Webloggin » If the Hsu Fits…

The Clinton crime family has a long history of circumventing the laws of this country especially when it comes to campaign fund raising. It seems that the Clintons are always in some kind of hot water for taking money from the wrong people or for accepting more than they are allowed to under the law. They always play innocent and act as the victims in the mess and then clear it up by returning the money or donating it to charity. One has to wonder just how much illegal money they have taken in that was not discovered.

The Clintons, as well as many other campaigns, accept donations from bundlers. These are people who collect a lot of donations from many different people and then turn them all in. This practice is ripe for exploitation and it appears that many bundlers do just that. The way it works is they accept money from people, many of whom do not have the means to make such donations or have never donated money and then these bundlers (usually wealthy people) reimburse the donors. This means that the bundler has given all the money but has given the appearance that all the donations were legal. Norman Hsu was such a man.

The news broke recently about suspicious donations from Hsu in the name of others who were unlikely donors. It was discovered that Hsu was a fugitive but not before Hillary praised him and said there was no reason to suspect he was doing anything wrong. She called people making such claims racists for singling out a man with an Asian name. After the revelation of his outstanding warrant, Hillary rid herself of $850,000 and vowed to do better background checks. However, she has had this problem before.

Peter Paul is a man who raised a lot of money for Hillary when she ran for her first Senate term. He did this in hope of luring President Clinton to work for him after he left office. Paul put on a huge event that featured top name performers and a great time was had by all. That is until the Washington Post published an article showing that Paul had a felony record. Immediately Hillary and Bill went into denial and distanced themselves from Paul. Hillary stated she did not know him and would not accept his money, except for the more than a million he had earned for her. The very next week Hillary’s people were faxing Paul and asking him for $100,000. She has an interesting way of not taking money from people. Now I do not believe Paul’s record should have made a difference but to the Clinton’s it was seen as a liability.

Hillary denied having any involvement in the planning of the fund raiser and she said that she met Paul but did not know him. The personalized photos along with the thank you letters say something different. One of Hillary’s people took the fall for under reporting the campaign donations and a deal was struck. Bill Clinton reneged on his deal and Stan Lee (Spiderman Creator whose spider sense must not have been tingling that day) and Peter Paul lost a great deal of money. Paul had a video tape of his office that shows the people talking to Hillary on the phone [Hillary is on the phone, Paul is on tape] prior to the gala. The video supports Mr. Paul’s claim that Hillary was completely aware of the event and that she helped with it in violation of the law. Interestingly, this tape was under wraps for a long time in the judicial system. It looked like it might never see the light of day but now Mr. Paul has filed suit and it appears that Hillary might be headed to court to give a deposition in this case. I wonder how she will explain the lies she told about knowing Peter Paul when the video makes it clear that she was very friendly with him. Another video has her in a garden with Paul and others. She is going to have a tough time, unless of course a judge her husband appointed decides there is not enough evidence. The Clinton crime family has long arms.

One would have thought that, if she were concerned about criminal records, she would have learned after the revelations about Paul to check backgrounds. Obviously, the money clouded her judgment with regard to Norman Hsu. She learned nothing. The stories about illegal donations are mounting and yet there are still dolts in this country who excuse them away. They fail to see that isolated incidents might not be of concern (everyone makes mistakes) but a pattern of illegal activities demonstrates a willful disregard for the law. The deception employed by the Clintons seems to satisfy the curiosity of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job despite little evidence to support such claims.

It seems that the Clinton apologists are going to be busy once again as Hillary is again forced to explain campaign donations. My friend Jay at Stop the ACLU informs us that Hillary held a fund raiser in her DC home and that a donor who gave money has indicated that she was reimbursed from her husband’s boss:

When Hillary Rodham Clinton held an intimate fund-raising event at her Washington home in late March, Pamela Layton donated $4,600, the maximum allowed by law, to Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

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.”

One could make a reasonable argument that Ms. Clinton had no knowledge of this and that bundled money is no cause for alarm. One could make that claim in light of the problems with Hsu bundled money and maybe even convince themselves that there really is no problem. However, taken in total, the history of Clinton illegalities with regard to raising money is troublesome and casts doubt on all of her fund raising efforts. How do you separate the dirty from the clean? Once a pattern is established then no matter what, all actions will be suspect. I believe we are at a saturation point where a Clinton (in this case Hillary) has cried wolf one too many times. People cannot continue to believe that she is the victim and was unaware of all these illegal activities. But then again, she claimed not to know what was going on right under Monica’s nose…

My mother used to tell me that people judge you by the company you keep and that if you hang around with low life people you will be viewed as a low life. Hillary Clinton continually fails to distance herself from the low life people who are breaking the law and she herself has engaged doing the very same thing.

I know that there are people who will not be convinced and who will claim she had no knowledge and that she was a victim just as she was when Bill had his Oval Office fling (smile, smile, wink, wink). Let me, for a moment, grant that she was totally unaware of these folks and that she somehow missed the signs. Let us forget the video of her breaking the law in direct contradiction of what she and her aide said and let us assume she is not guilty of anything in these cases.

Is this kind of unobservant, inattentive, careless, dimwit we want in the White House? If she admits to being unable to keep her campaign clean then do we want her running the country? Do we want someone with Hillary’s powers of observation looking out for us and what will she miss that might cause us harm?

No, I don’t buy it. Hillary Rodham is a lot of things but stupid is not one of them. She is cool and calculating and she knows what is going on around her. She has a great memory (despite her inability to recall under oath) and she knew that these donations were dirty. She also knew Mr. Paul and she was well aware she was breaking the law with regard to the event Peter Paul organized. Hillary and Bill have a quest for power. It is their manifest destiny to run the country and they believe that laws do not apply to them because the ends justify the means.

Hillary can claim that she never knowingly took illegal donations but I say if the Hsu fits….

[Discuss this article with the Big Dog...]

Share This Article With Others: