Times Admits Hsu Fund-Raising Scandal Not Being Covered by MSM

Newsbusters.org ^ | 09/11/07 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

On September 7th we noticed that the scandal in the Democrat Party over illegal campaign donations was barely getting any coverage in the print media and the internet. Well, apparently, TV news isn't doing any better still. It's so obvious, even the juggernaut of the left, The New York Times, has taken note of how few network news reports have aired on the Hsu scandal... though not making a big deal of it, naturally. The news media is doing their level best to deep six the story to benefit Hillary, it seems. If the Hsu fits, anyway. (Do I have to explain that his name is pronounced "Shoe" in Chinese for that joke to work? I sure hope not.)

Also in shocking move, in the Times' story revealing Hillary Clinton's decision to return an additional amount of Hsu's contributions, some strong words were used to describe the fugitive -- strong for the Times, anyway.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign announced last night that it would return about $850,000 to about 260 donors who had been recruited or tapped by Norman Hsu, the disgraced Clinton campaign fund-raiser who recently fled arrest and is now under investigation for his fund-raising practices.

Oooo! "Disgraced Clinton campaign fund-raiser," they said. Kudos for calling a spade a spade for a change, Times!

In any case, this Times story does a fine job detailing the tawdry campaign illegalities, amazingly enough. But, even for my praise for the story, I have to say the last paragraph might go a ways to explain why they have so boldly laid out the details of this episode without running too much flack for their girl, Hillary.

(Bolded, my emphasis)

The Clinton campaign made its announcement around 6:40 p.m., shortly after the network news programs had begun on the East Coast. The timing was roughly the same Aug. 29, when Clinton advisers disclosed that they were giving Mr. Hsu’s $23,000 in personal donations to charity. Clinton aides, who have been trying to contain the damage from the case, have been monitoring the number of stories the evening news programs have run on Mr. Hsu — only a handful thus far.

Ah, there you see a hint, don't you?

Do they feel they have the luxury to print a harsher story than they might otherwise because they know this story is not getting much traction in the media because they are all running flack for Mrs. Clinton's campaign by keeping the story of "only a handful thus far?"

Just maybe.

Read more at Newsbusters.org

[Mobile Vulgus]

The MSM will be running flack for Hillary until she is either gone or the prez!

[Wolverine]

[ClearCase_guy]

Her first position: “I’m not giving any back.”
Her second position: “I will give back $23,000.”
Her third position: “I will give back $850,000.”

MSM’s consistent position: “Nothing to see here.”

[Presbyterian Reporter]

I read this elsewhere. Sounds like Hillary’s campaign knew months ago that Hsu was contaminated. It does seem like it has taken a long time for MSM to report on the story.

“The Los Angeles Times reports — before the announcement by the campaign to dump all of the Hsu-related money (some $850K) — that “new evidence surfaced that the Clinton camp had dismissed allegations about Hsu made by a Southern California businessman. In an e-mail obtained by The Times, a Clinton campaign staffer told a California Democratic Party official in June that the businessman’s concerns were unwarranted. “‘I can tell you with 100 certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme,’ wrote Samantha Wolf, who was a campaign finance director for the Western states.” He is COMPLETELY legit.””

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/11/354871.aspx

[TNCMAXQ]

Obviously the Sen Craig story was much more important!

Enough of the sarcasm... It is obvious the media have an agenda. They are getting to be such a joke.

[Red Badger]

At least their honest about it, now.....................

[generally]

Cynical theory 1: They are not backing Hillary. So they can afford to run this.

Cynical theory 2: They will back whichever Dem gets the nomination, and they don’t think it will be Hillary, so they can afford to run this.

Cynical theory 3: They are pretending to be objective, so they have to run at least a token story that they can point to to bolster that claim.

I’m going with 3 for now.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Here is another Hillary scandal the MSM has been quiet about. I like the line——”The Clintons aren’t bothered by red flags. They collect them.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200709/COM20070911c.html

“According to The Washington Post: “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.”

Here is Chatwal’s corruption resume: The IRS pursued him for approximately $4 million in unpaid business taxes; New York State is seeking more than $5 million in taxes; federal regulators sued him to recoup millions in loans from a failed bank where Chatwal served as a director; he lost one New York City building due to unpaid business taxes; and, oh yes, he was also charged with bank fraud in India.

The Post notes with a measure of incredulity, “Yet none of the legal and financial woes...raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton’s fundraising operation.” In fact, in a rare moment of honesty when asked if Chatwal’s background gave cause for concern, Hillary’s campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, flatly, “No.”

Why would the Clintons be concerned about Chatwal? In an earlier column I articulated the long list of fundraising schemes concocted by the Clintons. This week I’ll remind you of just one of them, the Chinagate scandal, where the Clintons and Al Gore collected Chinese communist-connected funds in exchange for special access to the Clinton White House and policy favors.

The Clintons aren’t bothered by red flags. They collect them.”

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING FReeper comments BUMP!

[KC_Conspirator]

Return the money? Why if this were a Republican there would be immediately calls for their resignation.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the links. BTTT!

[PGalt]

Return the money? Why if this were a Republican there would be immediately calls for their resignation.

Resignation and jailing.

BTTT!

[generally]

One problem with this is that it’s “just money.” How many people, besides CPAs, get excited about accounting

Now if he’d been tapping his foot.......

[johnny7]

I’m going with 3 for now.

It's all three... Obama would be just fine with them as long as Hil/Bill would still retain their influence.

[Arrowhead1952]

Here is what the Austin Un American Uber Liberal Statesman had on the Hsu / hillary situation on A-2. Two &*^%^&* sentences. Every Abramhoff article about fundraising was on page A-1, above the fold.

---

Nation Digest
Clinton giving back donations; Craig seeks to reverse guilty plea
Tuesday, September 11, 2007

2008 ELECTION

Clinton to return donations

WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said it will return $850,000 in donations raised by Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, who is under federal investigation after being accused of violating election laws. Clinton, D-N.Y., previously had planned to give to charity $23,000 donated by Hsu for her presidential and senatorial campaigns and to her political action committee; other Democrats also are divesting contributions from Hsu.

[kittymyrib]

The Clintons attract crooks like manure attracts flies...

[Holicheese]

And the guy from Pakistan. She is just the UN of illegal campaign contributions.

[freekitty]

Every money person she deals with is tainted. Also, did you see the article about her returning $850,000 and is going to go through all of her campaign donors.

Give me a break. She is trying to convince the judges that she is doing the right thing so she won’t have to testify. What a complete sham.

[theFIRMbss]

>She is just the UN of illegal campaign contributions

OhMyLord! A thread
about Hillary with more
than a dozen posts

and nobody's said
she's blackmailing the world with
the FBI files!

[PogySailor]

Cynical theory 4: They have now run a mildly critical story, so they can claim that any other media questioning is piling on about “old news”. And that it’s time to “move on”.