By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 9.13.07 @ 12:08AM
With the Clintons, it's always been this way. Or hasn't the press noticed?
WASHINGTON -- It has happened again. This past Monday at 6:40
PM, just as the network news programs were getting under way, the
Clinton presidential campaign released some disturbing news. It
will return $850,000 of donations raised for it by recent fugitive
and convicted felon Norman Hsu. For the last three years Hsu had
been a major Clinton donor. On August 29, the Clintons employed the
same maneuver. Then, just as the network news programs were
reporting the day's news, the Clinton campaign announced that it
would donate to charity $23,000 of campaign donations linked to the
suddenly exposed Hsu. Well, at the time I suggested that Hsu was
responsible for a lot more than $23,000 of Clinton donations, and
again I heard the Bronx cheers from the Clintonistas. So now they
admit the figure approaches a cool million.
I would not expect the Clintonistas to wisen up and recognize
the Clintons for the ethically insouciant couple that they are. Yet
when will the press recognize this, and when will the press get
tired of being manipulated? Now that the Clintons are admitting to
a much larger campaign fraud than two weeks ago, will they release
the names of those who donated the $850,000? Will the press demand
it? Earlier reports in the Wall Street Journal made it
pretty clear that some of Hsu's orchestrated donors could not
possibly afford the donations they have made. So who are the
others? Equally important, how did Hsu and his friends come up with
all that money? When he returned to California to address the 1991
felony conviction that he had skipped out on, he put up a $2
million bond. Where did that money come?
Late last winter when the Clinton presidential campaign was
getting under way, a New York Times writer interviewed me
about Senator Clinton's prospects with those who have been critical
of her in years past. His thesis was that they had tired of
criticizing her and would be relatively inert. My answer to him was
that Senator Clinton would continue to rouse critics because the
Clintons inveterately do things that run the gamut from being shady
to being illegal. They act as though they are above the law. That
rouses critics.
Since then reports have accumulated naming some of the
ethically-challenged patrons in their camp. There is the
spectacular Hsu, and such picturesque figures as William Paw and
his son, Winkle Paw, middle class Americans of murky Asian ancestry
who suddenly had hundreds of thousands to contribute. There is
Vinod Gupta, CEO of InfoUSA who after donating millions to various
Clinton campaigns was unceremoniously removed from the Clinton
campaign after it was reported that his company was being
investigated for questionable dealings with the elderly. There is
the founder of the Bombay Palaces restaurant chain, Sant S.
Chatwal. He has raised millions of dollars for Senator Clinton's
campaigns while facing bank fraud charges in India and contending
with bankruptcy and tax liens amounting to millions of dollars on
two continents.
In its late-afternoon announcement this week, the Clinton
campaign promised to run criminal background checks on those who
raise large amounts for it. Well, I suggest also scrutinizing those
Bill raises money from too. Three years ago at the Tavern on the
Green, Bill served as pitchman for a little known Internet search
engine founded by Marc Armand Rousso. Rousso is a former promoter
of penny stocks who in the late 1990s pleaded guilty to stock fraud
in the United States and was convicted of similar fraud in
France.
No family in public life has so long a record of misbehavior as
the Clintons. Often they get caught red-handed. Their record began
in Arkansas and has continued on the national scene. The Clintons,
according to anonymous Democratic sources, were warned about Hsu
but took the money anyway. Back in Arkansas, every gubernatorial
campaign Bill Clinton ran was surrounded by either questionable
donations or questionable bank loans or both. His two presidential
campaigns featured illegal campaign donations, often from shadowy
Asian fellows just like Hsu. Doubtless this behavior will
continue.
Along with campaign finance violations there are the Clintons'
other scrapes with the law -- all go back to Arkansas and will
continue as long as they are in public life. The Democrats could
save themselves a lot of disappointments by finding a cleaner
presidential nominee than Hillary. The press cannot be manipulated
forever, can it?
topics:
Bill Clinton, Law, NATO