Bill and Hill’s history of receiving illegal contributions from the communist government of China is, of course, no longer subject to historical dispute. Even the most sycophantic of neo-Stalinist reactionary liberal has to acknowledge that the funds were collected and dozens were convicted of engaging in criminal fundraising for the Clinton-Gore spin machine.
Needless to say, these most predatory of cats have not changed their spots in the last twelve years, not one bit. We all knew about Norman Hsu, the convicted con-artists who raised “bundles” of money for Evita ’08. Just today, the LA Times, in a break from character, breaks a story that Hillary is raising money in what appears to be a fraudulent and probably criminal manner in the Chinese community in New York City.
The Clinton spin machine is already in high gear on this one. The story is to first, insist that there is no crime implicated by the story and then to attack those who raise the unpleasant questions with charges of anti Chinese racism. Haven’t we seen this legerdemain before?
The crime is obvious, a conspiracy to circumvent campaign finance limits. If some of the donors say they didn’t actually, well, uh……”donate” then someone donated for them. That “someone” committed a crime. The person who falsely reported the donation committed a crime. The person who told the person to falsely report the donation committed a crime.
The story also indicates that some of the “donors” might not even exist. I’m pretty sure that fictional people cannot make real campaign donations. Fabricating identities in whose names campaign donations are seems a lot like a crime to me. What do you think?
Racism? That dog won’t hunt. No one thinks that Chinese-Americans cannot make large donations, just like every other category of American, hyphenated or otherwise, can have individual members who make large campaign donations.
However, we do wonder when a given community produces campaign donations for a Presidential campaign that in amount that is already 500 times greater than the same community produced for that same parties’ nominee in the entire ’04 cycle. We wonder even more when investigative reporters cannot find a large number of the donors and others say they didn’t make the donations attributed to them. And yes, we wonder when some of the generous donors are contributing more than ten percent of their annual near minimum wage incomes to a candidate with a history of involvement with fraudulent and criminal fundraising in that same community.
Racism? No. Healthy and warranted distrust? Yes. My God people, talk about your kleptocracy.
Needless to say, these most predatory of cats have not changed their spots in the last twelve years, not one bit. We all knew about Norman Hsu, the convicted con-artists who raised “bundles” of money for Evita ’08. Just today, the LA Times, in a break from character, breaks a story that Hillary is raising money in what appears to be a fraudulent and probably criminal manner in the Chinese community in New York City.
The Clinton spin machine is already in high gear on this one. The story is to first, insist that there is no crime implicated by the story and then to attack those who raise the unpleasant questions with charges of anti Chinese racism. Haven’t we seen this legerdemain before?
The crime is obvious, a conspiracy to circumvent campaign finance limits. If some of the donors say they didn’t actually, well, uh……”donate” then someone donated for them. That “someone” committed a crime. The person who falsely reported the donation committed a crime. The person who told the person to falsely report the donation committed a crime.
The story also indicates that some of the “donors” might not even exist. I’m pretty sure that fictional people cannot make real campaign donations. Fabricating identities in whose names campaign donations are seems a lot like a crime to me. What do you think?
Racism? That dog won’t hunt. No one thinks that Chinese-Americans cannot make large donations, just like every other category of American, hyphenated or otherwise, can have individual members who make large campaign donations.
However, we do wonder when a given community produces campaign donations for a Presidential campaign that in amount that is already 500 times greater than the same community produced for that same parties’ nominee in the entire ’04 cycle. We wonder even more when investigative reporters cannot find a large number of the donors and others say they didn’t make the donations attributed to them. And yes, we wonder when some of the generous donors are contributing more than ten percent of their annual near minimum wage incomes to a candidate with a history of involvement with fraudulent and criminal fundraising in that same community.
Racism? No. Healthy and warranted distrust? Yes. My God people, talk about your kleptocracy.
23 comments:
do any democrats care about this?
The clinton people are already defending this instead of trying to root out the criminal fundraiser who is responsible.
what does that tell you about hillary?
do something while you still can.
when former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack ended his own White House bid, he was about $450,000 in the red. A month after dropping out, Vilsack endorsed Clinton, and Clinton agreed to help him retire his debts.
Over the next few months, some of Clinton's biggest fund-raisers gave Vilsack checks, including Hsu, who kicked in the maximum allowable contribution, $2,300, on May 3 after attending an event organized by Clinton's campaign, Newsweek reported this month.
The Headline says it all...this is what Hillary's experience brings us. This is the Camelot to which Shillary wishes us to return. The last time, the Chinese got our nuclear secrets.
New Clinton Scandal Mirrors ‘Chinagate,’ Say Analysts
This is Exhibit A against Fred Thompson.
Thompson was on the committee that investigated the Clintons turning the DNC into a money laundering operation for the ChiComs. He allowed himself to be steamrolled by John Glenn and stonewalled by the White House. There was no fight in him.
Freebird
If I leave here tomorrow
Would you still remember me?
For I must be travelling on, now,
There's too many places I haven't seen
And if I stayed here with you, now
Things just wouldn't be the same
Well I'm as free as a bird now,
And a bird you can not change.
And a bird you can not change.
And a bird you can not change.
Lord knows I can't change
Bye, bye, its been a sweet love.
And though this feeling I can't change.
Please don't take it badly,
The Lord knows I'm to blame.
And, if I stayed here with you now
Things just wouldn't be the same.
For I'm as free as a bird now,
And this bird you'll never change.
And the bird you can not change.
And the bird you can not change.
Lord knows, I can't change.
Lord help me, I can't change.
Surprised you missed this, Ted. Friday was the Anniversary.
Don't worry, once Mark Klein sews up the nomination of our Party he'll soak these Mao loving Commie Freaks for everything they've got.
A wink is the same as a nod to a blind man, huh, Mark? "All volunteer Army", correct? These leftist, Commie, Mao loving ginks will think you speak their language. They'll never know what hit them.
Mark Klein now more than ever!
"This morning we all read in L.A. Times that many Clinton campaign contributions are raising eyebrows again. Many of their donors are not even registered to vote, and at least one denied even making any contribution at all," Edwards Campaign Manager David Bonior said in a statement on Friday.
"Senator Clinton has said public financing is the answer. Senator Edwards has opted to take public financing, but Senator Clinton has not."
"Senator Clinton should explain why she doesn't mean what she says..."
"The bottom line is we need a nominee who can do two things: campaign in all 50 states and challenge our broken system in Washington.
With every day the growing question has to be can Hillary Clinton do either?"
"There was a story in today's New York Times about this issue and about her vote on this issue. And some of her advisers said that she voted yes because she was moving from primary mode to general election mode.
Seeking further distinction he added, "instead of primary mode versus general election mode, instead of saying one thing in the primary and something different for the general election, how about if we do tell the truth mode all the time.
How about if we say exactly what we believe and stand by that position."
The last time a Clinton ran for President it was Chinese nuns in LA each giving $5000 checks to his campaign.
After the election CHina never had a better friend than Bill Clinton.
Since his tenure they have become the industrial collosus of the earth while the US has sunk slowly into the sunset.
He even violated US export laws to help the Chinese update their rocket technology.
What will the Red Chinese get for their money this time? A promise not to intervene if Taiwan is attacked?
This is just the same old Clinton corruption scandal. My question is; why didn’t moveon.org or media matters do a better job of covering it up. The Clintons aren’t getting their moneys worth from these Hillary campaign groups.
ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., announced Friday that he is stepping down as general chairman of the Republican National Committee so he can focus on his constituents in Florida.
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20071105&s=cockburn
http://powerlineblog.com/
In the very first sentence of its story, the Times misreports:
After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as “phony soldiers,” he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators.
The Times gets the "41 Democratic senators" right, but it is incapable of a fairly reporting Rush's remarks.
It regurgitates the Hillary Matters lie maintained by the 41 Senate Democrats who signed the letter to Clear Channel condemning Rush.
Apparently, the Times intends to pay for their opulent new building by cutting out all journalists from the staff and only using press releases by Hillary's campaign.
That certainly is a lot cheaper. They got rid of a very expensive redundancy.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
The piece also notes somewhat mysteriously that "a key figure helping to secure Asian support for Clinton is a woman named Chung Seto, who came to this country as a child from Canton province and has supported Bill and Hillary Clinton since the 1990s."
That's accurate; but it's odd not to note that Seto's main political identity here isn't as an immigrant;
...it's as a former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party who has close political ties to Harlem, and who ran the campaign of the Harlem candidate for mayor in 2005.
these stories of the Sen. Clinton donors are dirty, dirty, dirty.
Hsu was probably just the beginning. Links to the Chinese mafia and illegal immigration rings? Nasty stuff.
Kind of stuff that can lose you an election. I expect her to be returning more donations in the near future. -- More importantly, however, why does this China connection keep coming up?
What is going on there? Something clearly is ... why is there not more reporting on it?
The LA Times article also notes that some of these "donors" cannot be found and no one at the addresses knows anything about them.
These folks who think they're buying a family reunification visa from Hillary Clinton are being viciously conned and the whole thing is obviously ORGANIZED.
If those people are really putting up the money themselves, they will end up with nothing for it but somebody else, the ones who are organizing Clinton's fundraising, are going to get paid back many times over for that money if she becomes president.
What are they after from her? Its her responsibility to find out now.
The sad thing about stories about Hillary, is that 'they just go away'. .Whether they are true or not, they simply disappear...WHY?..
The other day, allegations that Hillary was involved in illegal wiretapping, were posted, now it's GONE....
Where are the Woodward's and Bernstein's of this generation?...
The American people deserve to know the TRUTH about the candidates,
BEFORE the election...Is 'investigative journalism' dead, or are the journalists afraid they will be found "that way"?
Obama pollster Joel Benenson — once, long ago, a top aide to Mark Penn — just put out his rebuttal to Penn's assertion that Hillary will make inroads with Republican women.
"Penn’s assertion is entirely baseless and refuted by a number of public polls. Moreover, these polls also indicate sizable defection among Democratic women should Sen. Clinton be the nominee," he writes.
"While it may not be her fault, Clinton appears to be as polarizing [a] figure as ever, showing the least crossover appeal of any of the Democratic candidates."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
In a recent Cook/RT Strategies Poll, in a head-to-head match-up against Rudy Giuliani, Clinton won only 7% of Republican women voters.
ü Indeed, more Democratic women crossover to the Republican side to vote against Clinton—9%--than Republican women crossover to vote for her.
Moreover, when Gallup aggregated three months of polling data on Clinton (June to September 2007), they found that Clinton was just as unpopular among Republican women as she was among Republican men.
ü Only 18% of Republican women had a favorable opinion of Clinton, just above the 15% of Republican men who had a favorable opinion.
As Barack Obama said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno:
ü “Hillary is not the first politician in Washington to declare 'Mission Accomplished' a little too soon."
Politics as usual for the Democrats, at least Republicans know how to properly launder cash before it gets contributed. Scheeze what's the matter with these people. All the more reason Mark Klein deserves our nomination, that roundhouse prick is using his own money to support himself.
Post a Comment