Hillary's Other Problematic Bundler
Having one major contributor with a criminal history of fraud can just be bad luck. Having two of them starts looking like a pattern. The Washington Post reports that Norman Hsu has some company with the Hillary Clinton campaign in Sant Charwal, who fled India ahead of the law but still has plenty of cash to throw at Hillary's campaign:
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.
Chatwal's case reached from his native India to New York City. The IRS pursued him for approximately $4 million in unpaid business taxes, while New York state placed a lien seeking more than $5 million in taxes. He forfeited a building to New York City on which he was delinquent on property taxes and was sued by federal regulators seeking to recoup millions of dollars in loans from a failed bank where he served as a director.
Across the ocean, three Indian banks forced him into U.S. bankruptcy, and he was charged with bank fraud. He was out on bond when he showed up in India in 2001 during a visit by his longtime friend Bill Clinton.
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.
Chatwal has an even more interesting history than Hsu. He spent most of the Clinton era running up millions in debt and failing to pay it back. Both here and in India, Chatwal had to declare bankruptcies, and in both cases, banking regulators charged Chatwal with fraud. In fact, the FDIC here noted that the supposedly bankrupt Chatwal continued living in a tony New York penthouse in 1997, even though his declared income could not possibly cover the bills.
The FDIC sued Chatwal for the failure of First New York Bank for Business. It charged that Chatwal gave out over $12 million in bad loans. In September 2000, Chatwal hosted a fundraiser for Hillary's Senate campaign, raising $500,000. Three months later, the FDIC suddenly settled Chatwal's case for $125,000, or about a hundredth of the loss suffered by the FDIC.
One of Hillary's aides told the press that Norman Hsu never asked for any favors from the Clintons for his fundraising efforts. It seems that the Chatwal case may be different.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on September 3, 2007 9:48 PM | Comments (25) | TrackBacks (4)
Comments (25)
Posted by Fred | September 3, 2007 11:34 PM
Per-paid pardons are always a good investment.
Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 3, 2007 11:45 PM
The Clinton's are crooked. Bought and paid for with Asian money.
Anyone to put to put this 2 and 2 together are willfully ignorant or retarded.
President Obama would be less of a threat to this country that the Bejing Clinton.
Posted by Carol Herman | September 3, 2007 11:46 PM
Fred, now that's funny!
Personally, I think all politicians are selling "access." And, Hillary is a "known subject," where we all know about the cash you can raise when you rent the Lincoln bedroom.
But will this amount to a hill of beans?
I'm serious.
She's not a GOP candidate. (She'd never make the cut.) But she's out there as a front runner for the Bonkeys.
You don't think Breck Girl, aka The Silken Pony, isn't in this thing to raise money?
Do you know what politians do all day? The alarm rings. And, they get out of bed. And, dress. To shake hands with new strangers, where they exchange their time, for donations. No donations? Don't expect your hand getting shaked, either.
If "free" worked? Monica, not Hillary, would be the candidate. And, the bumper sticker would say "Fat Ass Pizza Delivery, wanna vote?"
As a matter of fact, since the media seems, in some parts, to be less than thrilled ... Is it possible these "scandals" are brewed up to darken her horse?
What makes otherwise normal people think a party would run Hillary, when her negatives are high. And, it's Bill that claims to have rapport with people.
Hillary reminds me of those talent-less ladies who want to star in a show. So they have sex with the producer. Sometimes? The producer is blind to the star's lack of charisma. And, then the critics devour the show.
What makes you think that cannibalism isn't a tribal rite among elitist limosine liberals?
Besides, math and politics don't mix.
Just to give Hillary a chance to shrug; she probably see's it got her headlines. Hence, no downside.
Not that I know, because I'm not drawn to her. (Yes, I know people who are.) Sometimes, ya just got to understand "to each his own."
Meanwhile, the race can't be Guiliani against Mitt Romney, except in the primary. The republicans aren't encouraged to lead with two, so the general population "can pick one."
Is this a Chinese menu? Well, one from "A" or one for "B" ... And, no egg roll.
Posted by KJBtruth | September 3, 2007 11:50 PM
Wow, nice post Captain Ed.
Obama must be looking better and better every day.
Maybe.
Let's see how far the investigation(s)may go.
But surely America is weary of the same old cronyism, shady deals and slimy politicians? The return to the Clinton era is rife with these kind of ugly, money trumps all morals that the Clinton's, and indeed the Democrat party seem to embrace.
It's going to be a loooong year...
Posted by KJBtruth | September 3, 2007 11:54 PM
In fact... I think a future GOP commercial should feature tough question being asked off camera directed at Hillary, and then instead of an answer, just play the clip of her rolling her eyes during the State of the Union.
How in the world can the Dems put her up?
Is it due to the fact that only 3 or 4 states decide the nominee?
fools..
Posted by ck | September 3, 2007 11:54 PM
I'm assuming you will give as much attention to Alan B. Fabian, the Romney fundraiser who was charged in a 23 count indictment, including charges of money laundering, mail fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice? Link
Posted by ck | September 4, 2007 12:01 AM
Oh, and just in case you guys don't follow up on Mr. Fabian since the NYTimes (that liberal paper) decided not to press the issue, Fabian actually was doing the same thing as HSU (giving people money to donate to the campaigns he wanted them to) and Romney isn't giving the money back (only giving the money straight from Fabian back)...
Posted by KJBtruth | September 4, 2007 12:06 AM
Hmm...
Well, I haven't been a Romney supporter. He won't sell in the South.
Now that gotcha! politics has extended to fund raising (which is fine imho), these candidates had better come up with a way to vet these contributors.
I am pretty sure Fred Thompson hasn't broken these rules (since non candidates are barred from raising it). Fred, Mitt and Rudy had better get up to speed on this stuff fast.
Posted by Cybrludite | September 4, 2007 12:15 AM
CK,
If Romney had a snowball's chance in perdition of getting the nomination, you'd have a point.
Posted by ck | September 4, 2007 12:22 AM
Didn't he win Iowa? Or was that just because Thompson wasn't in and the others weren't campaigning much? I dunno...
I hope Hillary doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination either, but for some reason some people think she's a better fit than Obama or even Kucinich.
Posted by unclesmrgol | September 4, 2007 12:27 AM
For the record, the FDIC settlement was on December 18, 2000, a month before Bush 43's inauguration on January 20, 2001. This certainly puts the Captain's "three months" into perspective.
A payment of $125,000 for losses totalling over $12 million -- boy, now I understand why guys like Trump can lose it all but not really lose it all. It's all who you know.
Posted by unclesmrgol | September 4, 2007 12:39 AM
ck,
I note that the definition of "bundler" in the blog article you cite seems quite legal to me -- a person who commits to getting other people to donate. Fabian's finance committee title in the Romney campaign certainly seems to indicate that kind of behavior.
What isn't stated in your cited blog article is your claim that Fabian distributed money to others in an attempt to circumvent per-donor money restrictions (which is what appears to be happening in the Hsu case -- a named network of people of modest means contributing far more than one might expect from people of modest means).
So, ck, put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, and cough up the names of Fabian's network of donors whom you believe to have channelled large amounts of Fabian's ill gotten gains into Romney's coffers.
Posted by brooklyn - hnav | September 4, 2007 3:27 AM
Hey Captain,
The Clintons are very concerning.
The New School has some interesting connections you should review:
The Gateway Pundit:
'Hsu-nami News: Norman Hsu Linked to China Missile Trader'
And WND:
"Is the other Hsu about to drop?"
Hillary's donor linked to China missile trader...
"A shady Chinese megadonor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has close ties to an aerospace mogul accused of placing his business interests before national security by sharing missile secrets with Beijing during the Clinton administration."
Posted by daytrader | September 4, 2007 5:44 AM
Gateway Pundit also links another Hillary donor with issues with the law.
Posted by Bostonian | September 4, 2007 6:43 AM
ck,
The NYTimes shows four hits for "fabian romney fraud"
What are you b****ing about?
Posted by patrick neid | September 4, 2007 6:44 AM
Reporting a story and following up on it are two different things. To date the Clinton's basically control the MSM by commanding so many votes amongst the reporters.
With the Hsu story, and the one above, Hillary will just put on her pink dress and claim a staffer dropped the ball. Never forget that she was caught with the "raw" FBI files on most of the Republican Congress etc in the White House basement, a major felony, and nothing happened. Who can forget those phone records that the maid found on the coffee table upstairs in her living quarters and nothing happened. Rogue attorney's are a dangerous animal.
Unless they have video of Hillary on her knees receiving the cash and making promises these stories go nowhere. However they do help to remind people of the "good old days" with the Clinton's.
Posted by docjim505 | September 4, 2007 6:46 AM
Everybody does it. So it must be OK. Right?
Posted by Papabear | September 4, 2007 7:09 AM
Monday night I saw a CNN segment showcasing Edwards. I'm guessing the major media are going to cover their bets by pumping up the only other Dem candidate that looks viable
Posted by Jim | September 4, 2007 7:35 AM
Our choices on the Dem side boil down to:
1. Vicious, cut throat, anti-military, hard core socialist, Hillary. The manner in which she will treat her percieved enemies will make Nixon look like a boy scout. A complete disaster domestically, but MAYBE she'll be tougher than the others will be on international terrorists, and not allow herself to get "distracted" like her husband was. Or at least be not a laughable Carter-like amateur, like the other two will be. But I'm not holding my breath...
I saw ten seconds of a replay of her recent speech to supporters on t.v. yesterday. (The one where BillyJeff is sitting like a good boy on a stool a few feet away from her - acting sincere and all; but you know he's really checking out any good cleavage shots in the crowd); and the first thing that pops in to my mind as I hear that School-marm nasal sound...."am I really going to have to listen to THAT voice for 4-8 years? Horrors."
2. Obama. Is there any indication WHATSOEVER, to date, that he will NOT simply be an African American Jimmy Carter? My very first election shortly after my 18th birthday was the Carter-Ford election. I was completely confident that the American public would see right through the nice-sounding but incredibly shallow platitudes, delivered through that big old toothy grin.....oh my G-d, Obama is like deja vu all over again. Terrifying. Libs love to claim that BushHitler/Cheney/Halliburton made us "hated" overseas. Obama will make us a laughingstock. And guys like the Iranian Mullahs will laugh the loudest.
3. Edwards. There is a difference between being "glib" and being intelligent. Is is possible for one man to better fit the description "empty suit" than this man? Obama's gotta love Edwards, because Edwards is one of the few men who can actually make Obama appear deep.
G-d help us all.
What on earth happened to the democratic party? Where did you go, Harry Truman? Where did you go, Scoop Jackson?
Posted by unclesmrgol | September 4, 2007 8:40 AM
Suddenly, ck is very quiet.
Posted by Burford Holly | September 4, 2007 8:53 AM
Don't forget Fred Thompson, the man with the best credentials as a professional lobbiest.
Fred broke the testing the waters cap of $5,000 by several million bucks
But Fred has delayed announcing, apparently because Fred wants to delay filing his financial dislcosures until 2008.
Posted by Red Wolverine | September 4, 2007 10:02 AM
Nobody cared about this in 1996. Why would they care about. Folks we are gonna get outspent this time by 100 million dollars.
redwolverine
http://copiousdissent.blogpsot.com
Posted by cali_sun28 | September 4, 2007 10:27 AM
This also the same guy who is trustee of Bill Clinton's Charity Foundation, wondering what else he is doing there..
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 4, 2007 4:50 PM
ck said of Romney:
"Didn't he win Iowa? Or was that just because Thompson wasn't in and the others weren't campaigning much? I dunno..."
Actually, McCain, Rudy and Thompson knew Mitt would win and decided not to participate.
Posted by ck | September 4, 2007 6:02 PM
Unclesmrgol - I do sleep buddy... It's kind of premature to accuse people of being silent on a blog when you have no idea of their personal schedule. But if it makes you feel better, so be it...
You are right... HSU has been alleged to have had other people donate for him. This hasn't been proven yet (and I don't think it has even been charged) but it does seem likely, so I'll give it to you. HSU, thankfully was only a donator, while Fabian was actually the national finance committee co-chairman for Romney's campaign. I think I spoke too soon when I said he was doing the same thing as Hsu. Apparently he wasn't, he was doing it in a legitimate way since he was co-chairman of the finance committee. But, yes, you are right, he was not doing the same thing. Still not too good.
As far as Hsu goes... I couldn't care less... I'm not voting for Hillary, and it doesn't matter to me what the hell she does, because I can't think of anything that would change my mind on her. I really think this goes on in every campaign, and that's one reason I would like to have a mandated amount of free tv air time and travel costs for each candidate. Get away from fundraising (because that shouldn't be part of being president)....
Bostonian: Check again my friend... Look how many articles they have on HSU and relate that to Fabian.