HILL'S CASH EYED AS CHINESE-LAUNDERED
Hillary's Chinatown fund-raiser draws Edwards' criticism
Posted on 10/20/2007 10:25:34 AM PDT by Eva
The NationFri Oct 19, 4:15 PM ET
The Nation -- The Los Angeles Times ran an eyebrow-raising story this morning about how Hillary Clinton is raising money from a highly unlikely source: New York's Chinatown. "Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury," the paper reports. "In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000."
According to the article, powerful Chinese neighborhood associations pushed residents to donate to the Clinton camp. The source of many of these donations remains a mystery. The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.
Several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef--that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.
The Clinton campaign's response hardly puts the matter to rest. "In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given," said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. "In cases where we couldn't confirm that, the money was returned."
The Edwards campaign was swift to react. "Clinton campaign contributions are raising eyebrows again," said Edward campaign manager David Bonior. "Many of their donors are not even registered to vote, and at least one denied even making any contribution at all."
The article--and the Clinton reaction--raises more questions than answers. Did officials in Chinatown invent the names and identities of campaign donors? If so, why? How involved was Chung Seto, Clinton's liaison to the Asian community and a former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party? How did the Clinton campaign verify the source of these donations? How many potentially illegal donations were eventually returned?
In regard to the link I posted, #3 in the series explains Whitewater.
“But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were reimbursed by her husband’s boss for the donations. “It wasn’t personal money. It was all corporate money,” Mrs. Layton said outside her home here. “I don’t even like Hillary. I’m a Republican.”
I do have a problem with this statement. If such a request was made of me, I wouldn’t honor it. A company my husband worked for made official annual donations to The United Way and we refused to be part of it.
This smacks of strong arming by the corporation or employees of very weak moral character thinking a donation would advance their careers.
I’m thinking that we on the right really ought to drop everything and start focusing on this. I think it is a silver bullet that can kill Hill if we make it happen. Not many issues are more important than preventing America from falling back into the hands of these two white-trash grifters from Arkansas who will sell out this country in a minute once they regan the reins of power. They’ve been on the take from the Chinese for 20 years. It’s about damn time they got called on it.
I’ve been thiniking the same thing. The Rush brouhaha is nothing but but a planned distraction. Note that the Nation article was dated October 1. That means that the Hillary campaign knew that the press were digging into her campaign funding back in September, and were looking for something to distract the public.
The Hot Air link is a great link, lots of detail.
I haven’t heard any reports on the news because my husband has been monopolizing the tv with sports, watching multiple games at the same time. It’s driving me crazy.
BTTT
I have my own TeeVee. If I didn’t, I’d go nuts. He likes to watch the old black & white movies all the time.
Secret Asian Man
Secret Asian Man
Bringing In Big Dollars...
For The Campaign Finance Scam...
Thanks for the links and the clear evidence of Hillary’s dirty money.
I believe that the Hillary campaign drummed up the Rush issue to distract from the press coverage of her dirty money. Media Matters, the Hillary founded press group, was responsible for the first accusations against Rush, and I bet that you could make a pretty clear time line of the first coverage of Hillary’s campaign finance shenanigans and the Media Matters accusations against Rush. It has thrown Rush off his game and completely obscured the accusations against Hillary.
By the way, here is a blogger you might want to keep an eye on. He’s been keeping the Hsu thing alive.
That’s the idea. Here’s an article that I picked up from American Thinker. (She credits Lucianne Goldberg)
Clinton Returned $7,000, Campaign Says
By PATRICK HEALY
October 20, 2007
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign returned $7,000 in donations last spring that were linked to a fund-raising event in Chinatown in New York City, campaign officials said yesterday, acknowledging another instance where questionable donors came into Mrs. Clinton’s political orbit.
But unlike Mrs. Clinton’s trouble with the former fund-raiser Norman Hsu — whose extensive legal problems and dubious fund-raising practices came as a surprise — her campaign identified the concerns about the Chinatown fund-raising on its own, campaign officials said…
The Clinton campaign said that after the Chinatown fund-raiser in April, which raised about $380,000, aides conducted a standard review of the donor list: If donors’ stated professions seemed out of line with their donations — for instance, if a dishwasher gave $1,000 — the campaign sent letters asking them to affirm in writing that the money was their own.
In seven cases, with donations totaling $7,000, questions were raised, and those donors did not respond to requests to confirm their contributions. That money was then returned.
Clinton campaign officials said yesterday that they would look at any new information that suggested problematic fund-raising. But they defended their efforts to recruit Asian donors aggressively, and stood by the Chinatown fund-raiser.
“Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American,” said Howard Wolfson, a campaign spokesman…
Campaign officials said yesterday that they could not ascertain whether the seven donations last spring were funneled from people other than the stated donors. That would be a violation of campaign finance law.
The organizer of the Chinatown event, Chung Seto, a former executive director of the New York State Democratic Committee, said yesterday that she knew of nothing improper about any donors at her event. Ms. Seto is a significant fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, campaign officials said.
No one has been disciplined as a result of the flawed donations, the officials said, and vetting procedures have not been altered.
What utter and shameless mendacity from the New York Times:
But unlike Mrs. Clinton’s trouble with the former fund-raiser Norman Hsu — whose extensive legal problems and dubious fund-raising practices came as a surprise — her campaign identified the concerns about the Chinatown fund-raising on its own, campaign officials said.
These Chinatown donations only became public because of yesterday’s article in the Los Angeles Times.
Behold what the LAT article quotes Hillary’s aides as saying:
Clinton aides said they were concerned about some of the Chinatown contributions.
“We have hundreds of thousands of donors. We are proud to have support from across New York and the country from many different communities,” campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. “In this instance, our own compliance process flagged a number of questionable donations and took the appropriate steps to be sure they were legally given. In cases where we couldn’t confirm that, the money was returned.”
Upon this very thin reed the New York Times decided it could re-write events to make Hillary Clinton out to be the real hero.
The same Hillary Clinton who shakes down money from Chinese gangsters, drug-runners and slave traders.
If donors’ stated professions seemed out of line with their donations — for instance, if a dishwasher gave $1,000 — the campaign sent letters asking them to affirm in writing that the money was their own.
Would it be too cynical to ask to see these letters? And to meet the Clinton staffers who have the time and the lingual abilities to write to these Chinese dishwashers?
Or did Hillary write the notes herself?
As was once her wont.
I’m sure you have already seen most of the material listed.
“In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000.”
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/?pid=244566
Many of Clinton’s Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.
http://www.drudge.com/news/99785/clintonchinatown-fundraising-scandal
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
