The Hill's Stoddard on Paws' donations: "[T]his is exactly the kind of thing that could bring [Hillary Clinton] down"
SUMMARY: On Tucker, while discussing a Wall Street Journal article that suggested a major donor may have funneled illegal campaign contributions to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, A.B. Stoddard asserted that "this is exactly the kind of thing that could bring her down." However, as the Journal article itself reported: "[R]egulators 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."
On the August 28 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson led a discussion about an August 28 Wall Street Journal article that suggested Norman Hsu, a "wealthy New York businessman" and "top fundraiser[]," may have funneled illegal campaign contributions to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) by reimbursing members of a California family, the Paws, for contributions made to Clinton under their names. During the discussion, Carlson asked guest A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, "Is this going to elicit some sort of FEC investigation?" Stoddard replied: "I don't know the answer to that, but I think that this is exactly the kind of thing that could bring her [Clinton] down."
The blog Daily Howler has also noted Stoddard's comments.
Stoddard later added, "[D]ie-hard Democrats who might think she is the most capable or experienced, there is still a sour taste in their mouth about the financial transgressions of the Clintons, which have filled books and will continue to. And I think that this, if it turns into something, will be a huge problem for her." Carlson responded, "I mean, the idea that she is a corporate Democrat. That's a potent line," and Stoddard replied, "That they [the Clintons] cannot stop taking money from illegal sources." The Clintons have never been charged with any "financial transgressions."
In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, the Journal article, by reporter Brody Mullins, reported: "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."
Additionally, Carlson described the Paw family as "a down-on-its-heels family," adding, "I think that's fair to say." Carlson noted only that the "[f]ather [of the Paw family] is a mailman in San Francisco" and aired a picture of the Paws' home in Daly City, California. However, the Journal described the Paw family in the following way:
Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple's grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to 'attendance liaison' at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund.
As Media Matters documented, an August 28 headline on the political website JustHillary.com read, "Wall St. Journal on Hillary campaign mystery: How did poor family donate $45,000?" An August 29 headline on the site read, "Full Coverage: The Shack Family & Their Hillary $$$..."
As Media Matters noted, Hsu's lawyer, Larry Barcella, said in an August 28 statement, posted on Talkleft.com, that in addition to making the comments published by the Journal, he offered to provide financial information showing that the Paws could make such donations: "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.
On Tucker, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan asserted that Hsu's "lawyer said if his name was Smith or Jones rather than Hsu, they wouldn't be after him. He's playing the ethnic card," to which Carlson replied, "Oh, of course. Oh, right. I'm sorry. It's racist to ask these questions. I should -- you know, I should've laid that out right there. It's animated by anti-Asian bias. No, that is so ridiculous, it's not even -- I mean, that's unbelievable."
From the August 28 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Hillary Clinton will accept huge amounts of money from people whose money that may not be --
STODDARD: Yes.
CARLSON: -- according to today's The Wall Street Journal. Big story about a family --
BUCHANAN: That was wonderful. The Paw family.
CARLSON: Yeah, the Paw family. I would say a down-on-its-heels family -- I think that's fair to say -- that has donated $45,000 to Hillary Clinton. Father is a mailman in San Francisco.
STODDARD: Who makes 49 a year.
BUCHANAN: Two hundred thousand in the last couple of cycles.
CARLSON: That's exactly right. Is this going to elicit some sort of FEC investigation?
STODDARD: I really -- I don't know the answer to that, but I think that this is exactly the kind of thing that could bring her down. And the reason --
CARLSON: I'm sorry, I want to put a picture of the house on the screen, by the way. This is a family -- these are some of Mrs. Clinton's big donors.
STODDARD: And we have to mention that it tracks her -- one of her biggest Hill raisers.
CARLSON: There it is.
BUCHANAN: Mr. Hsu. Mr. Hsu.
CARLSON: That's the mansion that houses the tycoon that is helping to fund Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
STODDARD: But the donations from the Paws are -- track the donations from Mr. Hsu, who is a Hill raiser, who did a fundraiser in Los Angeles recently with Ron Burkle, who is the third spouse in the Clinton marriage. I mean, he is a major Hillary fundraiser.
BUCHANAN: His lawyer said if his name was Smith or Jones rather than Hsu, they wouldn't be after him. He's playing the ethnic card.
CARLSON: Oh, of course. Oh, right. I'm sorry. It's racist to ask these questions. I should -- you know, I should've laid that out right there. It's animated by anti-Asian bias. No, that is so ridiculous, it's not even -- I mean, that's unbelievable.
STODDARD: But I think this is so dangerous for her, and the problem is --
CARLSON: But this is a problem.
BUCHANAN: When you don't have any other defense, Tucker, it's not a bad one.
STODDARD: The die -- this kind of feeling that Obama and Edwards are stoking among die-hard Democrats --
CARLSON: Yes.
STODDARD: -- who might think she is the most capable or experienced, there is still a sour taste in their mouth about the financial transgressions of the Clintons, which have filled books and will continue to.
CARLSON: Yes.
STODDARD: And I think that this, if it turns into something, will be a huge problem for her.
CARLSON: I mean, the idea that she's a corporate Democrat. That's a potent line.
STODDARD: That they can't stop taking money from illegal sources. I mean --
BUCHANAN: Yeah, I don't -- they've got to really prove this, obviously. It looks pretty close to me. But, yeah, I think it is a problem that Hillary's got. It's one that obviously Edwards feels she does. That's why he's hammering her.
I do not see why it will bring Hillary "down" as Stoddard says.
I may be going out on a limb here, but if Republicans gain a toe-hold and - armed with Paws financial situation - can finger Paws for footing the bill, basically giving arch-enemy Hillary an illegal hand-out, it could be a leg up toward bringing her to her knees.
(I know, I know - I'm a heel for writing that.)
MMFA should pay close attention to this case, as it is being treated as a true scandal by the right-wing media and their cousin the mainstream media.
I think you are right, this could grow and divert attention from the real GOP scandals.
This shows just how desperate the GOP Propaganda Parrots really are. They don't think they can beat Hillary on the issues, so they dredge up the crap they used during the 90s. More phony controversies about "shady finances"...they're even using references to Castro, for Christ's sake! Dick Cheney is a bigger threat to the United States than Castro is!
Refinancing a $270,000 mortgage with a $50,000 income? Taking out a 30 year mortgage (assumed) at age 64? There is something a little strange in this whole episode. Sure it won't touch HRC personally, but Abramoff's spending was portrayed as touching all Rs. I also heard on the news today that another source, besides the WSJ, is reporting much the same story. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
but Abramoff's spending was portrayed as touching all Rs
No. Just the ones it touched.
Abramoff helped bankroll the GOP takeover of the government. Do you really think that story was somehow blown out of proportion by the press? Could you imagine if it had been one of the top Democratic fundraisers being a criminal? That story would have been the biggest story of the year for all of the 'mainstream' political reporters. The only reason you can minimize the Abramoff story in your mind is that the media did the same thing. Don't you see how much a product you are of a crooked, right-wing media?
the conservatives spent eight years doing this stuff during the clinton administration. i remember one of his press spokesmen, forget which, was asked about a republican call for impeachment, pre monica. he told the members of the press to check their records, because it was an annual gop "spring rite".
Mr. Hsu does seem a mysterious figure.
And the story surrounding his relationship with the Paws, a family of seemingly modest means & their rather large contributions over the past several years totaling $200,000 does raise if not suspicion, then at least curiosity.
But even if he's involved in something shady involving the Paw family or any other possible campaign financing shenanigans, that doesn't necessarily mean Hillary Clinton is in cahoots with him/them.
Mr. Hsu's financial dealings regarding political donations should be scrutinized. It will either clear him, or nail him.
We know the story has moved along some: Hsu is a fugitive with a lousy excuse. I mean the worst, a Clinton-worthy excuse like when he said he never got a draft notice and he'd gotten two!
Hsu claims he doesn't recall pleading guilty and agreeing to a 3 year prison sentence!
Sure it could bring Hillary Clinton down. This story was a gem and there may well be more such gems. Editors will assign reporters to look for them. Opposition research with other candidates, especially Republican candidates, will look for more gems. There is so much opportunity to find them, not just in Hillary Clinton's donors but in the people who have funneled $40 million to Bill Clinton since he left office. There's already been some scrutiny of Vinod Gupta and he could well reappear in the news with his all girl crew on his company paid yacht and his telemarketing lists of seniors with Alzheimers.
I think Republican opposition research will move stories out when they have them and not wait until Clinton has secured the nomination. The strategy has to be to get her negatives up to insurmountable levels in the key swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.
>>This story was a gem and there may well be more such gems.
Ah, a gem for propagandists. Otherwise, it doesn't show anything. As the article points out, there is no proof that Hillary was aware of this crime, if it were a crime.
>>The strategy has to be to get her negatives up to insurmountable levels in the key swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.
Yes, that is the strategy of the Republicans, which you have no shame in promoting. Let's not have an election about issues; lets have one based on bogus charges, such as the swiftboaters used.
I don't think Andra was "promoting" the strategy. Just saying what their strategy is doesn't imply promoting it. But, I may be wrong. I'm no Hillary fan as I am dying for Obama to get the nomination, but it seems to me that there's not too much here. I don't think most candidates really know or care where their campaign money comes from. they just know that they want a lot of it.
Do a lot of work for the "family values" party?
andra "shows up" every once in a while to spew the talking points.
Totally agree with last post. HRC is a disaster waiting to happen.
Yes, another person voting with the family values party.
I think she's a disaster too. And I am voting with the family values party. I'm voting Democratic!
You may think she's a diaster, but not because of this fund raising allegation.
Not this per se, but things like this. What I mean is that Hillary to me is open to all sorts of charges of corruption from the right. Whether they are true or not doesn't really matter because she already has a reputation for shady business deals. But, I'd give her my support if she was the nominee. I just think that someone like Obama who doesn't really have any skeletons in his closet would be the best choice. Just my opinion.
She has engaged in no shady business deals that I am aware of, unless you mean whitewater, of which the Clinotns were absolutely innocent.
I didn't say she engaged in shady business deals, I said "has a reputation for shady business deals". I don't think she deserves this reputation, but it is there nonetheless.
she has that reputation among conservatives.
My point exactly. That reputation will be exploited by conservatives if she is the nominee.
they're going to go after anyone who is the nominee. they did it to kerry in 2004 and gore in 2000. they make it up.
I LOVE HOW EVERYTIME THE REPUBLICANS PARTY LOOKS BAD THEY WILL PUT OUT A STORY THAT WILL MAKE THE CLINTONS LOOK BAD. LET'S SEE HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE THE RIGHT-WING CNN, MSNBC, NBC AND CBS TO START TALKING ABOUT THIS STORY 24/7. I SEE FOX NEWS IS ALREADY DOING A STORY. HEY I SEE THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA SAW THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS THROWN GREG UNDER THE BUS SO NOW IT'S ALL RIGHT FOR THEM TO TALK ABOUT THIS SEX STORY 24/7.IF THEY WERE DEFENDING HIM THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA WOULD HAVE DID WHAT THEY FIRST DID WHEN THE STORY CAME OUT, DOWN PLAYED THE STORY.
Um, I think you got the capitals locked on your computer there RW. Just go ahead and hit that thing one more time and that should fix the problem.
Right-Winger, just curious...did you used to post here under the name...Bolink?
You sound just like him, & he did all CAPS too.
- The Paws stuck out like sore thumbs "giving" that kind of money. - andra
- Something seems a tad fishy here. - jeter
Clinton Donor Under a Cloud in Fraud Case
- Sen. Hillary 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...
The donor, Norman Hsu, has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democratic candidates since 2003, and was slated to be co-host next month for a Clinton gala... - NYT
Nice job andra and jeter...your instincts were right on the money. Now we'll see if mmfa continues spinning this silly defense of Clinton...or will they just quietly slink away.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Homophobic, Xenophobic Republican rationalizations of campaign financing from a family that has a modest income, except for the "FILTHY RICH HEDGE FUND MANAGER IN THE FAMILY!!!" raises Republican suspicions, like Whitewater. Does this mean we're going on a $ 50 million dollar strong arm witch hunt with a special prosecutor that could only find jiz on a skirt?Tell me why anyone thinks these people who despise government should have any serious say in governance?? Don't worry Republican, we'll save us, and yourself, and your family from YOU IN '08! Maybe complaining is what a Neo-Con does best, and like the whiner in every crowd we should take all in stride, and ignore the narrow minded nay-sayer!Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The plot thickens.
William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier earning $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Winkle Paw, 36, states in campaign reports that he works for several of Mr. Hsu's apparel companies. Campaign-finance records show the $55,000 in donations the family members have made to Mrs. Clinton this year place them among her leading financial supporters. The family has donated about $225,000 to Democrats since 2005.
Records also show that political donations from the Paw family are regularly made to the exact same candidate, on the exact same day and for similar amounts as campaign donations from Mr. Hsu, who once listed their home as his address. The family, with Mr. Hsu and other associates, have collectively donated a total of $950,000 to a long list of Democratic candidates. WSJ
Reporters and TV crews descended on the pastel bungalows along Shelbourne Avenue after the Wall Street Journal reported that one of the families in the working-class neighborhood was the source of some $45,000 in donations to Hillary Clinton's campaigns over the past two years.
The target of interest was William Paw, a 64-year-old mail carrier who earns $49,000 a year, and his wife, Alice Paw, a homemaker.
But neither answered the door.
Not ready to give up, CBS network field producer Tim Ryan went across town to the home of the Paws' daughter, Dimple Paw.
Dimple wasn't home, either.
"All I can say is that we love Hillary," said Dimple's husband, who then suggested they try to get in touch with Winkle Paw, the Paws' son who also lists the little lime-green house on Shelbourne as his address.
Again, no answer at the door.
Campaign finance records show that Winkle alone has given $82,000 to Democrats since 2006. He's listed his occupation as everything from a Franklin Resources business analyst to a director of operations for an electronics firm to a postal carrier. SF Chronicle
Yawn. You do realize that Hllary gave the money back? The only one this could hurt is Paw, if he is indeed guilty. You understand that, right?
Clinton needs no defense. I know you and Andra would love to see the Democrats smeared, having to answer to charges they are not guilty of.
But sorry to tell you, you can check CNN and the story isn't even on the front page.
So sorry!
But sorry to tell you, you can check CNN and the story isn't even on the front page.
Just more proof of liberal bias by the media.
ha ha. Why exactly do you think this is a big story? This is really funny. In order for Clinton to be implicated, she would have had to known what Paw allegedly did.
I'll wait until you can post me any proof that she knew.
Not on the front page??? Why, what happened to the mainstream conservative corporate media that hates Democrats and loves Republicans?
Myth - poof!
Yes, myth--poof! If the main stream media doesn't follow the lead of every single ridiculous right wing smear, they must be fair and balanced.
I wouldn't say fair and balanced, but the constant myth floated around here is that the mainstream media is conservatively biased is well, ridiculous.
Yea, whatever Tommy. Your post and this story does nothing to prove or disprove that belief.
Wes,
I agree with Jeter, fishy is an understatement - but I can't agree with Andra who agrees with Stoddard that this could bring Clinton down, it won't.
The public views donation scandals and fund raising shenanigans as all part of the process, the dirty stench of politics that voters just hold their nose through until it clears. All the politician has to do is donate the tainted money away, wash their hands of the source and that usually cuts the legs off any potential story from then on.
Hillary or her supporters needn't worry, this will blow over, no big deal. Carry on.
Yes, Hillary will weather it the way she will weather the endorsement of dictator Fidel Castro. In both cases she has no control over what other parties did.
Can you tell me exactly what Clinton did wrong, especially since she gave the money back?
Can you tell me exactly where I said Clinton did anything wrong?
The statement that Hillary will weather this implies she has done something wrong.
I implied no such thing, perhaps you are a little defensive?
Sorry, but yes you did. Read your post, question mark Tommy.
If you're not bright enough to figure out what my implication was in the "blow over" comment, it's not worth explaining to you.
Oh yes, when you can't make an argument resort to personal attacks. I'm not bright enough to argue with question mark Tommy!
Tommy implied no such thing.
Yes he did.
Really, he didn't. But I'm not going to argue with you about it because you refuse to look at anything Tommy writes from an unbiased perspective.
Thank you for the literary critique. I look at what Tommy (or anyone else writes) and comments on it.
Wagner, Thanks, you hit it.
No, he didn't.
Dude. I totally hit it. Nail on the head and all that.
Dude, like you didn't. And it's getting to be like a junior high squable when one poster, rather than answering directly, has to say "Yea, like my friend said."
It's 3 versus one at this point, so I guess you're not sitting at the cool table at lunch today. I'm done discussing your inability to understand others' posts.
>>I'm done discussing your inability to understand others' posts.
That should read:
I'm done discussing *my mistaken impression of* your inability to understand others' posts.
If you attribute your own words to someone else, then get mad at them for writing something that you wrote yourself, you might have trouble understanding others' posts.
I thought you were done? Now this is funny!
I'm not mad. Yes, I did attribute my words to Tommy, and that was a mistake. If I really had problems reading other peoples' post, I would have stuck to my point regardless.
I accepted my mistake and apologized twice. But my mistake didn't change my argument at all, as I explained below.
Excuse me Funnyman,
But Tommy said it would "blow over" YOU are the one who said & I quote:
Yes, Hillary will weather it the way she will weather the endorsement of dictator Fidel Castro.
Now if I may interject my opinion here...
Hillary will weather the rumors & innuendos & it will all blow over.
Ok?
Why are you saying Hillary did something wrong funnymanpants? Are you a Republican or something?
"The statement that Hillary will weather this implies she has done something wrong." - funnymanpants / Thursday August 30, 2007 11:31:59 AM EST
See my comment below. You don't say that someone will weather something unless you think they did something wrong. Hillary won't have to weather anything because she did nothing wrong, and there is not a story here.
YOU wrote it funnyman.
God man read your own words.
They've been quoted to YOU twice now!!!
Yes, I wrote it. What is your point?
The point is you claimed Tommy wrote she would have to weather it.
He didn't you did.
Sorry, now I see your point. Tommy didn't say "wheater," I did. Apologies.
But saying the so called scandal will blow over is the same as saying Hillary will weather it. In either case it implies there is a scandal and a story.
There is not.
Apologies accepted.
But Tommy never said there was a scandal.
Presently there are only innuendos of some sort of funny business.
There is a difference.
I believe Tommy said "It" will blow over. I don't think the "It" is even a cloud.
Thanks J for explaining, of course that is what I meant.......but FMPdidn't see it, obviously.
Tommy,
And folks wonder why these threads get so long?
It happens because some here need the most obvious things explained over & over & over again.
Which you still haven't really done.
This is just getting silly. What had to be explained is that YOU were attributing YOUR WORDS to Tommy. YOU were getting angry at Tommy because you accused Tommy of writing something that YOU WROTE YOURSELF.
Huff and puff all you want. I did mix up weather and blow over, which as I explained below, mean the same thing.
They don't mean the same thing.
I believe they do, as I explained below.
That's a hypothetica that I posed. Of course she *won't* have to weather the endorsement of Fidel Castro, because she had no control over it. I was posing a hypothetical of how stupid it would be to claim that Hillary was somehow wrong that Fidel would endorse her.
Likewise, it is stupid to suggest that Hillary would have to weather a the supposed crimes of other people.
If you are not guilty of something, you don't have to weather it. After all, you wouldn't say "I hope the Democrats can weather the storm of the Craig scandal." To suggest that Hillary has to weather anything suggests there is even a story here.
Anytime a politician is associated or affiliated with, in any fashion, a person of questionable ethics, it becomes their problem too, and they will have to "weather" any storm, fairly or not.
You have to know that.
No. It depends on the association. Obviously Clinton is in no way associated with Fidel. And likewise no way could have Clinton known that the money given to her campaign was allegedly done so illegally. That is why this story isn't even on the front page of CNN.
But she's photographed with Mr. Hsu, smiling. I said it will blow over and she won't be touched by it in the long run, aren't you happy?.......what else do you want?
For you to admit that it is very unfair for the right wing press to even suggest Clinton has done something wrong.
Yes, Hillary will weather it the way she will weather the endorsement of dictator Fidel Castro....by funnymanpants
That's what you wrote. Not that she wouldn't have to weather it.
You wrote she will weather it.
Yes, you are right. My apologies.
But saying something will blow over is the same as saying someone has to weather it. (In fact, they use the same bad weather analogy: bad weather = a crisis; the person must wait until the crisis passes=until the weather changes.)
Not really. Saying something will "blow over" basically says that it is "no big deal" and the person can just ignor the whole situation. When someone has to "weather" something, they are really going through a sh*t storm and have to batten down the hatches.
That is wrong in my understanding. Both expressions draw their terminology from bad weather. A really bad scandal can blow over, and likewise, someone can weather a minor scandal. I don't see any difference in the degree of seriousness with either figure of speech.
The outcome? I can't disagree with your comment...the public is jaded about filthy fund raising tactics...and that is a shame.
My hat tip was only about their common sense...they both smelled a mouse...as anyone thinking rationally would.
mmfa proves once again that one of their prime motives with this site is defending all things Hillary. This story has not one thing to do with spreading conservative misinformation.
Hsu has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and the Paws were number three on a list of donors to Hillary...she knew darn well about both donors and the cash they were contributing.
Is Hillary the only one? Nope. But in this case she knew and chose to roll the dice that she wouldn't get caught...she got caught.
Hillary knew? I'll wait until you show me proof. You won't be able to.
Wes,
Anytime a pundit offers up his or her opinion on anything even remotely unflattering or negative towards any Democratic candidate, particulary Hillary, that's good enough for "furthering the conservative agenda" benchmark needed here.
Yes, when that opinion is based on falsehoods, it is a matter of discussion.
Again, where is the proof that Hillary knew the contributions could have been illegal? I'll be waiting.
Really? So if a pundit says that if Hillary wears horizontal stripes that "could bring her campaign down", is that also an opinion based on falsehoods, or just an opinion?
Read my post, Tommy. I said an opinion based on falsehoods. The question you posted was not based on a falsehood.
So, according to funnymanpants, if Hillary wears horizontal stripes, it will bring her campaign down.
Tommy
Correctamundo...this is not a watchdog site...it's a thinly veiled democrat campaign site...using the watchdog facade.
mmfa and some of their blind followers...as you have dealt with first hand this morning...are blatantly partisan schemers.
That's ok with me...but some of us have not only smelled the mouse...we have seen him.
Wesley, the Bottom Line is this:
IF Mr Hsu & the Paws were contributing to Republicans, the Liberal posters here would be singing a different tune. We know it & so do they.
Jeter,
That's a big 10-4...and campaign finance swindles are unfortunately the order of the day...for both parties.
The rotten dishonesty of politicians...willing to sell their souls for the almighty dollar to retain or gain power is not limited by party affiliation.
This is not just about smelling a mouse...it's about the house being overrun with vermin...and in this case...Hillary is complicit.
Money plays way too big a role in politics, which is why public financing *might* help. But you had been signaling out Hillary, suggesting she did something illegal or unethical.
She hasn't.
If there was anything here, which there isn't, it would be that it is always bad to be associated with people who are involved in corrupt practices. You don't have to be implicated in those practices for your association with a criminal (potential or otherwise) to hurt your campaign.
Again, that depends on the degree of association, and more importantly, how the press portrays the association. If the press choses to write about this every day, then people will come to associate the candidate with corruption.
Right now it is not even on the front page of cnn. If Hsu is found very guilty, HIllary has already given the money back. (Obama, interestingly, has not. I guess he believe Hsu is innocent at this point.) What is the press going to do to make this a story, say that illegal donations were made, which were returned long ago?
Also, Wesley isn't arguing that Hillary is just associated with the scandal. He is arguing that Hillary is guilty.
Uh oh...you've been busy sawing that limb off behind you about implications...
And now you proclaim that Obama thinks Hsu is innocent...that's what happens when people cling to blind partisan tactics...rather than objectivity.
Principles are always a better route to follow...otherwise life can be difficult.
What the heck are you talking about?
Oh no you don't...I'm not going to get involved with two pages of explaining your own words to you again.
Over and out.
Whatever, because I'm not going to start trying to interpret your posts. I think I know why you think you trapped me, but I'm not going to speculate.
Obama thinks Hsu is innocent.
Hillary thinks Hsu may be guilty (not taking any chances)
funnymanpants doesn't have an opinion on Hsu's guilt or innocense, but knows neither Obama nor Hillary are guilty, unless it can be shown they *knew* they took illegal funds, which no one has yet shown.
Hilarious! I should've done what you did. Funnymanpants has enough difficulty understanding his own posts, let alone someone elses.
Exactly J, But nobody is familiar with that tune around here.......try Sirius satellite.
Talk about a strawman arguement!
And if the Democrats did bring it up, it would be absolutely wrong.
Yes, Wesley. You have seen the mouse and the vermin, have you?
Then please provide a link to show that Hillary knew these contributions were illegal.
I'm still waiting for that.
There may be some blind followers on this site (by the way, I am no fan of Hillary), but you seem blind in your hatred of Hillary.
Yet another case for calling for publically financed elections. We have to stop this insane fund raising and longer and longer election cycles.
And now, Hillary is giving the donations back. Good game, Hsu-supporters.
First, does it strike anyone as odd that Hsu's warrant dates to 1991, but now, in 2007, it's an issue? Why did the CA Attorney General take so long to pursue this? It's not like the guy's been hiding.
Second, does anyone here really think that candidates should be hiring private investigators to track the backgrounds of donors to their campaigns? I'm sure their are laws that detail what a campaign has to do to check the validity of donations; if Clinton followed that law, why should she be tarred with Hsu's crimes? Especially if she gave the money away when she found out about the guy?
Third, are we prepared to go down the road of scrutinizing every donor to every campaign? How do you think Rudy's going to fare?
Fourth, as Somerby points out in the Daily Howler post, Bob Dole was involved in far more shenanigans with his 1996 campaign, yet he got a pass in the press - why? And would this story be getting as much press if Hsu's name were Jones?
Fifth, the comparison to Abramoff is ridiculous. There were clear quid pro quos in his bribes, which is why Bob Ney and Stephen Griles went down. The Marianas and Indian casino scandals quite clearly showed he was spreading money around to get specific legislation passed. There's no such evidence here about Clinton.
Finally, when are we going to wake up and realize that public financing of campaigns is the only way to stop all of this nonsense? And that part of that financing should be that FCC licensees should have to give free air time to candidates? Why isn't the corporate media discussing this?
Oh, yeah...
Does anyone find it funny that Hsu is a trustee of the New School And Bernard Schwartz is a trustee of the New School, too? (Head of Loral during th Clinton scandals about military technology being sold to China)
How did Hsu get to be a trustee of the New School and does no one use Social Security numbers in these rarefied levels?
Hsu came here at age 18 and went to UC Berkely and then to the Wharton Business school so it is ludicrous that he is claiming not to have understood that he had agreed to a plea and a 3 year sentence. Also raises the question about Hsu's connections in China.
It's not just Clinton. Numerous Dems are now divesting Hsu's money.
Good for them, but this is still a symptom of the greater sickness that plagues our elections process. It's become a contest of who can raise the most money.
Al Franken has expressed his disenchantment over spending most of his time on the phone asking for money instead of out meeting and talking to people about why he thinks he'll make a good Senator.
Pete
Well said...I wish I had a solution to this huge problem...
This particular thread is about Hillary's entanglement in that very issue...we should all be outraged at this story.
Republican or democrat...this is a cancer that is killing the democratic process.
Outraged? I think anyone who follows politics knows the corrosive influence of money. You can use your money legally to undermine elections., simply by funding smear ads, for example.
But all along you have stated that Hillary is guilty. Please provide a link showing that Hillary knew the money she got was illegal. I'm still waiting.
I think it's also worthwhile to point out that Al Franken is on the list of Dems who are divesting.
Putting everyone's personal feelings about Al aside for a moment, this has be incredibly frustrating for a guy who is making his entry into politics who not only receives a harsh wake up call about how much cash it takes to mount a campaign, but also realizes that you have to keep a constant sharp eye on exactly where your money is coming from.
Candidates could be out selling themselves to the people, but instead they have to sell themselves to a select few who can make the biggest allowable donations and keep them under a microscope at the same time.
There's something definitely wrong with this concept.