Posted on 09/11/2007 9:29:43 PM PDT by neverdem
Of all the possible vulnerabilities facing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton has long believed that the one of the biggest was money, friends and advisers say. Some sort of fund-raising scandal that would echo the Clinton-era controversies of the 1990s and make her appear greedy or ethically challenged.
As a result, Mrs. Clinton told aides this year to vet major donors carefully and help her avoid situations in which she might appear to be trading access for big money, advisers said. Also to be avoided, the senator said, were fund-raising tactics that might conjure up the Clinton White House coffees and the ties to relatively unknown donors offering large sums, like the Asian businessmen who sent checks to the Democratic National Committee.
Yet nine months into her campaign, Mrs. Clinton is grappling with exactly the situation she feared — giving up nearly $900,000 that had been donated or raised by Norman Hsu, a one-time fugitive and one of her top fund-raisers, whose actions raise serious questions about how well the campaign vetted its donors. As a result, Mrs. Clinton now finds herself linked to a convicted criminal who brought in tens of thousands of dollars from potentially tainted sources.
The Hsu case has revived ugly memories for voters about the Democratic fund-raising scandals when Bill Clinton was president, the senator’s campaign advisers acknowledge, a time...
--snip--
The campaign is refunding $850,000 to these donors, viewing the money as tainted. Yet the campaign is also risking another public relations mess by saying that it would take back the money if it clearly came from the donor’s bank account, not from Mr. Hsu or another source. The risk is that Mrs. Clinton will appear to want more cash no matter whether it was once colored by a disgraced donor...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Fascinating to watch this...” says Rush. He wonders about the NYT connection and will be on the story during today’s show.
$2300 is the total per election
I demand an investigation. I am offended. I want Waxman to investigate Her Highness and Bubba. He says he will look at the Clinton files of the ‘90’s. I want Pubs to demand an investigation of her corruption. Now.
Clinton is unelectable. She just reminds everyone of all the corruption and lies of her last time in the White House.
This is not the first nor will it be the last scandal regarding her taking funny money... it won’t go away because the Clintons and those around them are inately crooked.
She is turning her back left and right on traditional Democratic constiuencies... working on the belief that women will vote as a block and she can win simply with just the women vote.
Unfortunately many women, even life long dems, see her as nothing more than an opportunist who let her husband humiliate her in front of the world and took it, in exchange for power. No self respecting woman, even more so one that is raising a daughter, can look themselves in the mirror and vote for this fraud.
...make her appear greedy or ethically challenged... Also to be avoided, the senator said, were fund-raising tactics that might conjure up the Clinton White House coffees and the ties to relatively unknown donors offering large sums, like the Asian businessmen who sent checks to the Democratic National Committee... The Hsu case has revived ugly memories for voters about the Democratic fund-raising scandals when Bill Clinton was presidentNow, wouldn't reviving those ugly memories have been made possible only if the NY Slimes had drummed it in over and over and over again back when it was happening? Just curious, because, guess what? The Slimes was too busy telling us over and over and over again how Ken Starr et al was wasting millions on a witch hunt, that there was no semen-stained dress, that there was such a dress after all but Ken Starr et al was still wasting money, that the missing FBI files were in the Oval Office all the time, and that they'd been misplaced until the cleaning staff moved a pile of girls' undies...
The Old Grey Whore is really taking it on this one.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shut down this PONZI racquet... !!
The Wash Post gives her a pass; Rush says it was written by Clinton Inc. The AP makes her a victim and hero. The interesting thing to watch is the NYT, says Rush.
I will never forget an interview with Robert Bork I saw on one of the networks during the Monica scandal with Slick Willie.
He stated that one day people would know that the Clintons were the most corrupt of any administration in the history of the United States!
Thing is, we know that, but they have never really been pursued by anyone with the zeal that is required.
Bork ought to be called in as a special prosecutor into this whole investigation of the CLinton campaign fraud!
Wouldn’t that be sweet?
These refunds will go to people who will “redonate” the money. Especially the “charities” that they are sending the money to.
So $2300 can be donated for the primary, and $2300 can be donated for the general election each year. Is my understanding correct?
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml
I understood it to be per election, a total of $2300 for primary and election combined. I think that’s it.
Democratic fundraiser is a fugitive in plain sight
Individuals can give a total of $4,600 to a single candidate during an election cycle, $2,300 for the primaries and $2,300 for the general election.
I can't vouch for the LA Times, but I believe that I have read it from other sources too. BTW, that article was posted.
Okay, that could be right.
“Clinton Sees Fear Realized in Trouble With Donor”
“...be sure your sin shall find ye out.”
(last clause of Numbers 32:23)
“she might appear GREEDY and ETHICALLY CHALLENGED???????????
My stars what does this woman drink for breakfast?????? She’s already been proven to be both.
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.