:13 PM
All the Democrats are unified in stating that they will give the ill-gotten gains they received directly from Hsu to "charity". Of course, they get to keep the "bundles"
Somehow, I can't see giving money Hsu got via his swindle to, for example, the DNC, UNICEF, the ACLU, or Planned Parenthood is going to compensate the victims who ought to receive the returned money.
Oh, but I forgot -- in Hillary's world (and, apparently, for the other Dem candidates), if you give the stolen money to the village idiot, isn't that the same as restoring it to the victimized villager?
Posted by Jazz | August 30, 2007 1:30 PM
"The Paw family alone gave $55,000 over the last three years to Hillary's campaigns, bundled through Hsu."
Giving back Hsu's money is a no brainer. Where, however, did you get the documentation for the quoted statement above. The NYT article I read pointed out some very suspicious sounding coincidences in tming and amounts (and not all that suspicious on amounts, as it was the max, which many people donate) but clearly stated that the Paw family hadn't even been accused of anything, say nothing of convicted. Mind you.. .this isn't a question of whether or not giving back that money would not be politically the smart thing to do, nor saying it's impossible that the money was not properly donated, but you stated this as a fact. Documentation?
Posted by Captain Ed | August 30, 2007 1:34 PM
Jazz,
It's in the Los Angeles Times, and noted and linked in my previous post, which I linked in this post. That's what I meant when I said "as reported by the LAT".
Posted by Captain Ed | August 30, 2007 1:40 PM
.... but I'll add the link to the article to this post in a moment, too.
Posted by filistro | August 30, 2007 1:41 PM
Oh c'mon, guys. Is it really smart for the party of Bob Ney, Ted Stevens, Tom DeLay, Rick Renzi, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Don Young, Tom Feeney, John Doolittle... (am I forgetting anybody?) to get all morally outraged over this story?
Arent you afraid of looking... well.. silly?
Posted by Jazz | August 30, 2007 1:45 PM
I stand corrected. I misread what you wrote. Taken literally, you do indeed simply say "bundled" through Hsu. I imagine, howeve, you can see how the reader could take it that you are implying that it was Hsu's money and not the Paws.
That's yet to be proven, though it may well be in the future.
Posted by I R A Darth Aggie | August 30, 2007 1:58 PM
I can't see giving money Hsu got via his swindle to [charities] is going to compensate the victims who ought to receive the returned money.
It isn't abundantly obvious that the "victims" actually are victims. So far as I can see, this is at the very least a influence peddling scheme: Hsu obtained the money from an unknow party or parties, then made donations himself, and obtained the services of others to make additional donations in order to circumvent the donation caps.
These "others" (like the Paw family) most likely took a cut of the money, or other consideration. Such as a generous loan agreement. Just sayin', not as a statement of fact or anything.
So giving this money back to them will most likely cause them all sorts of problems, not the least of which is the IRS asking "where did that money come from and did you report that income?"
It would become even more serious if it can be shown that the money involved is phoney-baloney North Korean minted US$100 bills. Then it becomes a money laundering scheme, too.
Posted by I R A Darth Aggie | August 30, 2007 2:00 PM
I can't see giving money Hsu got via his swindle to [charities] is going to compensate the victims who ought to receive the returned money.
It isn't abundantly obvious that the "victims" actually are victims. So far as I can see, this is at the very least a influence peddling scheme: Hsu obtained the money from an unknow party or parties, then made donations himself, and obtained the services of others to make additional donations in order to circumvent the donation caps.
These "others" (like the Paw family) most likely took a cut of the money, or other consideration. Such as a generous loan agreement. Just sayin', not as a statement of fact or anything.
So giving this money back to them will most likely cause them all sorts of problems, not the least of which is the IRS asking "where did that money come from and did you report that income?"
It would become even more serious if it can be shown that the money involved is phoney-baloney North Korean minted US$100 bills. Then it becomes a money laundering scheme, too.
Posted by Jazz | August 30, 2007 2:19 PM
The breakdown in communications is surely at least equally my fault, but let's try to be a bit more clear about this. There are several names being tossed around in this thread. One is Hsu. Apparently a convicted scumbag. Case closed. Dems should return any money he donated himself. No question.
However there are several other names being lumped in here, including the Paw family and now, others. The implication from your highlighted and linked "some of the money" seems to be questioning whether or not Clinton or any other Dems shoudn't return that money as well, carrying the implication that it's also "bad money."
I'm probablly naieve, but I'd never heard the term bundling before in this context. I am, however, familiar with the practice. In our county we have one particularly active and charming woman (who I'm not afraid to name in publich) Sue Aello. She's a long time fundraiser for the GOP in New York. (Often a thankless job, as you can imagine.) And over the years she has visited out home, along with all the other registered Republicans, many times. When Pataki was running, or various other popular GOP candidates and office holders, she would swing by with the usual rah-rah pitch, solicit donations, and go turn them all in herself at a state GOP meeting. She left with a check from me for 100$ or so on a number of occasions in the 90's.
Does that mean she did something wrong because she turned in the check and I didn't use my own stamp to send it? Does it mean I did something wrong? Now what if Sue turned out to be running a meth lab out of her house? (If you knew her, you'd know exactly how ridiculous that hypothetical is.) Would that mean that the GOP should return MY donation immediatly? That suddenly I was under suspicion?
Both articles, in the NYT and the LA Times you linked say the same thing. The Paw family has not even been accused of anything yet, say nothing of convicted. Yet their name is certainly being dragged through the mud here without a day in court. Weren't you the one just today talking about people and the press jumping to conclusions on Richard Jewel?
Even if they donated to Democrats instead of Republcans, I would hope they would get a fair shake here at CQ until they are actually put on trial for something.
Posted by unclesmrgol | August 30, 2007 2:26 PM
I R A Darth Aggie,
The "unknown parties" may not be so unknown.
Hsu was convicted of theft -- swindling over a million dollars from various investors in a sham business he pushed to import latex gloves (hence the Hillary wearing gloves in the daybyday cartoon featured above). He never returned that money, and fled after his conviction but before sentencing.
That money, plus interest, needs to be returned to the victims.
We aren't talking about the "others" (including the Paws) -- who, as you point out, may well be aiding Hsu in the distribution of his criminal gains.
Posted by Ken | August 30, 2007 2:38 PM
Jazz,
If Hsu wanted to donate far more than what law allows, he could hypothetically go to some acquaintences and give them each a sum to donate. The question here is did someone (Hsu) provide the Paw family with the money so that they would donate it in their name to Clinton.
Now, I'm no attorney, but I have to imagine that the participants in such a scheme must be running afoul of the law, as they are conducting themselves in a manner to specifically get around campaign finance laws.
Posted by unclesmrgol | August 30, 2007 2:44 PM
Oh, and another question -- is Hillary going to take the tax deduction for this "charitable" contribution, like John Edwards did with $500,000 of the $800,000 he got from Murdoch in his coffee table book deal?
I don't get to deduct most of what I give to my church because of the Democrat's disdain for charitable contributions under the $100,000 mark -- but if I could boost my charitable contributions by, say, $100,000 using other people's money, I could indeed take a 100% deduction on what I do give. Ditto for Hillary.
Posted by Jazz | August 30, 2007 2:44 PM
Thanks, Ken. You go directly to the point at hand. If the Paws or any of the other families listed actually *did* engage in that activity, they should be prosecuted and the Dems should give the money back or to chartiy or whatever. However, both of the linked articles make no mention of this. They point out incidents of timing which might make one suspect such activity was going on. They also take great pains to point out that the Paws, for exampel, were asked if that was Hsu's money and answered that no, it was their own. And the articles also point out that no charges have been filed against them at this time. So why is it being heavily implied here, if not stated outright by some commentors, that the Dems are "in the wrong" for not returning that money also? And that, by extension, the Paws and others are already guilty of a crime with which they've not yet been charged?
Trash Hsu all you like. He's clearly earned it. The other people listed are having their family names dragged though the mud at Captain's Quarters (and I'm sure other places) for the "crime" of having donated money to Democratic candidates and concerns. Thus far that is all that's been established as their having done.
If they are subsequently charged and convicted, then hey... go to town. But they haven't been.
Posted by John Griffin | August 30, 2007 2:45 PM
Is it possible the money came from the same Chinse connections as the owner of the Chinese Restaurant in Little Rock? What is it with these Clintons? Are they the real "Mancurian Candidates? Just a question!
Griff
Posted by Ken | August 30, 2007 3:01 PM
The fact that the Paws are connected in certain ways to Hsu, the fact that they appear not to be in a financial position to donate large sums of money, and the timing of it all certainly raises many questions.
They have not been proven guilty of anything at this juncture, but there is certainly enough smoke here to investigate and see if there is any fire.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 30, 2007 3:44 PM
filistro said:
"Oh c'mon, guys. Is it really smart for the party of Bob Ney, Ted Stevens, Tom DeLay, Rick Renzi, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Don Young, Tom Feeney, John Doolittle... (am I forgetting anybody?) to get all morally outraged over this story?"
LOL! As opposed to the party of:
Bill Clinton (selling nights in the White House to donors)
Albert Gore (illegally using White House telephones to fund raise, not to mention grabbing wads of cash at a Buddhist Temple)
Swimmer Kennedy (Teddy received illegal campaign donations from former Hawaii residents Gen and Nora Lum (who also employed the son of Ron Brown).
Robert Torricelli - Democrat - Withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election because of controversy over personal gifts he took from a major campaign donor and questions about campaign donations from 1996.
Daniel David Rostenkowski - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Illinois from 1959 to 1995. Indicted on 17 felony charges- pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds and sentenced to seventeen months in federal prison.
Charles Coles Diggs, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Michigan from 1955 to 1980. Convicted on eleven counts of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms- sentenced to three years in prison.
John Murtha, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. Implicated in the Abscam sting, in which FBI agents impersonating Arab businessmen offered bribes to political figures; Murtha was cited as an unindicted co-conspirator
Raymond Lederer - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1977 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.
Harrison Arlington Williams, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Senator from New Jersey from 1959 to 1970. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Allegedly accepted an 18% interest in a titanium mine. Convicted of nine counts of bribery, conspiracy, receiving an unlawful gratuity, conflict of interest, and interstate travel in aid of racketeering. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $50,000.
Frank Thompson, Jr. - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New Jersey from 1955 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting, convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges. Sentenced to three years in prison
Michael Joseph Myers - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting - convicted of bribery and conspiracy; sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000; expelled from the House of Representatives on October 2, 1980.
John Michael Murphy - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1963 to 1981. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, and accepting an illegal gratuity. Sentenced to three years in prison and fined $20,000.
John Wilson Jenrette, Jr - Democrat - U.S. Representative from South Carolina from 1975 to 1980. Implicated in the Abscam sting. Convicted on bribery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to prison
Alcee Lamar Hastings - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Florida. Impeached and removed from office as federal judge in 1989 over bribery charges.
and that's just the tip of the iceberg:
http://boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm
One more?
"The Federal Election Commission imposed $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The Federal Election Commission said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents left the country or the corporations are defunct."
Posted by filistro | August 30, 2007 3:54 PM
Del, Del, Del...
Impressive research, yes indeedy. But all the financial scandals I referred to have been in the news in the past year.
Posted by Ken | August 30, 2007 4:06 PM
filistro,
My main complaint when these issues arise is that republicans usually do the right thing and throw the accused republican under the bus and force a resignation, whereas the dems (with assistance of the MSM) always rally around their people who are accused of improprieties (see: Jefferson, William) and act like everything is peachy-keen.
Posted by filistro | August 30, 2007 4:12 PM
By the way Del, in response to a message you addressed to me down below just before Comments went kaput...
You are quite right, Victor Davis Hanson describes himself as lifelong Democrat. He also identifies himself as a neoconservative.
Not all that surprising, really, since the neocon movement actually has closer ties to the Democrats, ideologically and historically, than it does to Republicans.
Posted by davod | August 30, 2007 4:25 PM
I wonder if the money is from another country.
Remember the Chinese intelligence connection to fundraising in Daddy Clinton's time.
Posted by Master Shake | August 30, 2007 4:30 PM
Now, you can't expect Hillary to give all the money back. The Clintons don't commit treason for free, you know. Other Dems, sure, but not the Clintons.
Posted by Bob Leibowitz | August 30, 2007 5:33 PM
The Wall Street Journal puts the bundle to Hillary at just shy of $1 million from Hsu.
Posted by Fight4TheRight | August 30, 2007 5:42 PM
filistro,
You are right. Republicans certainly should not question any of Hillary's contribution sources because of the examples you listed.
In fact, I'm sure you'd agree that if Hillary suggested we surrender in Iraq, that if Hillary proposed that we actually surrender the government of the U.S.A over to the People's Republic of China we should just let that go as well, because I'm sure there had to be some link between Benedict Arnold to the Republican party.
Heck, we might as well just declare Hillary's contributions off limits, her political stances off limits, award her the first five primaries, announce she's the winner of the Dem Presidential nomination AND by golly, let's just sign her up for that swearing in ceremony for January of 2009!
There, you all happy now filistro?
p.s. paleo-conservative, right? haha
Posted by Micah | August 30, 2007 6:33 PM
Whatever happened to the Abramoff-Harry Reid connections. They were documented and published once, and then, wahlah!, never really talked about again. Abramoff gave (funneled) plenty to the dems.
As I recall, the LA Times was the paper publishing those details.
Do you recall that filistro, or does your memory begin Jan. 1, 2007? Why do the dhimmicrats rally round their criminals, while the repubs force resignations when they cross the line (and get caught)?
Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 30, 2007 6:48 PM
filistro said:
"But all the financial scandals I referred to have been in the news in the past year"
So what? The cases I cite show repeated and frequent Democrat corruption as a pattern spanning over several decades. Can you say "2008 election"?
And as I told you before, the word neocon is so predictable I don't pay any attention when it's brought up. Please give us a legitimate argument about how Mr. Hanson is "wrong", don't just call him names.
And tell us: should Hillary and the other candidates who got money from this guy give it all back?
Posted by filistro | August 30, 2007 6:52 PM
Micah, what are you talking about? Poor Jim Traficant is in prison!
(And boy, do I miss him... ;-)
Posted by dhunter | August 30, 2007 6:57 PM
Travel office firings, Rose Law Firm Billing Records, Cattle Futures amazing trading, FBI files from Who hired Craig Livingston,secret socialized health care negotiations.I don't recall, I don't recall , I can't seem to remember, these are only Hitleries nefarious shenanigans,and she skated. It was only Bills sick sexual conduct with a 19 year old intern and the lies that followed that stuck. Even then Hill had the poor girl ready for the funny farm until a certain blue dress appeared. Will any of this stick? Not if it's up to the old media, it's up to some republican to find the pair that distinguishes him from the girls to make it known that these two are crooks. Many are too young and many are too dumbed down to remember that these two are the most corrupt to ever inhabit the WH. If someone doesn't find his balls and go after the witch the only thing we may have to look forward to is having two from the same family impeached as POTUS.
Posted by filistro | August 30, 2007 7:43 PM
Rove tells GOP candidates corruption, not war, cost '06 votes
July 29, 2007
ROBERT NOVAK novakevans@aol.com
Karl Rove, President Bush's political lieutenant, told a closed-door meeting of 2008 Republican House candidates and their aides Tuesday that it was less the war in Iraq than corruption in Congress that caused their party's defeat in the 2006 elections. Rove's clear advice to the candidates is to distance themselves from the culture of Washington. Specifically, Republican candidates are urged to make clear they have no connection with disgraced congressmen such as Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley. In effect, Rove was rebutting the complaint inside the party that Bush is responsible for Republican miseries by invading Iraq.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 30, 2007 8:23 PM
Rove tells GOP candidates corruption, not war, cost '06 votes
July 29, 2007
ROBERT NOVAK novakevans@aol.com
link, please?
Posted by filistro | August 30, 2007 8:41 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/487693,CST-EDT-novak29.article
Posted by Fight4TheRight | August 30, 2007 9:27 PM
Karl Rove is completely correct. The Republicans DID lose the 2006 elections primarily due to the timing of the Mark Foley scandal. But before you get a big head, filistro...it has to be pointed out that the Republicans didn't lose those House and Senate seats because conservative dems and independents decided to vote Democrat instead of Republican...no they lost because Republicans stayed home!
It's simple. Democrats, being Liberals and Leftists, could care less about scandal or about the behavior of their elected leaders. This explains the reference the Left holds for Bill Clinton. They simply do not put any stock in what a person does.
Republicans are different. Being mostly conservative, they hold their elected officials up to higher standards and when the Cunningham and Foley scandals hit, Republicans basically said ..."it's time to teach them a lesson that we won't stand for it" and they stayed home.
There isn't a Democrat in the Land that would not vote for Hillary Clinton because of these contribution inconsistencies..the same way there isn't a Democrat that would not vote for Hillary Clinton if she was arrested tomorrow for a crime.
So, when a Republican like Senator Craig gets nailed, the MSM doesn't put it up on air 24 hours a day to sway Dem voters, they put it up hoping Repubs will see it...will get that same disdain they had for Foley.
Chuck Schumer broke a Federal law in pilfering Steele's credit reports and personal financial information. And why wasn't Schumer taken to task by the MSM or the Dem Congressmen or the Dem voters? Because in their Leftist mind, he didn't do anything wrong or anything they wouldn't do.
Posted by patrick neid | August 30, 2007 9:37 PM
Hsu is an easy investigation for any newsroom that wants to pursue it. He was found guilty of fraud---one million dollars. Splits for New York and hobnobs with the glitterati for years with boat loads of dough and now claims he didn't know there was a warrant out for him. Sure Mr. Hsu we believe you.
It's a very simple question Mr. Hsu, how do you earn a living? Have you paid taxes? You personally have given $295,000 large since 2004. That's more than $500,000 before taxes.
Also Ms Clinton, a question for you. You claim he's your bud since 1995. Let's see, your bj lovin dirtbag was president at the time. Hmmm. There's no way Mr Hsu wasn't vetted by the Secret Service if he got close to you and yours. Was Mr. Hsu ever at the White House? Your fans want to know.
Anyway you get the drift. This is an easy investigation.