Has she proven that the illegal loot was returned?
Posted on 09/25/2007 3:37:12 PM PDT by Libloather
Sooner would have been much better than later
09/25/2007
The Buffalo News
It's the right move for the Clinton campaign to return $850,000 in tainted donations, but for a number of reasons, including another fundraising debacle involving a candidate named Clinton, it would have been far better to have done it sooner.
Questions about fundraiser Norman Hsu had been raised as early as June. Still, it took until recently for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to announce that she would return that money - the largest amount ever returned by a single candidate - and cut ties with Hsu.
In the meantime, she allowed herself to be seen as unconcerned about the appearance of fundraising abuses by Hsu. That could cause trouble for any candidate but it is especially difficult for Clinton, given the fundraising controversies of her husband's years as president.
The problems with Hsu are tangled. Not only have questions arisen about the source of the "bundled" donations he delivered to the Clinton campaign, but news recently broke that Hsu was wanted in California on a 15-year-old warrant related to a felony theft conviction. He turned himself in, but then skipped a court hearing. He was later found - and arrested - in Colorado, where he fell ill on a train.
The irony of this mess is terrible. Clinton had reportedly instructed her campaign staff to examine the background of its fundraisers. She wanted to provide her critics no reminders of the overnight stays in the White House given to donors or the donations from Johnny Chung, some of whose money came from leaders of China's military. She got them anyway.
She now risks compounding the image taint by leaving open the possibility that once her campaign finishes investigating the 260 donors involved in the Hsu "bundle" she may ask for some of the money back.
The long-term good news out of this is that, even if the decision to return the money came late, Clinton still did the right thing. Her action will pressure other candidates from both parties to be more careful about fundraising. Some have already had their own fundraising controversies. Clinton now intends to run criminal background checks on bundlers.
The better news would be to finally recognize the need for a better system of campaign financing. When presidential candidates need tens of millions of dollars to be competitive, the pressure to accept all donations is all but irresistible. The country needs a better system.
Has she proven that the illegal loot was returned?
And the only reason that she returned a cent is to avoid the obvious ammunition it would have provided the Republicans. If there was any way to keep it on the sly I am sure she would have done it. This woman has no scruples, ethics or conscience whatsoever.
850,000 is the number they had to pay Paula Jones too, no?
Returning to whom? As another FReeper suggested earlier, it should go into an escrow account while Hsu’s web of deceipt is unraveled.
Nuts. For a second there, I thought maybe we got lucky and an upstate NY paper might find a way to not praise Hillary.
“…It’s the right move for the Clinton campaign to return $850,000…”
Hey you crooks. Show me canceled checks the money was returned.
Oh yes…and with interest.
“And the only reason that she returned a cent is to avoid the obvious ammunition it would have provided the Republicans.”
We have no proof she returned the money and with interest.
The media should be demanding PROOF that these return checks have been issued before Oct. 1 so that the details have to be reported on this quarter’s federal filings. But of course the MSM demands nothing of the Clintonistas, and simply laps up their every (changing) statement uncritically. Don’t any of these so-called reporters feel SHAME at the pitiful job they do not covering Hillary?
“Still, it took until recently for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to announce that she would return that money -”
Translation: She’s keeping it.
I won’t believe the money has been returned and NOT SENT BACK in under yet another scam!
When she looses the Peter Paul suit she’ll have to pay back a lot more than that.
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.