The mainstream television media, for the most part, ignored yet another potential Clinton scandal. As NewsBusters’ Richard Newcombe reported, the Los Angeles Times, certainly not a conservative publication, broke the story of the Clinton campaign raising a large sum of money from very poor Chinese immigrants. One third of these immigrants could not even be located and the vast majority of those located were not even registered to vote. Additionally, there is a possibility of coercion among those immigrants.
How did the morning shows cover it? On Monday, October 22, only FNC’s "Fox and Friends" covered the story. The remaining shows, NBC’s "Today," ABC’s "Good Morning America," CBS’s "The Early Show," and CNN’s "American Morning," all covered for Senator Clinton, ignoring the story.
"Fox and Friends," at the same day at 7:17 AM, interview "Wall Street Journal" columnist John Fund about the scandal. The entire transcript is below.
STEVE DOOCY: Okay, today on the "Power Block," Hillary's questionable campaign bonanza from the Chinese donors. Is it a bad sign of history repeating itself? Apparently there are a whole bunch of Chinese donors in Chinatown who nobody knows who they are, even though they say, according to documents, they gave cash to Clinton.
GRETCHEN CARLSON: "Wall Street Journal" columnist John Fund helps us take a closer look at the issue. Good morning to you John.
JOHN FUND: Good morning.
CARLSON: Alright, so we heard about this, we knew about this ten years ago in '96 when there was similar allegations with regard to campaign fund raising. What is the latest situation with Hillary?
FUND: Well, we have these Chinese waiters and dishwashers, people who don't have a lot of money, who apparently gave $1,000 or even more in various fund raisers in New York's Chinatown. "The LA Times" looked at this. They contacted 150 of these types of donors. Over a third of them could not be located. They had no address.
CARLSON: That's a problem.
FUND: And most of those who could be located weren't even registered to vote. Now, their contributions might have been legal because they were permanent residents of the United States, but many of them, apparently, were ordered to give this money by neighborhood associations that might have brought them to this country. So there's an element of potential coercion here.
DOOCY: Uh huh, it does smack of the Hsu business of the past month.
FUND: That was just a couple of months ago. Remember Norman Hsu, the fellow who was the fugitive from justice who bundled all of this money. People were giving money that apparently he didn't have any assets. And the Clinton people said "well we're really sorry about this. We're going to crack down. We're going to make sure this doesn't happen again."
DOOCY: And they said "we'll give the money back." But in this case, with the Chinatown people, they, if the Clinton campaign gives them money back, the problem is, they can't find the people.
FUND: Well, yes. And again, this goes back to 1996. And this is why there's some suspicion here. In 1996 in the Clinton fund raising scandals, which involved a lot of foreign donors and people like that, over 100 people either took the Fifth Amendment of fled the country, so we never got to the bottom of it. But 24 who stayed did plead guilty to various charges.
CARLSON: The interesting thing here is that if Hillary is the candidate for the immigrant, because she said that she is in favor of giving them citizenship-
FUND: Absolutely
CARLSON: -then, in a way, she's, she's not, allegedly because if there is coercion going on here, then these are-they're being given false promises, right?
FUND: Well, she can't be held responsible for what she didn't know about. But, again, the Clinton people said we are going to vet this very carefully. Now, Harold Ickes, Terry McAuliff, who were the people who were in charge of the '96 Clinton fund raising operation, are now in charge of Hillary Clinton's fund raising operations. They can't seem to get it done right. The due diligence seems to be lacking. So again and again, Norman Hsu just happened, they said it wouldn't happen again and here we are.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No media bias here
October 22, 2007 - 14:56 ET by MikeThis makes the point that media bias is as much about what they make news, as what they do not, but there may be something else working here. If the media actually took the time to cover every scandal, or illegal, or irregular action taken by the Clinton Campaign, then they would not be able to talk about Larry Craig, or David Vitter. It is time for the Republican candidates and the RNC to bring these stories up every time they are interviewed, or give an interview. This story and the Harry Reid re-writing of the abuse of power move on Rush should lead every Republican talking point for the next five months. This was the Congress that was going to be the most ethical and transparent, and although they have been transparent to anybody who follows the real news, they are more corrupt and ineffective than any previous Congress.
This is just outrageous
October 22, 2007 - 15:50 ET by motherbeltThis is just outrageous that none of the morning so-called "news" shows ignored this.
When even the LA Times is covering a story and the broadcast media don't, then the term "due diligence" needs to be applied not to the fundraising team, but to the MSM. It is virtually impossible that none of them were aware of this.
And they wonder why no one has any confidence in them.
Let one simply perceived
October 22, 2007 - 16:16 ET by GregELet one simply perceived shady contribution go to one of the Republicans and watch what happens on the morning shows and elsewhere.
Regardless of political or ideological leanings, no American should be ok with what the mainstream media does regarding liberals when it comes to "objective" reporting. If it was the other way around (yea like that'll ever be the case) Americans should be equally perturbed.
Just rereading the
October 22, 2007 - 19:15 ET by motherbeltJust rereading the thread...I should have said none of the news shows "reported" this, or all of them "ignored" it....got my stuff mixed up. But apparently ppl figured out what I meant. LOL
Nothing New under the Sun (or Clinton either)
October 22, 2007 - 15:57 ET by okiehawk44The MSM also failed to cover the Clinton's numerous abuses of the people's house, the actual oval office etc so why are we amazed that this lazy group will fail to cover the Clinton's taking all the chinese money they can?
Remember...
October 22, 2007 - 16:01 ET by JDWClintons sold nuke secrets to China for campaign donations, now Clintons sell campaign donations to Chinese for American dollars. Very fine deal.
JDW
Sen Clinton: Founder of Media Matters
I'm not really sure why the
October 22, 2007 - 16:02 ET by GregEI'm not really sure why the liberals are concerned with raising money for their campaigns anyway. At least the portion used for media advertising, that is. They get free media coverage 24/7, or coverage of something else about them if the story of the day could be detrimental. Why raise so much money? They could raise 1/10 what a Republican raises and end up with more presstime, with most of it is positive.
PLA does not stand for Poor Chinaman's Money
October 22, 2007 - 16:02 ET by Lame CherryAfter reading coolie is now racist I suppose Chinaman is now racist too, but for the facts these millions are coming from the PLA or People's Liberation Army which is the same 200 million person army which has nuclear missiles pointed at Los Angeles and Chicago.
The Clinton's and Gore raised millions from direct money lines for their 1996 campaign. From the missing nuclear football codes to a whole bunch of Los Alamos data ending up in China the Chicoms got a good deal more from Clinton and Gore.
So to parrot that this is poor Chinese money is a joke. These Chinese immigrants just like the coolies are kept in line by Chinese mafia which takes it's marching orders from the PLA. This money is traitorous and does someone in DOJ have at least the Patrick Henry fortitude to start indicting Democrats.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Lame, I don't thing anyone
October 22, 2007 - 20:27 ET by MikeBLame, I don't thing anyone believes that this money is from poor Chinese people. From what I heard on the radio, most of the time when someone who has been checking on these contributors, the address does not exist, the address exists, but the residents never heard of the person claiming that address, etc. This money is from the Tongs or from the Chicoms (or both). But Hillary's campaign just can't vette these donors. Like they couldn't vette Charlie Trie or Norman Hsu or Riaddy etc., etc., etc. Once could be an accident, twice could be carelessness, but three or more is a pattern of criminality. Hmmm... do you suppose the DOJ could bring charges under the RICO act? A guy can dream, can't he?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Forget the MSM, where is the Federal Election Commission
October 22, 2007 - 16:38 ET by doug1950We need to quit trying to rely on the MSM to report or do anything about the frauds and illegal election contributions. If the Federal Election Commission was doing its job this would not be going on. Ive not heard one peep from anyone legally responsible for policing these policitians and their money laundering schemes. Waiting on the MSM is like asking the fox to watch the hen house. One, they aren't going to do it and two, it isn't their job in the first place. I am beginning to think the whole damned government gets its orders from the liberal media or at least just waits to see what is on the News and then maybe, just maybe acts on it.
And if they ever do, you can
October 22, 2007 - 19:16 ET by motherbeltAnd if they ever do, you can bet that only the donors will be targeted, not those who accepted the donations. They will give the money back, and that, as they say,will be that.
I am dismayed over this
October 23, 2007 - 11:06 ET by rbosqueI am dismayed over this whole thing. This is nothing more than a cover-up. And we all know how much the left hates cover-ups. Too bad Nixon isn't around to shake his head.
This reminds me of how Hellary (as first lady) got a hold of 5000 FBI files of her political enemies and no one in the media blinked.