Hillary's Deja Vu

The Clintons have been here before.  A major Asian-American donor causing scandal to their presidential campaign.  First it was John Huang and others in 1996 and now Norman Hsu.  It's deja vu all over again for Hillary.  How does one bundler attract contributions from 260 others in such a short period of time?  That's the sort of effort professional, paid fund raisers get big bucks to attract to campaigns and he did it voluntarily.  Something smells here.

The Clinton campaign is blaming faulty background checks for the embarrassment.  Though victims in this case it doesn't look good, especially since they've been down this road before.  If anyone understands the pitfalls of questionable bundlers it should be the Clintons.  In his 1996 Presidential re-election campaign Bill was dogged by the scandal involving Huang.  He was charged with accepting illegal contributions from foreign nationals (Chinese).

With this context it's amazing they'd find themselves in another controversy involving Asians.  Did they learn nothing from the 1996 fiasco?  Hsu has been in criminal legal trouble for fifteen years and has this bad habit of not appearing in court when required.  Reports are he was using Hillary's name to attract money for his pyramid schemes.  Now the campaign is returning $850,000 and staggering under bad publicity.

To make things worse, as they return the checks they're asking the donors to return the money as new contributions.  How dense can they be?  You don't do it in such a coarse, obvious manner as this.  You wait an acceptable period of time, say two weeks, and then you solicit new contributions from these people.  That way you avoid the appearance of impropriety.  I doubt these big money donors are about to go and splurge on something with these $2300 checks and not have the money any more.

Perception is reality in politics and the perceptions of Hillary's campaign in this fiasco is that of a ship of fools.  John Huang, Norman Hsu, deja vu anyone?

Comments

[tyler]

John, this is a question that has bothered me since the john huang, charlie trie, buddhist monks who take vows of poverty yet can still donate money to President Clinton days...

You make donations to the party or person that you think is in your best interests...or that can/will pay you back. It happens to both sides...this isn't only the democrats i am pointing to...

Here's the question:
Why do you think the communist chinese are donating to the Clintons specifically? What are they expecting in return? What are they looking for that they think the Clintons can give them?

Besides the kooky iranians, the chinese and their new found prominence on the world stage due to their population, market power, and their unreluctance to quashing free speech and literally running tanks over their citizens...have always worried me.

Before you hit the ceiling, I am not saying this is a smear against democrats in general...I am wondering why the chinese specifically have chosen the Clintons and what they think are getting for their money.

It has made me wonder since prior to 1996 when i first heard the names of Mochtar Riady and Jackson Stevens.

Have a great day :)

[John Morgan]

It's a good question and one I wish I had the answer for. People generally donate to those they want something from, think they can influence, or who are currently in power and they want to curry favor.

Most people have agendas which dictate their behavior. It can be anything from growing/protecting their business, jobs, hobbies, etc. to a desire for good government. The key is always to determine what a person's agenda is, then you can predict their behavior.

What was Huang's agenda? I suspect because the Clintons were in power he wanted influence for his clients. He likely would have done this for whomever was in power at the time. No one really knows however.

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

Tyler:
Look at Rupert Murdoch. He's donated to Hillary. Why? It is obvious. He thinks she is gonna win and wants to get his voice heard. The same goes for all the shady businesses and people that donate to politicians.

[tyler]

Ghost...I understand what you are saying.

I guess the thought i was wondering is why chinese interests are in the Clintons specifically. Money for his legal defense fund, money for his library, money for her campaign...

It just made me wonder why the chinese are invested (no pun intended) in the Clintons, as opposed to seemingly anyone else.

If India had people illegally donating to...say Bob and Elizabeth dole and specifically to the Doles...wouldnt you wonder what the Indians would think they are gettign in return?

Sure, I understand why a media person A, or lobby group B would donate to a particular politician...hope to sway a vote...bring some business their way, etc.

But the communist chinese really like the Clintons for some reason.

Again, this isn't a swipe at the dems and I am not fixated on Bill...I am just wondering why they chose the Clintons. Why not, say the Kennedys?

like I said, its always made me wonder since well before 1996.

have a great day :)

[John Morgan]

Funny, that's the same question I have about the Bush's. Why do the Halliburtons, Lockheeds, etc keep giving them so much money and what do they want in return? And, of course, the health insurance companies (who also support Hillary) and big pharma.

Oops, I know those answers.

[tyler]

communist chinese or halliburton...if i HAD to choose, I would rather us be friendly to a capitalist enterprise rather than an oppressive COMMUNIST regime that has no qualms about literally rolling tanks over its citizens (kinda like a certain former AG I like to make fun of).

but hey, thats just me.

have a great day :)

[John Morgan]

Halliburton is a corporation which is an infamous war profiteer. Theirs is blood money, literally. People are dying so they can enrich their coffers and pay profits to their shareholders, literally.

The VP continues to profit personally from his ownership of their stock and so sends our soldiers off to die so he can make more money. I see nothing in this world worse than that.