Thursday, 30 August 2007
LESS ON THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN SCANDAL
Yesterday I blogged about the Hillary Clinton campaign scandal, in which a
family with no apparent way of doing it gave $45,000 to her campaign and over
$200,000 to Hillary and other Democrats in total.
Since I'm blogging about it again today, you might expect the above title to
read "MORE on the Hillary Clinton Campaign Scandal". But, in truth, "less"
seems to be more accurate. Let me show you why.
It turns out that the money was "bundled" by someone named Norman Hsu, who
pled no contest to being a swindler 15 years ago, agreed to a sentence of up to
3 years in jail, skipped out, and apparently has been in plain sight for years
as a major Democratic fundraiser without being touched.
How this could possibly be, and how it could escape the notice of Democrats
who got hundreds of thousands of dollars from Hsu - enough money so you would
think they'd HAVE to vet him? That doesn't seem to be of any journalistic
God, it is GOOD to be a Democrat. And even better to be a Clinton
In any event, Senator Clinton first said she saw no reason to return any of
this money (despite the obvious foul odor emanating from it). But then,
when her safety nets in the media, such as the NY and LA Times, felt
compelled to write about it (the LA Times actually published a hard-hitting
expos of the type they usually reserve for Republican scoundrels), she had a
change of heart. Suddenly last night Ms. Clinton said she would give the
money "to charity".
Parenthetically, I would be very surprised if media demanded to know WHICH
charity. In 1996 the Democratic party, led by the Clintons, had to
"give back" something like 3 -4 million dollars in dirty money and I never
ever saw media demand to know who they gave it back to. Media never ever
followed up on who got that money.
To repeat: God, it is GOOD to be a Democrat. And even better to
be a Clinton benefactor
I missed the first ten minutes of the Today show this morning, but my wife
who, admittedly, pays half attention to the news at that time because she is
getting ready for work, didn't remember hearing anything about the Hillary
scandal. I'm assuming they must have said something - but evidently they
didn't do any feature on it, the way they'd do one for, say Trent Lott or
Mark Foley or Tom DeLay (more on him in a subsequent blog. He made
mincemeat of Matt Lauer this morning).
Then I read the NY Times and the Clinton scandal made its front page.
That's the good news. But the first sentence was pure NY TImes
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said
yesterday that it would give to charity $23,000 it had received from a
prominent Democratic donor, and review thousands of dollars more that he had
raised, after learning that the authorities in California had a warrant for
his arrest stemming from a 1991 fraud case"
Got that? Hillary is not only as clean as a hound's tooth, she's GIVING
IT TO CHARITY. It's not that she's a dirty politician with a sordid
history of campaign finance abuse who is grudgingly giving up money because one
of her dirty dealings saw the light of day. No no no. She is a
GODDESS. What a bad break for poor Ms. Clinton that she inadvertently got
the money through a convicted swindler and fugitive from justice.
Also, yesterday's reports had the contributions to Ms. Clinton at
$45,000. Somehow, in one day's time, the amount either magically
dropped in half (from $45,000 to 23,000) or Ms. Clinton is keeping $22,000 of
the money. Wouldn't you like to know more about that?
Then I read the MSNBC website. Their "coverage" was to copy the NY
Today is the second day of this story. There are obvious story lines to
be investigated, followed up on, reported, questioned and put editorialized
upon. There are obvious reasons do do some of those in-show panels and
debates over what involvement Hillary Clinton and/or her staff had with Hsu,
whether there are further involvements with him, whether there are other
"Norman Hsu" lowlifes in the Clinton playbook and what it means
about her and her campaign.
But based on what I've seen and heard so far? That word "Less" in
this blog's title is very, very apropos.
Maybe it will change in the next few days. Maybe it will
have to change, since the blogosphere is surely going to do what
most mainstream media are so averse to doing: INVESTIGATING a
If so, it won't be the first time that media will have been shamed into doing
what it should have done in the first place: acting like the professional
journalists they purport to be.
Just ask Dan Rather and Mary Mapes.
BRIAN BAIRD: TARGET OF THE LAMBS
At first blush it is hard to imagine Brian Baird becoming a target of the
LAMBs (the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade).
Baird is a staunchly liberal/left congressman from the Olympia/Vancouver
Washington area, who sports, among other things, an 89% rating from Planned
Parenthood, a 95% rating from the ACLU and 100% from the
In addition, he has been a vociferous critic of our entry into Iraq and of
our actions there once the invasion took place.
So what could he possibly have done to enrage the LAMB crowd?
The answer is that Baird went to Iraq, saw firsthand that the troop surge is
having appreciable success, and reported what he saw to his
Waiting for more? Sorry, that's the beginning, middle and end of
For this "crime", Baird is being torn apart by the same looney-leftists who
were his bosom buddies as long as he was toeing their anti-war line.
Ironically, Baird STILL is proudly against the war in Iraq, at least in terms
of whether we should have gone there in the first place. His problem is
that he has not dutifully closed his mind and his mouth to the fact that,
whatever his initial feelings, good things may happening
You can read Mr. Baird's statement in its entirety at his website: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/wa03_baird/082407iraq.html.
While I urge you to read the entire statement, it is too long to
post here. So I have extracted the key excerpts below:.
Washington, D.C. -
The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in
the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a
precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn
the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks
As a Democrat who voted against the war from the
outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the
post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at
long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could
have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their
current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people
themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.
It is just not realistic to expect Iraq or any
other nation to be able to rebuild its government, infrastructure, security
forces and economy in just four years. Despite the enormous challenges, the fact
is, the situation on the ground in Iraq is improving in multiple and important
Regardless of one's politics or position on the
invasion, this must be recognized and welcomed as good news.
Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing
or killing high-priority targets on a daily basis. Sheiks and tribal groups are
uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida
from certain areas. The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their
training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents
and realizing important victories. Businesses and factories that were once
closed are being reopened and people are working again. The infrastructure is
gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life.
Without question, these gains are still precarious
and there are very real and troubling problems with the current Iraqi political
regime and parliament at the national level.
The Iraqis are addressing these problems along
with our own State Department but these issues will not easily be resolved and
could, if not solved, throw the success of the entire endeavor into
Those problems notwithstanding, to walk away now
from the recent gains would be to lose all the progress that has been purchased
at such a dear price in lives and dollars. As one soldier said to me, "We have
lost so many good people and invested so much, It just doesn't make sense to
quit now when we're finally making progress. I want to go home as much as anyone
else, but I want this mission to succeed and I'm willing to do what it takes. I
just want to know the people back home know we're making progress and support
"You may think you can walk away from Iraq," I was
told by one leader. "We cannot. We live here and have to deal with the
consequences of what your nation has done. So will you eventually, if the Iraq
conflict spreads and extremists bring us down as well."
I do not know the details of what the September
report will contain, but I trust and respect Gen. David Petraeus and U.S.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker. I have seen firsthand the progress they have made, and
I firmly believe we must give them the time and resources they need to
In other words, Baird did not support our entry into Iraq or our post
invasion strategy. He wishes we had never invaded. BUT, he will not
intentionally blind himself to the significant progress being made there
when he sees it.
To the LAMBs, this makes Baird a turncoat and a target. To me, it makes
him an honest man and a profile in courage.
What does it make him to you?
I want to teach you a word of yiddish.
The word is rachmauniss (
pronounced rach-MAW-niss, with the "ch" hard and scratchy, like when JFK said
"Ich bein ein Berliner").
Roughly translated, it means mercy.
I am trying to have some rachmauniss for Michael Nifong, the disgraced,
disbarred former DA of Durham North Carolina. Because,
however belatedly, he did finally admitted his wrongdoing.
But he's making it hard for me. Here, via the Associated Press, is
By AARON BEARD, Associated Press
Writer 45 minutes ago
DURHAM, N.C. - Disgraced former prosecutor Mike
Nifong pleaded not guilty Thursday to criminal contempt charges stemming from
his failure to turn over complete DNA testing results during the now-discredited
lacrosse rape case.
If found in contempt, Nifong could face up to 30 days
in jail and a fine of up to $500.
As Durham County district attorney, Nifong led the
investigation into a woman's allegations that she was raped at a 2006 lacrosse
team party where she was hired as a stripper. He won indictments against three
lacrosse players, but eventually recused himself from the case, and state
prosecutors dropped all remaining charges, saying the players were innocent
victims of a "tragic rush to accuse."
Defense attorneys for the three falsely accused
young men asked a judge to punish Nifong for initially telling the court he had
turned over all DNA test results when he knew, and failed to disclose, that
genetic material from multiple men was found on the accuser but none from any
Nifong's attorney, Jim Glover, said Nifong never
intentionally tried to mislead the court. He believed he was being truthful when
he told the judge he had given the defense all the DNA testing results, though
he didn't always know the specifics in every report, Glover said.
Nifong was disbarred in June for more than two
dozen violations of the state's rules of professional conduct during his
prosecution of the lacrosse case.
During a hearing last month, he apologized and
acknowledged there was "no credible evidence" that the three formerly charged
players committed any of the crimes he accused them of. He said then: "It is my
hope that all of us can learn from the mistakes in this case, that all of us can
begin to move forward." .
Tell me how he could plead innocent to criminal contempt in this case?
Tell me how he could possibly claim to have turned over all the DNA
If Nifong had parlayed his tearful mea culpa with an admission of the
obvious criminal contempt involved, maybe the judge would show a little
rachmauniss and not put him in jail for the 30 days. I'd think that would
be a pretty good bet. The $500 fine, of course, is peanuts.
But, no, he isn't smart or logical or contrite enough to do so. THIS is
what he's going to fight.
Like I said, it's hard to have rachmauniss for Nifong. Even though I
honestly did try.
MORE ON THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN SCANDAL
My previous blog showed you the "less" side of Hillary Clinton's
campaign finance scandal. Here is some of the "more" side.
It comes in the form of an article dated March 3 of this year, from the Los
I somehow missed this when the LA Times published it. And the Times
isn't helping matters either because, according to www.sweetness-light.com, where I found
the following scandal, they have expunged it from their website.
But the blogosphere is far more interested in examining Hillary Clinton's
fundraising than mainstream media is ever going to be. And because of
that, we have this story which I post in its entirety, including
sweetness-light's bold print and their brief, to-the-point commentary about it
beforehand and afterwards:.
August 29th, 2007
Here is an article from last March by the same duo
of reporters who broke the story that Norman Hsu is on the lam.
The Los Angeles Times seems to have purged the
piece from its site. So this comes courtesy of the packrats at Rantburg:
Clinton donor wanted by FBI in scheme to funnel
Robin Fields and Chuck Neubauer,
Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2007
A Pakistani immigrant who hosted fundraisers in
Southern California for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is being sought by the
FBI on charges that he funneled illegal contributions to Clintons political
action committee and Sen. Barbara Boxers 2004 reelection campaign.
Authorities say Northridge businessman Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, fled the
country after an indictment accused him of engineering more than $50,000 in
illegal donations to the Democratic committees. A business associate
charged as a co-conspirator has entered a guilty plea and is scheduled to be
sentenced in Los Angeles next week
The case has transformed Jinnah from a political
point man on Pakistani issues, a man often photographed next to foreign
dignitaries and U.S. leaders, into a fugitive with his mug shot on the FBIs
"featured fugitives" wanted list. Jinnahs profile peaked in 2004 and 2005 as
he wooed members of Congress to join a caucus advancing Pakistani concerns and
brought Clinton to speak to prominent Pakistani Americans, lauding their
homelands contributions to the war on terrorism and calling relations with
Pakistan beneficial to U.S. interests.
Jinnah and his family donated more than
$100,000 to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates. Now friends say
they believe Jinnah has returned to Pakistan. Attempts to reach him and
his relatives were unsuccessful. A "For Sale" sign stood in his yard on
Thursday, and a neighbor said the family had not lived there for
Jinnahs troubles appear to have begun
when he attempted to circumvent election laws by reimbursing friends, business
contacts and their family members for contributions made in their names,
according to court records. Federal statutes set limits on contributions
to federal campaigns and political action committees and bar donations made in
the names of others. Authorities say that from June 2004 to February 2005,
Jinnah directly or indirectly solicited contributions from more than a dozen
"conduits," reimbursing them with funds from his company, All American
Distributing, a seller of cellphone service and accessories. Authorities said
the scheme allowed Jinnah to get around limits then in effect on individual
donors of $5,000 per year to PACs and $2,000 per election to candidates, as
well as the ban on using corporate money for political
Jinnahs case has been handled with
discretion by the U.S. attorneys office in Los Angeles, which recently lost a
high-profile case against former Clinton campaign official David Rosen.
Rosen was acquitted of charges of filing false reports about a Hollywood
fundraiser given for Clinton in 2000
According to the indictment, Jinnah arranged
$30,000 in donations to HillPac by having Schoenburg, a Tarzana television
producer, approach family members and others to act as straw donors.
Schoenburg and five others contributed $5,000 apiece. Jinnah later reimbursed
them with funds from his corporation, prosecutors say. In one instance,
authorities allege, Jinnah and Schoenburg agreed to write "production" in a
reimbursement checks memo line, falsely indicating it was payment for
The indictment says Jinnah also found
14 straw donors to give $28,000 to the 2004 reelection campaign of Boxer
(D-Calif.). Among the contributors were five employees of Jinnahs company,
Schoenburg and several members of Schoenburgs family, records
Sounds kind of familiar, doesnt it?
Somehow this story got even less play in the
mainstream than this weeks Clinton campaign finances scandal.
Which is to say none at all..
I point out, again, that there is NO WAY professional journalists should not
be scouring through Ms. Cilnton's finances. No way.
They know she has a long history of crap like this. They know
that, a la this article from almost a half year ago, she's already been
caught with dirty money in this presidential campaign. And they know
that, via Norman Hsu, she has been caught again.
Hillary Clinton clearly is not about to change her underhanded,
dishonest money-grubbing for the presidential campaign. The only way she
can possibly get away with it is if enough print and broadcast venues
continue to treat her as a protected species.
How many more Jinnahs and Hsus are there in Hillaryland? When do the
networks and most mainstream media start giving a damn about