Hillary’s Mob Money

Hillary Clinton once again shows how she leads everyone else in campaign contributions. It’s easy to do when you have no ethics.

DONORS WHOSE addresses turn out to be tenements. Dishwashers and waiters who write $1,000 checks. Immigrants who ante up because they have been instructed to by powerful neighborhood associations, or, as one said, “They informed us to go, so I went.” Others who say they never made the contributions listed in their names or who were not eligible to give because they are not legal residents of the United States. This is the disturbingly familiar picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign presented last week in a report by the Los Angeles Times about questionable fundraising by the New York senator in New York City’s Chinese community. Out of 150 donors examined, one-third “could not be found using property, telephone or business records,” the Times reported. “Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.”

And this is who the Dems have leading their polls? They didn’t learn anything the last time they elected a Clinton, it seems.

By any means necessary seems to be the Clinton motto.

UPDATE: She seems to have the Chinese Dishwasher vote sown up. Even those who can’t be found and don’t seem to exist. And the press seems to be just shrugging. Double standard? 

What I dont get is that this would seem to me as a very big deal and a real indicator of her character. Yet, i wonder if it will just get swept away becuase it doesn’t involve a sex, drugs or race.

In fact, I have no idea how big a deal this actually is.  Is this stuff common practice? I have no idea.

Posted by  on  10/22  at  09:46 AM

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. THAT doesn’t change regardless of the political affiliations, or whether the practice is common or not.  If Hillary is the best candidate the Democratic Party can put up for the next presidential election, they’re not getting THIS Democrat’s vote, that’s for damn sure.

Posted by  on  10/22  at  09:57 AM

Testify, how many people do you know who live in slums or work in meanial jobs who can spare $1000 for politicians?

Obviously, someone is given them money to “contribute”. But here’s where it gets bad. Many of these people aren’t even legally able to donate.

The Clintons also seem to have this thing for the Chinese. They did a lot of business (koff koff) with them when Bill was president.

Posted by  on  10/22  at  10:04 AM

At no point was I condoning her actions. I said that it seems like a “very big deal” to me, but that I lacked a context for how grave of an infraction this really is. 

Personally, if this is as bad as the article implies, then it should preclude her from running for president and perhaps even land her in court. (I have no idea how that would work.)

What I am questioning is that it seems like the sort of issue that will just go away.  Why aren’t republicans pursuing this more aggressively?  My guess (and I would stress that this is a gut guess as I have no basis for it what-so-ever) would be because this is simply a common practice done on both sides.  A non-story.

Are there any reprecussion for this? If not, I wonder why.

Posted by  on  10/22  at  10:42 AM

Oh, I expect there to be some hay made of this by Republicans. But no one has the nomination yet. It would probably get more traction if she got the nomination.

One way she gets some insulation on this, is the fact that her campaign gets these donations, not her directly. If the press finds out that something like this goes on, she just “returns the money”. Of course, she has been doing this a lot lately. Even when the donaters have no address or name, even. So how is she able to return it?

Posted by  on  10/22  at  11:22 AM

Testify, it’s simple:  It’s wrong.  No matter who does it.
The fact that it’s only the Republicans who punish their own for doing it and the MSM only makes a big deal out of it if Republicans are involved is a separate issue.

Posted by  on  10/23  at  05:45 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main