Time's Klein falsely asserted Clinton "had to return" $850,000 in contributions "to the skeevy Norman Hsu"
In a column in the September 20 edition of Time, Joe Klein asserted, "If she is to win the Democratic nomination, [Sen. Hillary Rodham] Clinton [NY] will have to do a fair amount of baggage shedding between now and the primaries." Klein continued: "Some of it -- like her current fund-raising imbroglio, the $850,000 she had to return to the skeevy Norman Hsu -- is a debilitating reminder of Clinton-era misdemeanors." Hsu, a "bundler" who solicited friends and associates to make contributions to Clinton's presidential campaign, was recently charged with fraud and violating campaign finance laws. But contrary to Klein's suggestion that Clinton's campaign received $850,000 from Hsu himself and subsequently returned that sum to him, Clinton received $23,000 in contributions from Hsu, which her campaign "said ... it would give to charity," rather than return it to Hsu, as The New York Times noted in an August 30 article . According to a statement posted on Clinton's presidential campaign website, her campaign is also "returning approximately $850,000 to about 260 donors who gave to the campaign through Mr. Hsu and that it is implementing even more vigorous vetting procedures for its fundraisers."
From Klein's column in the September 20 edition of Time:
Clinton's utter ease with this topic, her ability to parry [Republican presidential candidate Mitt] Romney's jabs without breaking a sweat, is the latest bit of evidence that her experience -- including past disasters -- may actually count for something. If she is to win the Democratic nomination, Clinton will have to do a fair amount of baggage shedding between now and the primaries. There is all manner of baggage to be shed. Some of it is personal: her cold, calculating image. Some of it -- like her current fund-raising imbroglio, the $850,000 she had to return to the skeevy Norman Hsu -- is a debilitating reminder of Clinton-era misdemeanors. Some of it is beyond her control, and has to do with the prospective First Laddie. Much of the substantive baggage has to do with her stiff-necked mismanagement of health care, her unwillingness to modify her ideas, to play the angles, to be a pol. Her current, clever health-care plan makes all that moot. Her load is lighter now, and the job confronting those who would defeat her is getting tougher every week.
And we're supposed to believe that Joe Klein is a Democratic pundit. I love the way they'll spread misinformation with a slight shred of truth so as to make Democrats look bad. A little nip here, a pinch there, a small wound somewhere else, and before you know it, down goes the target. They're like a skin eating disease that won't stop until the victim is dead, after which, they move on to another victim.
And furthermore, she did the right thing. She gave back the campaign money to the original contributors, and gave Hsu's money to charity. If only Republican's would be so responsible. But no, greed stands in theit way.
It's like the old joke: A Democrat looks at a glass of water and mentions "It's half empty." A Republican looks at the same glass and says "Hey, who drank half my water?"
Obviously there was a problem or her campaign wouldn't have returned the money. $850K isn't chump change.
I don't think anybody is trying to argue this.
Hsu bundled other people's contributions, added his own, then got busted on unrelated charges. The Clinton campaign did the right thing, and the problem has evaporated.
Period.
But thanks for trying to create scandal where none exists.
I'm not trying to do anything. I'm just giving counterpoints. So why didn't these people not contribute directly to the campaign? Why go through a third party?
Gee, I guess you would have to ask the individuals, now wouldn't you. The point is, Hillary did the right thing--that's what one should want in a President. I understand not being used to that sort of thing, since it's been 7 years since we've actually had a President.
Sorry if it bothers you, but you have no argument. Hsu is behind bars, and the money was properly distributed. And I repeat--if only Republican's would be so responsible.
I'm not bothered. I think Hillary handled it just fine.
Then why did you attempt to smear her? or was that an incorrect view of your post?
I wouldn't smear our next President. I like her better than about everyone here and I'm a Republican.
LOLOLOLOLOL... I agree.
Ron Paul baby!
Ok , good answer.
MMFA, do you really think we are that stupid?
"Clinton's presidential campaign website, her campaign is also "returning approximately $850,000 to about 260 donors who gave to the campaign through Mr. Hsu and that it is implementing even more vigorous vetting procedures for its fundraisers."
Yes, he gave the money, and it was funneled through HSU with an illegal scheme.
Saying Clinton had to return $850,000 to HSU is just a fact.
"Fact"?
Wrong.
Reading is fundamental. Try it sometime.
Next time, provide evidence or shut thy pie-hole.
It's crazy all the misinformation being put out there about what Hsu did. A couple Saturdays ago on FOX & Friends, they aired a 911 call about Hsu which had someone saying that we've got that guy Hsu...the guy who was "Hillary Clinton's money launderer".
There have been no charges filed against Hsu that he was laundering money for Hillary but it was an accusation that FOX wanted its viewers to hear. I never did see where FOX retracted what they did to Hillary with that money launderer remark. That was totally wrong to do and FOX knows it but that's how they play the news game.
"Yes, he gave the money, and it was funneled through HSU with an illegal scheme."
What was the illegal scheme (I haven't been keeping up with this story)?
"Saying Clinton had to return $850,000 to HSU is just a fact."
Saying Clinton had returned $850,000 to Hsu is a lie.
"What was the illegal scheme (I haven't been keeping up with this story)?"
Never mind, I just read the ABC link.
Mrs. Clinton was on "Fox News Sunday with chris wallace" this morning (along with all the other talking-head shows today, I guess).
And I didn't see it, but there's a clip from it posted on the Huffington Post, as an item of their's.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/23/watch-clinton-laughs-sha_n_65507.html
Check it out, it's great.
HuffPo posted it it under the title (and for the reason): "Watch: Clinton Laughs Sharply At Several Of Wallace's Pointed Questions"
It was great: Mrs. Clinton was affable and pleasant and amused and amusing...
...as she laughed right in the hack/whore face of this wallace guy.
As usual, he and his Fox News Channel gang had (I'm sure) all sorts of set-up antagonistic hit questions, to lower on Mrs. Clinton: But she seems to have diffused and disarmed them, by just laughing in their stupid hack/whore faces.
Great!
She intimidated the hack/whore wallace, and threw him off from his assassination plot...
Great.Laugh right in their faces!Laughter is the best medicine, for a sick and sickening Fox News Channel.
Good to hear. More people need to laugh at the Axis of Weasels.
more people need to laugh period. All these PC sisies a make me sick.
The smarmy little schmuck Chris Wallace wasn't laughing one bit. It appeared as though he doesn't like being laughed at.
Seeing Mrs. Clinton laugh right in the face of that hack/whore wallace, reminded me immediately of when I saw a similar thing, on a YouTube clip, where Bruce Springsteen was on some CNN show, and some little hack assassin of CNN's was trying to get after The Boss about his politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxi6EDtYb4o
He did the same thing, and to the same great effect: He just laughed right in the stupid face of the hack.
Maybe you recall it; click the link either way.
The CNN hack is trying to set The Boss up, and call him on the fact that he is politically active, in a public way; and she's taking a tone with him, like maybe that's inapproropriate or even dangerous (professionally), for him to express his political opinions publicly (like she's accusing him of practicing medicine w/o a License)...
HACK: "...you've taken political stances in public, for Kerry for example; and some people have given you flak for that, you being a mere musician and all..."
THE BOSS [Laughing]: "Yeah, we should let anne coulter do it instead!"
HACK [Trying to sound serious and threatening]: "No, there's a whole school of thought, like with the Dixie Chicks [Threat], that musicians should just play music and stay out of politics..."
THE BOSS [Laughing]: "If you turned on -present company included -the idiots on cable television, on any given night of the week [Now laughing almost hysterically] -and you're saying musicians shouldn't speak up? You know, it's insane!"
They don't call him The Boss for nothing: He laughs at the thought that we should stay out of politics (him and me and you), and leave it to professionals, like this hack on CNN...
...and then he calls her an "idiot on cable television", right to her face; and laughs, right in her hack face.
While The Boss's words were somewhat derisive, his laugh was more like being tickled at how backwards and upside-down some things are; and at how some people like it just that way.
But Mrs. Clinton's words were nothing but pleasant and cordial, sweet almost...
...but her laughter was pure and funny, like the way we laugh at a Court Jester or a Clown, or some other professional fool.
Like laughing at a man, who is himself backwards and upside-down, and yet doesn't know it; or if he knows it, then he's trying to hide the fact, by being overly serious, and trying to draw you into being overly serious too.
Laughter is a great tool!
It's expresses both the truth, and our opinion of fools, all at the same time: And uses no words at all (especially no sour words).
Clinton returned the $850,000 to the 260 donors NOT TO HSU as Klein claimed.
the people HSU gave the money to to fund her?
Could you link that please?
[ I thought not ]
Clinton wouldn't have returned the money if it was righteous. Why would she? It was dirty money, Hsu got caught, they knew the jig was up, and the con had failed, so they returned the money. They are just trying to cut their losses before it gets deep enough to completely neutralize her viability as a candidate. The Clinton machine isn't stupid, they're just above the law. The $850,000 is just to keep the law at bay.
can you provide one iota of evidence she knew it was a con?
I don't see any facts in that post. Is there a point anywhere in that jumble of accusations?
I believe edrossinolioewein was the second poster to argue against nobody that there was a problem with the contributions (duh), and went on to explain the problem with several supporting hallucinations.
His post was like a little slice of Foxnooz plopped down right here for us.How thoughtful.
Dude, how could a Clinton be above the law with Bush in charge?
It's always interesting how "selected" certain memories become when the name Clinton is mentioned. One would think that Hillary is the only candidate who bundles money.
The men and women in the ballroom had paid a minimum of $1,500 (£900) for their hot dogs, and almost all of them had contributed much, much more. The single night brought the Republican party a total of $14m. Mr Bush has so far raised $83m for his primary campaign, more than all nine Democratic contenders put together, even though he does not have an opponent inside his party.
This financial superiority flows from the simple fact that the president's backers are far wealthier than those of his rivals. More of them give the maximum contribution to a presidential campaign of $2,000, and more of them are chief executives who vie with each other to become honoured Republican "Rangers" or "Pioneers", by putting together $200,000 and $100,000 "bundles" of contributions from their employees and friends
Public Citizen’s report finds that the 416 Bush Rangers and Pioneers have bundled together at least $58.1 million for the 2004 campaign and that 90 percent of them (374) represent the special interests of America’s corporations.
For every reporter and every report on Hillary one would think that they should and should mention that she is doing nothing any different that any other campaign. And she has returned the individual donor money to the actual donors not Hsu.
Guess that would require ACTUAL reporting of the facts.
Thank you, Ms. Pearlene, for uncovering Truth upon All "potential" malfeasance involved...