WSJ omitted key information in article about Clinton donations from "unlikely address"
SUMMARY: In an article on campaign donations to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton from "an unlikely address," The Wall Street Journal suggested that "wealthy New York businessman" and "top fundraiser[]" Norman Hsu may have funneled illegal campaign contributions to Clinton by reimbursing members of the Paw family for contributions made to Clinton under their names. However, the Journal gave no indication it actually tried to get financial information indicating "how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess."
The Wall Street Journal omitted key information from an August 28 article that suggested "wealthy New York businessman" and "top fundraiser[]" Norman Hsu may have funneled illegal campaign contributions to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) by reimbursing members of the Paw family for contributions made to Clinton under their names. The Journal reported: "Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show." The article, by Wall Street Journal reporter Brody Mullins, later claimed, "It isn't obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess," and went on to describe the Paws' "one-story house in a working-class suburb of San Francisco," their ownership of a gift shop, and their occupations, which vary from "mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service" to "an executive at a mutual fund."
However, Mullins gave no indication he actually tried to get financial information regarding "how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess." Indeed, Lawrence Barcella, a Washington attorney representing Mr. Hsu, said in an August 28 statement, posted on Talkleft.com, that he offered to provide it: "I told the reporter [presumably Mullins] and his editor that I had reviewed the Paw's [sic] financial records, which clearly demonstrated that they easily had the financial wherewithal to make any level of contributions. ... I asked the reporter, in the presence of his editor, if I got permission to let them see the Paws' financial information, which shows their resources, would they not run the story? His editor responded 3 times that they were running the story anyway." The August 28 article did not address the purported offer of the Paws' private financial information. Instead, the Journal simply reported:
Lawrence Barcella, a Washington attorney representing Mr. Hsu, said in a separate email: "You are barking up the wrong tree. There is no factual support for this story and if Mr. Hsu's name was Smith or Jones, I don't believe it would be a story." He didn't elaborate.
Further, the Journal article claimed that "[t]he Paws' political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu," and, as evidence of this, offered purported connections between the Paws' giving pattern and Hsu's. From the Journal:
No one in the Paw family had ever given a campaign contribution before the 2004 presidential election, according to campaign-finance reports. Then, in July 2004, five members of the family contributed a total of $3,600 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat. Five of the checks were dated July 27, 2004. About the same time, Mr. Hsu made his first donations to a political candidate, contributing the maximum amount allowed by law to Mr. Kerry in two separate checks, on July 21, 2004, and on Aug. 6.
From then on, the correlation of campaign donations between Mr. Hsu and the Paw family has continued. The first donations to Mrs. Clinton came Dec. 23, 2004, when Mr. Hsu and one Paw family member donated the then-maximum $4,000 to her Senate campaign in two $2,000 checks, campaign-finance records show. In March 2005, the individuals gave a total of $17,500 to Mrs. Clinton.
However, the article did not report that the Paw family -- who, as the Journal noted, "have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005," including $45,000 to Clinton -- made donations to candidates to whom Hsu did not. For example, according to the Federal Election Commission disclosure database, Marina, Vivian, and Winkle Paw donated to Tammy Duckworth's unsuccessful 2006 congressional campaign, while Hsu did not. And Dimple Paw donated to Sen. John Tester's (D-MT) 2006 Senate campaign, while Hsu did not.
Also, it was not until midway through that the Journal article noted: "In the wake of a 2002 law that set ... limits [on campaign donations], federal and state regulators and law-enforcement officials said they have seen a spike recently in the number of cases of individuals and companies illegally reimbursing others for campaign donations. Those cases don't necessarily implicate the candidates, who sometimes don't even appear to be aware of such payments executed on their behalf." The Journal did not go beyond this general statement that these types of cases don't "necessarily implicate ... candidates." At no point did Brody specifically note the absence of evidence implicating Clinton.
Brody should ask Olbermann how to get away with such uncritical reporting.
Why would Hus's attorney be involved with the finances of the Paw's?
Because the WSJ brought Hu into the story by saying that the donations of the family seemingly matched contributions by Hu. So why wouldn't the lawyer get involved when inaccuracies are spewed?
This is like those calendars, with a "saying a day", or a quotation (or my favorite, the "Far Side" cartoons).
Each day, it's a new concoction by the rightwing smearmerchants, something with a "red meat" quality of ... scandal, corruption, underhanded dealings ... aimed at Hillary.
The hope, of course, is that something might stick, or actually develop into somebody somewhere was "trying to hide" something. Failing that, of course, the sheer volumn of "accusations" is supposed to instill that "where there's smoke, there's fire" attitude in the voters. "She can't be trusted," those voters would say, "Every day, we hear about something else 'fishy' she's been responsible for."
I really wonder if the rightwingers think the GOP can be saved this time around by more of the same scandalmongering? Are they holding their breaths waiting for a "Dean's scream" moment to play constantly and hopefully derail Hillary's candidacy?
Ah, well. The Republicans don't really have much else going but negative campaigning, dirty tricks, and their Media Echochamber to make every concocted innuendo into today's "news". God knows they can't tout their own candidates, their records, or their "ideas" (which seem to keep changing). It's out of the question to run on the record of the GOP Congress or the Bush Administration.
So, we Americans get treated to a "scandal a day", thrown on our walls to see what sticks.
It's like trying to win a major league baseball game by trying the "hidden ball trick" EVERY PLAY. It might work once, maybe twice ... but as the whole gameplan? It's a stone LOSER. You just gotta have some players and some game ... and the GOP have neither.
Isn't the WSJ the same newspaper that wouldn't shut up about the Whitewater "scandal" that found that Clintons did nothing wrong? Wasn't the WSJ the newspaper that suggested Vince Foster might have been assassinated by the Clintons?
Puhlease.
You don't care about facts or truth. When they found out Vince Foster died, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff and the White House Counsel, among others, went back to the White House, at night, and rifled through Foster's office. Why would ANYONE not be suspicious of such behavior? Look up their lame excuse that they told Congressional inquiries. Gonzalez can't hold a candle to them for brazen dishonesty to Congress.
The Whitewater OIC convicted the sitting governor of Arkansas and the President's business partner. How often do prosecutors catch fish that big?
Andra, you do realize that after millions of dollars and years of investigation by the special prosecuter committed to finding some evidence of a crime regarding Vince Foster's suicide, they had to give it up?
Have you no shame?
Vince Foster. If anybody killed him, it was the Wall Street Journal. Three investigations, three, all came up with the verdict: it was suicide.
As for the bizarre idea that "the sitting governor" and the "business partner" (Webb Hubbell) were convicted, so that proves something about the Clintons, the fact is, it doesn't. That governor was convicted of a bribe from a cable tv contract. He was a longtime enemy of Clinton's. If they were hoping to "go up the ladder" based on the conviction, they got zip. Hubbell, of course, was convicted of taking a bigger cut of the Rose firm's billings than he was entitled to. That means that, among the people he defrauded was Hillary Clinton. He said nothing about the Clintons -- but wait, he didn't get presidential mercy, either, unlike Libby. It got so bad that David Bossie, the chief researcher for the completely insane Burton Committee, gave excerpts of prison tapes to Lisa Myers, which she edited to make look worse. But it was a charge straight out of nowhere.
So, you doubt the word of Ken Starr, who said that Vince Foster's suicide was A SUICIDE?
Something seems a tad fishy here.
I look forward to the WSJ continuing their investigation.
Or anyone else that wants to give it a go.
Remember when something smelled fishy to you and your people about Whitewater and Vince Foster?
Me & my people?
Do you have any idea what my opinion of Whitewater or the suicide of Vince Foster was/is?
Somehow I rather doubt it, or you wouldn't have just automatically lumped me in with *my* so-called people.
Maybe you out to actually seek the truth instead of just assuming it.
There is no way for me to find out the truth about what you thought about Whitewater and Vince Foster; therefore, I can only estimate the likelihood of a right-wing bigot like you believing the Whitewater/Foster accusations or not.
I concluded that you believed both.
of a right-wing bigot like you
Hey Mr. Scumbag you better cough up some evidence of that charge or lose any credibility you might have here.
And as for my opinions about Whitewater.& Foster..well on any number of threads here in the past I've stated my disgust with how the Right-Wing went after Clinton searching for anything to nail him with--including WhiteWater, Foster, & Monica. Posters that have been here for awhile [like Solon; Open_Mind etc] could attest to this.
But you know what? On second thought..I don't give a f#cking sh#t what a loser like you thinks.
No, Jeter. These days, Republicans like you are the losers. And didn't it occur to you that an article coming from the same Clintons-hating newspaper that insinuated that Hillary/Bill were guilty in Whitewater and were probably involved in the Vincent Foster's death (now owned by Rupert Murdoch) should not to be taken too seriously?
Truthseeker77, if you really seek truth, show the basis of your accusations. Jeter doesn't need me to degend him, his writings are his best defense.
Jeter can be a pain in the ass, koolaid drinking, right wing nutjob that I disagree with most of the time, but he has never given me any reason to believe that he's a bigot, and has respectfully treated those with whom he disagrees.
You owe Jeter an apology. Anything less places you at a level no better than the Beck's, Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's, and Hannity's that we so detest.
Thank Rick...I think? ;-)
[Jeter can be a pain in the ass, koolaid drinking, right wing nutjob]
Yeah I can be all that & more...plus don't forget I'm a member of the WITH club :-)
But seriously thanks for speaking up for me.
Jeter, I wrote 'pain in the ass, koolaid drinking, right wing nutjob' for one reason only--I thought you might supply the perfect response: "Thanks...I think."
I knew that would be funny, and you didn't let me down. I figured you could use a softball after that crappy accusation.
For the record, I don't really think you're any of those things, at least not any more often than the rest of us. :-)
"Jeter doesn't need me to degend him"
I would hope not. That's sounds really painful.
You're out of order Truthseeker.
You seem to think that Jeter is some kind of Republican robot who gets his marching orders from Herr Rove.
Nothing could be further from the truth. He is willing to listen, always respectful of the views of others (unless you act like an ass), and goes out of his way to explain his position.
He's gained our respect and you've lost it.
Thanks King :-)
Every now & then someone decides to misrepresent me here, which does get me pretty heated. But I'm am always touched by the support & kind words from you & other posters. It really is appreciated.
I apologize to MMFA for getting embroiled in this little personal brouhaha that took the thread off topic.
Yes, Jeter2, you are a bigot, IMO. And what's up with the lawyer-like request for me to find "evidence" that you are a bigot? LOL.
You are inflexible and seldom consider the other side's point of view. I invite everyone to browse through your posts and decide for themselves.
Hahahaha...are you talking about me?
Inflexible? And seldom considers the other side's point of view?
Yeah ok. I think you might need to go do some reading & truth seeking.
Oh & you might wanna read Pearlene's post [scroll down]
Man you're a joke.
If you are new to this site, I will give you some advice. Jeter is not what you say. Spend a little time researching the archives so you don't have those knee jerk reactions. Jeter and I may fall on opposite sides of the spectrum, but this dog don't like some mutt pissin' on the hydrant just to make a mark.
Hey thanks Snoop it's appreciated :-)
You're a cyber-pal & you can count on me coming to your defense if you ever find yourself being smeared by some asshole.
Don't let "TruthSeeker" (?) get you too worked up, Jeter2. That ID10T is here only to try to get you banned. One can easily tell he/she has no idea what you stand for.
That ID10T is here only to try to get you banned
Yeah Oscar you're probably right. It's hard to turn the other cheek though when someone accuses you of being a right-wing bigot. If someone wants to disagree with me on an issue, fine. But to accuse me of something I know I'm not...well that's hard to ignore & not respond to.
There is no way for me to find out the truth about what you thought about Whitewater and Vince Foster; therefore, I can only estimate the likelihood of a right-wing bigot like you believing the Whitewater/Foster accusations or not.
I concluded that you believed both.
Truth, you estimated WRONG!. You don't know a thing about Jeter. He is honest, thoughtful, funny and more than anything able to admit mistakes. All of this from a somewhat conservative point of view. He is in NO WAY a "right-wing bigot". I consider him my blog buddy.
Thank you for your support & kind words Pearlene. I consider you a buddy as well :-)
As far as the WSJ's allegations of some sort of shenanigans involving donations to Hillary & other Democrats goes, what Truthseeker [I'd suggest a name change here] fails to have noticed is my questions have all been about Mr. Hsu & the Paws. Mr. Hsu could be playing games here & using the Paws or they could be willing accomplices--IF in fact something fishy is going on. This in no way means Hillary is part of their scheme. IF there even is a scheme...
Any alleged fraud dealing with campaign financing should be investigated...no matter where the charges originated from.
Now on a happier note: The Yanks beat the Red Sox 5-3 :-)
Goodnight Pearlene. And thanks again, you're a sweetheart & it's appreciated more than you know.
Truthseeker, I disagree with Jeter 99.9% of the time...
But you're just being a dick.
Stop it and go away. I'll take 100 more Jeters before I read a single post from you in the future.
Buh-bye.
Thanks DeezNuts :-)
According to the WSJ...the Wash. Post and NYT are also on the caper.
This is why the WSJ rushed to print this sloppy piece. They wanted to be first.
According to the WSJ...the Wash. Post and NYT are also on the caper.
Then I [Sherlock Holmes] & you Wesley [Dr. Watson] should join the media in this caper as well.
Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot ;-)
Jeter, I really do hate it when you're right ;-)
major Democratic Party fundraiser named Norman Hsu is wanted by authorities for skipping out on an agreement to serve up to three years in prison after pleading no contest to grand theft swindling charges
Why don't we see articles like this about Republican candidates? They are nitpicking. Is there a crime about a family corresponding with each other and agreeing on donating money at the same time? There was probably an Anti-Bush conversation taking place at the last Paw family get together, where they all agreed to give money to the democrats. I could totally see that happening in my family, and then all of us writing checks the very next day.
Unlikely address?
All you have to do is look at the house to come to that logical assumption...this address is No. 3 on the list of addresses donating to Hillary since 2005.
Smoke or fire? Don't know...but the unlikely address merited a look.
Even if this address is # 3, does that mean that this family could not have agreed the night before to give the money? My family sticks together, and if we all said tomorrow we will give money after a debate of this issues, we would all give money.
How about yours?
Of course not...I said after looking at the house...it would raise a logical concern...and it does.
It now comes to light that Hsu is an absconder from justice on fraud..more curiosity is normal.
Calm down boys.
From the Wall Street Journal article:
"In the wake of a 2002 law that set ... limits [on campaign donations], federal and state regulators and law-enforcement officials said they have seen a spike recently in the number of cases of individuals and companies illegally reimbursing others for campaign donations. Those cases don't necessarily implicate the candidates, who sometimes don't even appear to be aware of such payments executed on their behalf."
So even if individual contributors in this case were trying to skirt the law it's a long shot it would have anything to do with the Clinton campaign.
Ask Norman Hsu about his connections to Ted Sioeng and Bernard Schwartz of Loral Space & Communication.
"Kent Cooper, a former disclosure official with the Federal Election Commission, said the two-year pattern of donations justifies a probe of possible violations of campaign-finance law, which forbid one person from reimbursing another to make contributions.
"There are red lights all over this one," Mr. Cooper said.-WSJ
Lets stick to the subject and stop alluding to the past. The WSJ article is merely pointing out facts.
This is probably the lamest Media Matters defense of the Clintons ever. Mr. Paw is a mail carrier and his wife doesn't work but they've given Hillary Clinton like 20% of their gross income the last couple years???? And that should raise no suspicions because some lawyer says he offered the WSJ financial records - which Media Matters apparently hasn't seen.
The Paws stuck out like sore thumbs "giving" that kind of money. Its Riady and Chung all over again.
One thing that should be stated about this house in a working class neighborhood, the people who live there are asians and I know this sounds racist but they are also notoriously cheap. Mrs Hsu can make that $49K go a much longer way than a caucasian housewife. They make more sacrifices, also there are adult 'children' living at home they are also contributing and if they gave to republicans this would not be much of a story.
Remember people those Attorneys generals were fired for not going after Democrats that had commited 'voter' fraud.
As far as "Whitewater" being a "crime" then the president and all his brothers also need to share a cell with the Clintons... They also commited the same crime remember the state of Texas' banking system almost collapsed during the 80's due to 'land flip' scandals. And Neil Bush did it with land he stole from Silvirado Savings and loan to build the 'fancy' airport out there in Colorado. The 'fancy' airport that has to keep closing due to it's machanics...
What I am really upset about is there is a 'double set' of standards I mean Karl Rove did interviews last week about how Hillary Clinton is "deeply flawed" and that she has the highest 'negatives' of any candidate running for president.
I remembered that George W Bush also had high negatives and could have been considered 'deeply flawed' as well because he did not really have a 'real' job or any responsiblities prior to becoming gov of the state of Texas... Then there was all that AWOL mess, and the land deal that got his statium built for the Rangers his baseball team made with money he did not have... Ooops actual proof that George is 'deeply flawed'.
Maybe Karl should take his baseless acusations elsewhere because this story aint makin' no sense...
Gonzo the Magnificant should get right on this. It will be interesting to see if Barcella's statement about the Paws' financial condition holds up. If it does, and there is no proof that the money came from someone else, they should sue the WSJ for libel - they aren't public figures.
So the FEC should get involved?
I wonder if the WSJ has an investigator looking into Fred Thompson's $3.5 Million in donations to his "testing the waters" fund.
No, don't bother. I already know the answer to that question.
HRC's campaign is starting to stink and fall apart. Her alibi about this man does not pass the smell test. HRC will soon start sinking the entire democratic slates across the nation. If the party does not jettison her now, quickly, we can be assured of a disastrous 2008 with the party losing across the board. We democrats must rally around anyone but the Clinton clan.