This is just wrong on so many levels. Much research to follow, but just let the implications settle in.
[Posted by WLS]
Story from the LA Times.
I spent sometime working with an Asian Organized Crime Strike Force back in the day, and I was stunned at how organized and entrenched the Chinese groups were in big cities like LA, SF, NY, and Chicago. The immigrant populations in these cities are completely dominated by these organizations. There is simply no doubt that all or nearly all this money is dirty.
And Hillary could care less because dirty money spends just as easy as clean money when she’s buying ad spots or paying out street money.
This isn’t immigrant bashing. It’s simply a call to citizens to understand that every dirty dollar raised and spent cancels out a clean dollar, and every illegal vote cast by an illegal immigrant cancels out a legitimate vote cast by a citizen.
We’re surrendering our democracy one dollar and one vote at a time.
P.S. I must say that I’m surprised at the efforts by the LAT to whack Hillary. The LAT and WSJ went after the Hsu affair first, and now the LAT is onto this. They are really scrutinizing her donor lists. Are they in the bag for Obama at the behest of the Hollywood establishment?
Actually I am more thinking they are in the bag for Hillary.
Let me explain.
They could be wanting to get the story out clean and quick in time for it all to blow over and be forgotten after they have done a big investigation.
However there are already gaps in their coverage.
They noted the issue with return of Senate Campaign contributions.
However what they DO NOT mention is that some of the donors being refunded are not getting the full amount they contributed strictly to the Clinton Presidential Campaign.
In fact I don’t even believe they mention that two of the donors from the Paw family have received no refund at all on this report from the FEC.
As always SuitablyFlip is all over the facts on this issue.
daytrader (ea6549) — 10/19/2007 @ 11:40 amYou know whats missing from that article, is any reference to her role in the illegal campaign funding scams of her husbands administration. This isn’t something new for the Clintons. They have always had strong ties to illegal chinese/asian campaign contributions. Oddly enough, the LATimes printed one of the first articles in 1997 that broke the story. Take a look at whose signature is on this picture.
Gabriel (6d7447) — 10/19/2007 @ 11:41 amAlso there is the yet untested issues with contributions from proven refunded donors to such places as HillPac The Searchlight Fund and the Hope Fund which are related to Harry Reid and Obama.
Also there are many state level officials who haven’t fully addressed the money direct from Norman Hsu and when the list gels on all the Hsu bundled there are going to be a number of Governors and other state level officials as well as Senators and Representatives who have a whole lot of Hsu bundled donations.
Mainly we are working from all people who refunded on one date in the quarterly report, but there seem to be some logic to suggest that others exist.
After the one date comes up with 249 donors and the Clinton campaign initially claimed 260.
Either way there still will be reason to look at all the other donors to the campaign since we only have their claim of the number involved and no specific press release with the names of donors they consider to be bundled by Hsu or what was the method they used to pick them. Did they have some internal tracking ledger or what.
I think bundlers should be registered with the FEC and a unique id for each included as part of the donation record to leave no doubt.
The new LA Times article raises questions that really may have no Hsu direct link so far, but then there needs to be an exploration of did Hsu have contact with the leaders of any of the groups heading up not so independent campaigns.
daytrader (ea6549) — 10/19/2007 @ 11:49 amIn addition there is a west coast Venture Capitalist who also got refunded on the same day.
It is unlikely this person was bundled by Hsu from current documentation for the reason that what we are mainly linking to is the west coast ponzi scheme and it is doubtful that a successful high dollar venture capitalist would be involved with that issue.
In fact the trail around that person shows no link to any know participants in the west coast scam at all, but very close links to another Hillary bundler. So it would make more sense for that bundler to have handled the donation.
It just doesn’t add up, and there are several other questionable items in the list of 249 that make even more broaden the gap between the 249 and the 260 number.
daytrader (ea6549) — 10/19/2007 @ 11:58 amI think if they dig farther they will find the source in the PRC. They need to ensure they can control Hillary, like they did Bill.
Charlie Quidnunc (380df0) — 10/19/2007 @ 11:59 amAn interesting article.
I don’t see it as an “attack” on Hillary, though.
I think it actually makes her look good.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 12:27 pmWLS,
Maybe I missed it. I read the article and didn’t see anything about illegal immigrants voting. It is a good article and I’m encouraged that people are investigating it. But at this point it only seems to point to fund raising and donations by people not eligible to do so rather than an illegal immigrant.
Voice of Reason (10af7e) — 10/19/2007 @ 12:35 pmI think alphies reading comprehension needs some work
Gabriel (6d7447) — 10/19/2007 @ 12:36 pmNo, I think it’s an attempt by the Dem political establishment to find another candidate. Since Hillary will in a restoration simply recycle Clinton cronies and no patronage for newcomers in the last 8 years or so.
THAT is why this story is getting play. There are many ambitious people in the WSJ and LAT newsroom who would like to work at the White House and at best with Hillary would be fetching donuts.
Btw, you can check out my site: http://www.campaign-money.com , which has a more searchable interface to the FEC data. Hillary has some mighty interesting donations. If you choose “by same address” (which is zip code) you can see the zip codes aggregated and drill down to them. For example zip code 10002 is filled with Chinatown cooks and restaurant hostesses donating lots of money. You can also search by “business” which is what the donor fills out in “occupation” and THAT is also interesting. Office managers, cooks etc. donating lots and lots of money. There are students in Florida donating $2,300 a pop (and several with the last name of Perez with the same zip code donating).
I believe my site is far easier to use than the FEC’s. A lot faster too, check it out.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 10/19/2007 @ 12:37 pmMan this place is becoming a Winds Of Change second home.
Gabriel (6d7447) — 10/19/2007 @ 12:39 pmGabriel,
The article mentions several steps the Clinton campaign took to keep out phony donations. Why does it make her look bad?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 12:49 pmVOR at 7:
My point on voting isn’t a reference to the article. Its a reference to efforts to institutionalize and legitimate voting by illegal immigrants through same day registration, and issuance of driver’s licenses to illegals which will then be used as a form of identification for purposes of registering and voting at the polls.
The Dems are committed to opening any and all avenues that facilitate voting by illegals because they know that illegals will vote for Dems by large margins.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/19/2007 @ 1:00 pmAlphie — the steps are window dressing.
The facts are that many “contributors” can’t be found, probably don’t exist, or acknowledge that they were coerced into giving — just like several of the Hsu contributors.
The LAT found this information with a couple of reporters and a couple of weeks. The Clinton campaign either knows the facts as the LAT’s reports — in which case she is corrupt (no revelation there) — or they don’t know, in which case her campaign is inept.
Your choice.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/19/2007 @ 1:04 pmI’d be curious to know if this “power over immigrants” that the local crimelords have includes forcing them to donate as straw donors, or to make donations even when they are not legally allowed to because of ther citizenships status. It’s pretty obivous that the Clinton campaign isn’t doing a whole lot of checking on donors, otherwise this Hsu thing would have been caught long ago (lets also note that the Hsu bundlers have still yet to be paid back, and in many instances, the donors themselves cannot be found)
So its a good thing to be pressured into giving?
WOw, donors who can’t be found, donors who are not registered to vote (more than likley illegals), donors who make too little to really be able to afford to give $4600 to a campaign. Odd that we don’t see this kind of giving from any other minority community.
How is someone making aroudn 21k a year able to donate 1000, 2000, or even more in some instances? Can you give up 10% of your annual income to throw at a candidate?
Furthermore, I find it abhorrent that these people think that their campaign donations will grant them some special favor. These people seem delluded into thinking that throwing their money away at Clinton will somehow get laws changed. If anything her campaign appears to be exploiting these people.
Its pretty obvious that you have a warped view of what makes her look good. Either that or youre just full of shit and didnt read the article.
Gabriel (6d7447) — 10/19/2007 @ 1:05 pmwls,
I think you may be a little biased against Hillary.
Her campaign can’t be expected to run an expensive background check on every donor.
As long as her campaign returns the donations that they learn are against the rules, what’s the problem?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 1:10 pmKeep apologizing alpie. Your voice is lonely in the wilderness.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/19/2007 @ 1:12 pmBad votes can cancel out good votes, but bad dollars can’t “cancel out” good dollars.
That’s not how money works.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 10/19/2007 @ 1:12 pmYour voice is lonely in the forrest.
No, no, WLS, his
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 2:30 pmvoicebraying emanates from a lonely, grassy, moonbathed hill.“Her campaign can’t be expected to run an expensive background check on every donor.”
Of course not. Not _every_ donor. But they’re too incompetent to determine that one of their _favored_ fundraisers is a wanted felon. Even ignoring Peter Paul and the “I know nothing about that event I planned,” defense.
Al (b624ac) — 10/19/2007 @ 3:08 pmI guess we’re assuming the Republicans haven’t taken any “illegal” contributions?
Or is it just accepted that Hillary will become President no matter what, so why not use this issue as fodder for the daily outrage?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 3:18 pmI guess we’re assuming the Republicans haven’t taken any “illegal” contributions?
You can bet the MSM is looking for them, Staunch Brayer, but the fact that they haven’t turned up any speakes volumes.
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 3:34 pmOops…”speaks”
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 3:34 pmThis cycle, no one contributes to the GOP. But how could everyone forget coin dealer/GOP stalwart/crook Thomas Noe so soon? (Say, have his Ponzi scheme victims been reimbursed yet?)
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 10/19/2007 @ 3:45 pmWell, Andrew, I guess the GOP candidates are simply spending their own funds, since no one contributes to the GOP.
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 3:52 pmIts not the FACT that Hillary is accepting illegal contributions, its the FACT that those contributions are, ONCE AGAIN, coming from Chinese interests.
I swear she couldn’t make people more suspicious of whether she was actually was a real-life Manchurian Candidate unless she was really trying. Is there no one working in her campaign with the job to say “You know, this really won’t look good when its reported, maybe we shouldn’t take this money.”
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/19/2007 @ 4:07 pmBut how could everyone forget coin dealer/GOP stalwart/crook Thomas Noe so soon? (Say, have his Ponzi scheme victims been reimbursed yet?)
Nice try, Andrew. An isolated case vs. a decades streching pattern of corruption doesn’t cut it.
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 4:07 pmLike bad behavior excuses bad behavior, Alphie, your obtuseness has not been missed. The real problem is that Hillary!!! has already been shown to have by-passed fund-raising laws, namely consciously broken the law yet again, & the simple fact that the list of illegal contributions has grown to the point where the LAT is writing about it shows that the Clinton campaign, especially after being caught before, could care less about it reflecting negatively or has nothing to fear from the majority of the MSM or the voting public. If they had any real fears of retribution, these contributions & contributors would have been better vetted or investigated after the first public release of campaign finance violations. The simple fact that they are so apparent & easily discovered belays an inherent arrogance or lack of fear of being caught by Hillary. This is potentially more than an indictment of Hillary or business-as-usual campaign finance, but of the true lack of integrity, objectivity & blatant bias within the MSM itself.
PMain (0617f5) — 10/19/2007 @ 4:37 pmI think the fact that the L A Times is writing about this just deflates the librul MSM meme a little bit more, PMain.
Like the neocons themselves, that puppy is outta gas.
I think it would be easier for you guys to just accept Queen Hillary’s upcoming 8 year reign.
I have.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 4:41 pmThe fact that they are writing about it now & not the incidents that occured during her 2 previous Senate campaigns is more telling. Care to show me where other major city newspapers are writing about it? Which major network has picked up the theme so far? Now contrast & compare this to the media’s response to Randy Cunningham’s illegal financing & if they were similiar you might have a point, but in comparison you don’t. Better stick to your thread hijacking.
PMain (0617f5) — 10/19/2007 @ 4:46 pmJust ignore the little shit, guys. He’s been destroying too many threads, lately.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/19/2007 @ 4:50 pmJust ignore the little shit, guys.
Now, don’t be cruel, NK. Staunch brayer’s had a hard day: Hillary’s fundraising corruption, Harry Reid’s ass getting kicked and and his pathetic sitemeter numbers of his blog revealed.
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:10 pmnk — he’s not destroying this thread. He’s providing a preview of how Hillaryites are going to try and spin this away.
Here’s the deal. Most of the Dem. candidates don’t want to touch this. Taking the Clinton machine on over ethical lapses will leave them in the wilderness if she happens to go on and win. So, they will fight it out with her over the nomination, but they won’t call her on the sleaze.
Rudy or McCain or Thompson, however, will smash her in the mouth with this when the general campaign rolls around. We’re going to see John Huang, Charlie Trie, Norman Hsu, Buddist Temples, and Loreal Corp/ballistic missle technology transfers.
I can’t wait.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:14 pmYeah, I can’t wait either, wls.
Chinese-Americans are the wealthiest ethnic group in the country.
If you’re counting on Rudy to launch some thinly veiled racist attack against them, good luck.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:24 pmI thought it was the JOOS, alphie.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:34 pmAs I said here, the LAT has done some good work on this story — to their credit.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:38 pmTimes change, Christoph.
Chinese-Americans are studying to be classical musicians now, too.
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:50 pmAlphie — talking out of your ass again.
And we’re not talking about Chinese-Americans.
We’re talking about recent Chinese immigrants, both legal and illegal, and the organized crime syndicates that dominate their neighborhoods in urban area and have direct connections to the ChiComm government.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:50 pmStaunch Brayer: Chinese-Americans are the wealthiest ethnic group in the country.
Christoph: I thought it was the JOOS, alphie.
What’s a-matter, Staunch Brayer, you forget your librul talking-point script?
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:51 pmThere, corrected.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:54 pmwls,
In my area, “recent Chinese immigrants” arrive here on private jets and promptly buy mansions to live in.
Where y’all from?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 5:57 pmIn my area, “recent Chinese immigrants” arrive here on private jets and promptly buy mansions to live in.
In response, I quote from the LAT story:
Private jets and mansions indeed, Staunch Brayer.
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 6:04 pmIn my area, “recent Chinese immigrants” arrive here on private jets and promptly buy mansions to live in.
Thank you, Alphie. You just made the case that they’re PRC agents using PRC money to help elect their Little Nikita.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/19/2007 @ 6:29 pmThe only way a Chinese person can be a business success is if they’re a party stooge, nk?
I think that applies more to neocons.
Any of them make their fortunes without daddy’s conections?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 6:39 pmAre they in the bag for Obama at the behest of the Hollywood establishment?
Or, it is just the usual West-Side LA angst (White Liberal Guilt)?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/19/2007 @ 6:47 pmAlphie, you are insane. China is a communist, totalitarian state. You do not get rich there without being a a party stooge. If you try, you get a bullet in the head. And what the f*** am I doing talking to you?
nk (6e4f93) — 10/19/2007 @ 6:52 pmWhat’s a-matter Staunch Brayer?
Tired of defending Dingy Harry’s sore ass?
Any of them make their fortunes without daddy’s conections?
Proven facts, Staunch Brayer:
Those who earn their fortune mostly vote Republican.
Those who inherit it (Ted Kennedy) or marry it (John Kerry) mostly vote Democrat.
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 6:58 pmnk,
Check these people out:
http://www.hurun.net/listen54.aspx
Got a link to your “fact” Paul?
alphie (99bc18) — 10/19/2007 @ 7:10 pmThe United States Postal Service is a private corporation too, jackass.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/19/2007 @ 7:12 pmCheck these people out
I did, Staunch Brayer. Funny how that 2006 China IT Rich List fails to mention party affiliation…because there is only one party there. Your link doesn’t disprove NK’s party stooge point.
Of course, this doesn’t surprise me…since I have refuted points you have made in the past with your own links.
Got a link to your “fact” Paul?
You toss out dozens (if not hundreds) of unprovable assertions, ignore request after request to back up your arguments, yet you have the audacity to ask ME for a link?
Feh.
By the way, Staunch Brayer, how about addressing the point that Hillary once again has her hand caught in the illegal donations cookie jar? If she cannot address such corruption now, how is going to handle it in a presidential administration?
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 7:46 pmHow is that Peter Paul litigation going against Blowjob Bill, alphie? That conservative LAT should be all over it if they’re publishing stories like this, shouldn’t they?
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/19/2007 @ 8:10 pmnk #48:
The United States Postal Service is a private corporation too, jackass.
Not as far as I can tell.
39 USC Sec. 201
Itsme (5ec76d) — 10/19/2007 @ 8:13 pmItsme, NK was being sarcastic because of Staunch Brayer’s ridiculous denial that China is a tolitarian state.
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 8:17 pmNice article but I’d wish you wqould have mentioned the Chinese like the Jamicians, Haitians, Columbians, Mexicans and other crime groups make most of their money from drug related activity. This money not only corrupts the body politic but destroys the very foundations of our society and creates the criminal environment we see in our communities.
The extend of this drug useage is best evidenced here by the many drug addicts who call for an end to drug enforcement and end to its criminalization. One can only conclude tht these individuals are in the sway of these drugs or make their living from it.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 10/19/2007 @ 8:27 pmThomas Jackson, it is a gross overreach to say, “the Chinese like the Jamicians [sic], Hatians, Columbians, Mexicans and other groups make most of their money from drug related activity.”
[emphasis mine]
But that is the kind of nonsensical nonthinking embarrassing right-wing nut claptrap I’ve come to expect from you. Suffice it to say drug trafficking and other crime is a problem and an all-too-large part of the economies of these communities and “others”.
Exit question: So all of these groups of brown people, “make most of their money through drug related activity,” but white people do not?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/19/2007 @ 8:34 pmPaul #51:
Itsme, NK was being sarcastic because of Staunch Brayer’s ridiculous denial that China is a tolitarian state.
Oh.
Thanks for the heads up.
The schoolmarm signs off: “Ne-ver mind.”
(PS, plenty of people do think the USPS is some kind of corporation.)
Itsme (5ec76d) — 10/19/2007 @ 8:38 pmThe schoolmarm signs off: “Ne-ver mind.”
Schoolmarm? I always associate “Ne-ver mind” with the late Gilda Radner and her hilarious “Violins on TV” SNL rant.
Paul (d71395) — 10/19/2007 @ 8:51 pmYes, and she would never be tapping the pointer on the blackboard and pursing her lips.
(Soviet jewelery?)
Itsme (5ec76d) — 10/19/2007 @ 8:55 pmThanks, Paul #52.
Q. How can you tell who the director is in a Chinese opera?
nk (da3e6b) — 10/20/2007 @ 9:01 amA. It’s the second guy from the left in the third row of the chorus.
Uh oh Alphie, better start reworking your spin. Hillary’s already having to give that dirty money back. And it looks like yet another crooked Chinese campaign contributor money launderer is in hot water for straw donations.
Of course the canned “that’s racist” response from Hillary et. al was to be expected. Still, how many times does she have to get her hand caught in the cookie jar for people to start taking this seriously?
Gabriel (4ced83) — 10/21/2007 @ 2:12 pm