Posted on 09/16/2007 1:24:07 AM PDT by CutePuppy
Of course. But if you haven't noticed, the MSM is dying. Their much-diminished influence and power is due in no small part to people who refuse to concede and accept that "nothing will come of this."
Asked if he wanted Clinton, New York’s junior senator, to be the next president, Rosenberg said: “I don’t know. He just asked me to do it, and I did.”]
<./ shaking head in disbelief>
What I want to know how did he get into the US to begin with, get out when in trouble, get back in at some point unknown now, and noone seems able to track his citizenship status. Why? For taht matter no one seems able to track his where abouts since ‘92 until 3 years ago.
I know! Let’s give Rosenberg a chance to show credibility! Let’s ALL CALL and ask for $1,000!
(well, it was a thought)
Heh-—good idea.
I think that's the idea. The more times the money is laundered the more distant people like Hsu are from the real source of money and deniability is the order of the day. The more layers of financial transactions / "investments" there are, the more legitimate they look and more difficult to peel them.
Remember how during Whitewater / Madison Guarantee the media kept the refrain "It's all about financial transactions so complicated, that the our eyes glaze over, and regular people don't understand it". Well, the more "complicated" the better for them all around, and the more difficult to prove explain the relationship and accountability of original "investors" (real donors) and political campaigns.
According to TD Ameritrade, only email addresses were stolen for purposes of SPAM, no other ID information was in database - http://www.amtd.com/newsroom/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=264044
But the general idea of getting lists of names and/or IDs not just for financial gain (usual application by hackers) but for using it in voter fraud and/or money laundering via small campaign “donations” into campaigns is interesting.
And how would anybody really know or find out if their IDs are used in this way if their finances and credit are intact?
Well. We can all have our opinions. That's mine.
It think it should be returned to the Chinese gummint (or whoever gave it) with a 'no thank you' note after it serves as evidence in a criminal proceeding.
It would be normal to want to remove a cloud of suspicion that is hovering over her, wouldn't it? (Unless she knows the list of donators was phoney to begin with and the quickest way to dispose of the matter is to give it to charity.)
I think I'm just asking the obvious question, rhetorical, of course.
From here:
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2007/09/01/norman-hsu-and-dnc-fundraisers.aspx
Norman Hsu And DNC Fundraisers
>>>Philanthropy<<<
I don’t think I remember Clinton naming what charity she wanted to donate to. It seems Hsu has charities he is connected to. I would guess, if she donated it to one of those, she would be giving the money back without admitting as to where it came from.
Just me guessing though.
It’s a time-honored tradition for pols to give tainted donations to charity. Supposedly it accomplishes several things at the same time :
1. Campaign is not benefiting from contribution which was illegal but wasn’t campaign’s fault.
2. Donor doesn’t benefit by getting back the illegal contribution, and is thereby “punished”.
3. A charity, a “good cause”, supposedly a non-political entity, benefits from someone’s illegal activity, and people like that.
Of course, in Clintons’ case, money is likely to be funneled back into campaign because everybody knows that the money that ever passed through Clintons always has, always does and always will belong to Clintons.
THEY HSU’T HORSES, DON’T THEY!
YES, PAW.
The problem is that we are not providing enough incentive for the politicians to be honest.
Yeah, I know. I'm pretty naive, believing those aspiring to government really want to serve the people.
I would put it slightly different: we give them too much incentive to be dishonest - we give them too much power... and once they get it, all too easily, they want more still. "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly." - Thomas Paine.
Yeah, I know. I'm pretty naive, believing those aspiring to government really want to serve the people.
Why should they do that, when most of them have been conditioned to believe that people are to serve the government, and they have been given plenty of benefits and powers to reinforce that belief, and very little in the way of punishment or penalties to disabuse them of it.
Great points.
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.