On Monday, the Washington Post broke the news of another major Hillary Clinton campaign finance fiasco that seems destined to be ignored or downplayed by media in much the same way previous instances of such behavior by the former First Lady avoided press scrutiny.
After all, the media for seven years largely buried Hillary's involvement with convicted felon Peter F. Paul during her 2000 senatorial campaign, and have clearly downplayed last week's revelations concerning fugitive Norman Hsu's ties to the junior senator from New York.
Now, as reported by the Post, there's a third scandal involving the front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination which, given past precedent, might also not receive the kind of attention the press would give the matter if Hillary had an "R" next to her name (emphasis added throughout):
Sant S. Chatwal, an Indian American businessman, has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns, even as he battled governments on two continents to escape bankruptcy and millions of dollars in tax liens.
The founder of the Bombay Palace restaurant chain, Chatwal is one of a growing number of fundraisers in the 2008 presidential campaign whose backgrounds have prompted questions about how much screening the candidates devote to their "bundlers" while they press to raise record amounts.
Hadn't heard anything about this? Well, how could you, for Google news and LexisNexis searches produced virtually nothing about this man's connections to the Clinton campaign.
Regardless, somehow this is the third known individual in seven years to be able to contribute to Mrs. Clinton despite serious legal troubles:
Yet none of the legal and financial woes -- occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents -- raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation. Chatwal recently said he plans to help raise $5 million from Indian Americans for Clinton's presidential bid.
Asked whether anything in Chatwal's background caused concerns about his activities on behalf of the campaign, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer answered, "No." He declined last week to be more specific, saying only that major fundraisers are routinely vetted "through publicly available records."
As media have been pounding the table about a GOP culture of corruption for several years, can you imagine such revelations concerning a Republican candidate for president not generating a massive media firestorm 24 hours a day, seven days a week until said candidate was likely forced to leave the race?
Do you think Katie, Charlie, and Brian will be reporting this new revelation about the Clinton campaign this evening?
It seems a metaphysical certitude that the answer to both questions is a loud, resounding "No."
What a disgrace.
*****Update: Gateway Pundit has more about new revelations surrounding Hillary benefactor Norman Hsu that most media will surely ignore.
Michelle Malkin reports how Hillary's husband was shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear about Norman Hsu's troubles with the law.
This raises an important question: If Bill and Hillary really are two of the smartest people to ever walk the face of the planet as virtually all media members avow, how do they keep getting duped by people with legal problems?
*****Update II: Michelle has more.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The Only Way
September 3, 2007 - 12:07 ET by mattmThe only way this will be covered is if Ms. Rodham, or at least her campaign, is brought up on charges of accepting illegal contributions, if such a thing is possible.
That's the trouble, if a conservative or someone remotely connected to a conservative, is accused of something, it's all over the MSM. But if it's a Lib/Dem, it will only be a story in the MSM if formal charges are brought. And then, it will be either downplayed or spun to be an unfair attack by ethically-challenged Republicans... But I wouldn't mind that as long as justice was done and Hillary and pals ended up in jail where they belong.
http://mediamatters.org/item
September 3, 2007 - 21:52 ET by M J Bhttp://mediamatters.org/items/200709010002?f=h_latest
What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Savvy?
Yes if this Faben is
September 4, 2007 - 08:54 ET by Dan The Man 2Yes if this Faben is convicted then perhaps they should look at the individual donors he brought in. HSU has a proven record and been convicted and a fugitive for years. The comparison is lame.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Clintons
September 3, 2007 - 12:16 ET by Felicity RandThe Clintons are such money whores. They contain not an ounce of shame.
Hopefully, the MSM will be influenced by those within who support Obama. Once the primaries are over, and Hillary is their candidate, this news will be even more scarce.
"The Clintons are such money
September 3, 2007 - 13:07 ET by Sonny Lykos"The Clintons are such money whores. They contain not an ounce of shame."
And the MSM are thier pimps. So what else is knew. A sleazy couple supported and protected by equally sleazy MSM.
and now comes the pregnant pause
September 3, 2007 - 12:50 ET by Lame CherryThere should be no despair in this Mr. Sheppard as the demons of Democratic worst nature are hovering for the coup sent from the cartel hell that the enlightened priest of the planet Al Gore will soon rise like the moon of Halloween........
I would guess that if one digs in Hillary's donor gutter perhaps the next story might reveal pedophiles and rapists. The MSM doen't like fishing in this hole too deep as all of their names start popping up or popping up as "special guest of the DNC".
The fat Tipper is warming up to sing and Hillary is going to start having some problems that if she doesn't take a powder a Patrick Fitzgerald stooge type will Nifong her.
The cartel always has a Lawrence Walsh to muddle things up.......the opera is just warming up.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Corruption+$+Canidate=?
September 3, 2007 - 13:02 ET by general companyYou would think someone would question, at what price is Hillary accepting money from this kind of folks? I mean if these folks are so corrupt, does anyone honestly believe they are giving there money away with out condition. If the Repub's don't take advantage of this they are to stupid to be president.
All of these guys made
September 3, 2007 - 17:02 ET by motherbeltAll of these guys made questionable donations to Clinton. But we have the Peter Paul scandal, the Hsu scandal, and now the Chatwal scandal...no "Clinton scandal," capisce?
The press did their duty: Asked whether anything in Chatwal's background caused concerns about
his activities on behalf of the campaign, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer
answered, "No."
And the media said, "Oh, OK then." End of story.
It never ceases to amaze me how many low-lifes and unscrupulous characters the Clintons have managed to attract, and consort with over the years, while all the time keeping their hands clean.
A disgrace indeed. Disgrace
September 3, 2007 - 13:51 ET by HumanEventsA disgrace indeed. Disgrace is the essence of Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham's daily (and nightly, of course) lives.
I suppose the Great Stainmaker will also be "shocked" upon hearing this. Golly Hillary, isn't it so gosh dern funny how all these people we have as friends, campaign workers, staff, etc. just happen to have all this corruption and baggage!
The Clintons are an abomination and it's absolutely surreal that ANYONE could possibly believe they'd be good for the country back in the White House.
And because these scumbag Clintons keep getting away with everything, including campaign finance scandals, the Dragon Lady is REALLY gonna be encouraged to outdo herself in 2008 with illegal fundraising. And the MSM will be more than happy to play dumb once again in order to help ensure she becomes the POTUS. And then in 2009 we can get set for 8 more years of scandals, Clinton denials, and Clinton amnesia ("I don't recall", "I don't remember", "I don't have any recollection about that," etc.) I think His Slickness said "I don't remember" over 80 times in a less than an hour deposition once in the late 90's.
Clinton Happens
Human Events, do you have a crystal ball?
September 3, 2007 - 14:11 ET by VT Con ManI would call this "nailing it", you nailed it HumanEvents...
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usclin0903,0,6566532.story
and the only idiotic bufoon who has the MSM lapping up every word besides the Clintonistas it the great one next in line...
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RE51N00&show_article=1
"Obama warns against divisive politics"
then his first words in the article are:
"As bad as this administration has been, it's going to take more than just a change in parties to truly turn this country around," Obama told supporters at a Labor Day rally.
"George Bush and Dick Cheney may have turned divisive, special interest politics into an art form, but it was there before they got to Washington. If you and I don't stand up to challenge it, it will be there long after we leave."
Is that not "divisive"? Who would actually vote for this moron???
Sheesh
Re your link to "Bill
September 3, 2007 - 17:00 ET by motherbeltRe your link to "Bill Clinton "Shocked" Hillary Donor Was a Fugitive:
No kidding.
Reason why? They never look too closely at where the money is coming from. After all, he's the one who invented "Don't ask, don't tell."
Can you say "plausible deniability"?
VT Con Man
September 3, 2007 - 23:40 ET by SportPoliticsWhat is surprising is that any of these candidates have the gaul to say that they can change Washington, if you only elect them POTUS.
The POTUS can't change jack diddle when it comes to diviseness, since there are 535 warring congresspersons.
I'm so, so sick of all of them whining it's all messed up, and all of them claiming they're going to fix it.
Hey Obama, you ignorant slut, you're there now - it's called being a Senator, why haven't you fixed it already, you feckless unimportant born liar ?
Oh yeah, as VT Con Man pointed out, the first thing you do is whine about divisiness, and of course as you're doing that, you take 3 or 4 divisive swipes to "prove it exists and is worse than you'd ever be."
Thy name is HYPOCRIT. Thy lips name is LIAR.
WaPo Timing
September 3, 2007 - 14:13 ET by HG AbrahamsonThe real story here is the WaPoo's continued faultless timing in insuring that when they do publish the rare piece highlighting RAT sleaze/lawbreaking it is released at a time when no one will read it. Labor Day morning !! Yah right. These leftoids also published "When Controversy Follows Cash" this morning about Hsu and the Beast.
The best was a terrfic piece on john "the crook" murtha covering all his illegal shennagins i.e. former staff head running multi million dollar group funded by earmarks who happens to contribute to crooked john, etc. That article, which was really excellent, was released @ 1AM Christmas Morning. Wonder if I can get a subscription to the WaPoo just for the holidays.
The real scandle hasn't even been hinted at yet...
September 3, 2007 - 14:50 ET by c5thenGoing from the 2nd Bill Clinton re-election fund raising and the looking at the Al Gore funding machine and the Hillary funding machine...Their real scandle will be (if it ever comes out) the accepting of foreign contributions for their campaigns, including money from foreign governments.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Clinton's Chinagate
September 4, 2007 - 08:34 ET by TheTruthThe real scandal is the money the Clintons and DNC accepted from the Communist military for the transfer of this countries top nuclear weapons research, GPS technology, and silent sub technology. Before the Clintons the Chinese Communist had no hydrogen bombs nor could they get an ICBM to fly. After the Clintons transfer of this countries top secrete nuclear weapons of mass destruction technology the Chinese Communist military are now mass producing multi-war head hydrogen bombs and pointing them at cities across all across the United States.
As the Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright repeated numerous times “It’s not safe to have just one superpower”
The second scandal is the Bush administration for not immediately starting an investigation and court proceedings against the Clinton Administration and all those involved for the greatest acts of treason ever waged against the United States.
The third scandal is the MSM (Main-Stream-Media) ignored all aspects of Chinagate like the plague!
Clinton Tea Parties in the White House with Communist Military Operatives
The Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate
How Chinagate Led to 9/11
Analysts: Clinton Reprising Chinagate
Well done, Truth
September 4, 2007 - 08:47 ET by RJYou've nicely encapsulated the traitorous behavior of the Clintons. You've even included my favorite Albright quote. It is absolutely a scandal that the media has not pursued this. And it's mind-boggling that no major figures on the conservative side have pursued it.
With her concealed Marxist ideology, a Hillary Clinton presidency would be even worse than the last time the Clintons were giving away our secrets for cash and stealing furniture.
I've written about all of this in the past, but you've done a bang-up job here.
There are times when it is
September 4, 2007 - 09:27 ET by dscottThere are times when it is expedient not to reveal the degree of damage done to the nation's security. There are times ignorance is bliss. There are things the public shouldn't know, some secrets are not worth exposing no matter how much satisfaction we might derive from the Clinton's expense. This may be one of those times. It will come out in time like Alger Hiss, but long after it ceases to make a difference one way or another to a future generation. I still don't understand why Clinton's incompetence leading to 911 and 3000 dead people has gone unpunished or poorly reported. Notice Curt Weldon is no longer in Congress, he was the prime mover on exposing the Clinton's failures. Part I suspect due to the MSM's unwillingness to make it an issue since it would destroy the Dem Party's chances of re-election.
I think this does show that no matter how powerful the nation, an incompetent administration negates that power, just as Carter did with Iran.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
I STRONGLY disagree, dscott
September 4, 2007 - 14:41 ET by RJWith Hillary being too damn close to getting back into the White House, this is EXACTLY the right time to "expose" this information. It should be shouted at every opportunity. If anything, this Socialist could be MORE dangerous to the security of the U.S. than her husband was.
What on earth would be gained by withholding it?
While I think HRC could
September 4, 2007 - 14:56 ET by BinxlyWhile I think HRC could cause tantamount destruction to the Republic and the capitalist driven society we are blessed to live in, I do agree that sacraficing certain securities of information for the simple sake of 'keeping someone we dont like out of office' is also not the best of ideas. Personally I have faith in the American people and, God forbid that woman gets elected, it will only take 5 months before the people realize decide that they are voting republican in 2012. Not because they all like the republican party and its message. But lets just say we'll be trading in the 'anyone but Bush' stickers for 'Anyone but HER' stickers! :)
oh fer....you contradict yourself, Binxly...and worse.
September 4, 2007 - 15:12 ET by RJI'm not sure what "tantamount destruction" means, but I assume you want it to mean something like "terrible destruction."
In any event, even though you agree that Hillary is likely to bring destruction, we don't have the responsibility to do everything we can to keep her out of office? Further, you equate that to "not liking her?" Whaaat?
In addition to the above, I ask you the same question I asked dscott. What possible good would it do to withhold the information?
I swear, you two guys sound like some kind of stealth Hillary activists.
First off RJ, I meant
September 4, 2007 - 15:26 ET by BinxlyFirst off RJ, I meant 'tantamount to' I had just in my hurried typing, forgot the 'to' :-! I meant the election of HRC could be the equivilent to the deciding blow to destroy the republic. I admire someone who has such a good grasp on proper use of terminology but allow me to notice and edit my errors before you assume I'm misusing the language.
As for this 'defense' I'm not defending the witholding of ALL information regarding HRC. If its info that, if leaked, would cause no harm to security, then I am ALL for it being released. My point is that to sacrafice security just to point out egg on HRC's face that *we* know is already there is pointless since those who see her for who she truely is already made up their mind to not even *think* of voting for her and the ones who don't get it never will, even if you hand them undeniable fact that this woman is the biggest enemy to the concept of liberty America has seen in the past 50 years.
Make no mistake and calm your suspicions, I think it's safe to say not a single person here, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, has any fault in judgement that is big enough to EVER vote for the socialist known as HRC.
Binxly, Binxly, Binxly
September 4, 2007 - 15:55 ET by RJIt wasn't a "grasp on terminology", Binxly. It was not being sure of what you intended to say. Hey, I make grammar, spelling, and typing mistakes...and I have no problem admitting them. All I said was I wasn't sure what you meant, made an assumption and moved on. But when you chastise me with sly innuendoes, I'm tempted to take you to task again...but I won't. (How's that for stiff, formal language? Do it again, and I shall slap you with my glove.) ;^>
Anyhoo...
I don't understand why you don't get this: HRC could be poised to assume the Presidency, for God's sake! Harming our national security, knowing of it, or abetting the acts is MUCH more than having "egg on her face." Yet, you are willing to overlook it as if it were some minor indescretion.
Because the MSM has helped keep this quiet, there are MANY people on both sides who would be horrified to learn of this and who would change their potential votes. But, so long as it remains something whispered quietly, these people are able to pretend it didn't happen.
Again, what possible good could come of withholding the information? The horse is out of the barn, and the damage is done.
I suppose we'll have to
September 4, 2007 - 16:14 ET by BinxlyI suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this then. Also, I didn't mean to come off snarky at all in my post, but I believe it was you who took me 'to task' initially and a simple questioning of what I meant would have perhaps been more proper, but it seems the misunderstanding is resolved and no need for further trouble. I do however think perhaps you're comming off a *tad* bit agressive toward me in the glove comment, but, again Im sure you perhaps meant it jokingly. Either way, no harm no foul.
Binxly
September 4, 2007 - 16:25 ET by RJCome on, Binxly, you've made a bigger deal out of this than it deserves. Given your sensitivity, questioning you would have also been seen as "taking you to task." Also, I would have had to wait to see if you were still around to answer me before I could write a response.
Instead, I just told you I was making an assumption. Did I accurately guess what you meant? Did I move the conversation along?
And, yes, the glove comment was a (pretty obvious) joke....sigh...
More importantly, neither you or dscott has answered my question. What good could come of withholding the information?
I don't believe any good
September 5, 2007 - 07:31 ET by BinxlyI don't believe any good will come of it, I'm simply saying, if certain information shows minor miststeps in Clinton policy, but releasing it will cause more risk in national security than its worth, then I think its best we think of what's best for the nation and not the party one is pulling for in the election. That was my point. Again, I've no clue if any of the information would be detrimental to national security if released, I haven't seen the documents. However, I have faith HRC will do more than enough to 'screw herself' in the next comming months. The media won't cover it, but this should be of no suprise to you quite honestly.
That doesn't mean don't point it out, it just means don't act flabbergasted when she missteps and the media pick up the pieces for her while throwing a diversion about Iraq or Craig or whatever 'scandal' they are rabid with against the right to distract us.
Also, Im not being overly sensitive, I just believe, as most do, that when someone gets rude in debate, its usually a sign that they are weak in their view and have little to fall back on. I know that isn't the case with you, but I see too many conservatives quick to anger, and that's only winning fans for the other side. No worries tho :)
We now have a Communist
September 4, 2007 - 16:45 ET by TheTruthWe now have a Communist super power mass producing multi warhead nuclear hydrogen ICBM’s pointing at cities all across the United States. The Chinese Communist military is developing their own GPS system while simultaneously developing the means to destroy satellites. Treason by an administration is not something you shove under a table because it might end up 'keeping someone we don’t like out of office'.
These two are hopeless, Truth
September 4, 2007 - 16:55 ET by RJThey seem to be stuck in some kind of a PC "you children play nice" zone.
I going to speculate the
September 4, 2007 - 15:02 ET by dscottI going to speculate the reason why the AG (Gonzales) didn't prosecute either of the Clintons was it would be said that the prosecution was politically motivated, no matter how untrue that would be.
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Hsu Had Ties To Former Clinton Scandal Figure Bernie Schwartz of
September 4, 2007 - 18:43 ET by TheTruthHsu Had Ties To Former Clinton Scandal Figure Bernie Schwartz of Loral?
Compromised - Chinese access to high technology data and defense industry secrets
HotAir: WND: Hsu has connection to previous Clinton/China scandal?
CHINESE MISSILE DESTROYS SATELLITE IN SPACE
Answering your last question NS
September 3, 2007 - 15:11 ET by SportPoliticsThe answer is, the massive 1/2 million dollar cost to set up "fundraisers" and the 25,000 VIP face to face meeting charges amount to plain and simple bribery. Certainly the head dog setting the Clinton camapign money up gets all sorts of favors from the connected Dems in the DC bureaucracy. That's how 12 million dollars in blown apart bank loans coverage amounts to $112,000 paid and the other nearly 12 million dollars forgotten.
The more criminals the Clintons get helping them, the more favors they can do behind the scenes with their loyal jerka in the bureaucracy, and the more money, therefore, they can accumulate not only in their campsin coffers, but in their criminal cohorts bleeding the system, and getting away with 99% of it, in the final outcome.(12 mil - 112thou = 99% unpaid)
I'd spend 500 thou to make sure 11.87 million went unpaid. Sure, sounds great.
This pic should've been the captionfest
September 3, 2007 - 15:25 ET by drillanwr"This is Mahatma Gandhi and his brother Vijay. They represent the Gas Station Owners of America and they are BIG contributors to my campaign ... Right, fellas?"
LOL!
September 3, 2007 - 17:05 ET by motherbeltLOL!
So What? It's the Same.
September 3, 2007 - 15:29 ET by WoodyMThe media reported that Bill Clinton said, "You could have knocked me over with a straw." His actual words were, "You could have blown me over."
Yeah, he was about as
September 3, 2007 - 17:04 ET by motherbeltYeah, he was about as surprised as Hillary was when she heard about Lewinsky.
Well, I'm just waiting for
September 3, 2007 - 16:46 ET by dscottWell, I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop on the Clintons. What other little bundling has occured to financially benefit them and their agenda. Like the Clinton Foundation & PUR??? hint, hint, hint. Come on, come on, when is some enterprising reporter going to do their homework and break the big story???
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
No Reporter Will Touch This
September 3, 2007 - 17:17 ET by Del DolemonteSince the vast majority of "reporters" working these days are Democrats, they have no interest in pursuing this story.
And even if a non-Democrat reporter were interested, they would likewise never cover it. They know that they would make some very powerful enemies. Key words: "very powerful".
We all know the reality of
September 3, 2007 - 19:40 ET by Conservative_in_mass.We all know the reality of what constitites a "story" to the MSM. Substitute the name "Bush" for "Clinton" for this story and the special report alarms at CNN and MSNBC would be wailing loudly all day long.
The other way to look at it is, this is why they are losing market share by the minute. People have many alternatives now (such as this site) so the truth gets out anyway. Competition in a free market is a wonderful thing.
The elite media types are blinded by their own arrogance and self importance. Hence, they keep driving home the same agenda, which further erodes their influence with viewers and readers.
I hope they don't change a thing.
Hideous Rodent Clinton's Only Hope
September 3, 2007 - 21:47 ET by LiveFreeOrDieThe gross crypto-Marxist media bias and an uneducated voting public are the only hope the fat fraud Hillary has. At very least the republican party has the guts and ethics to purge their party of thugs, perverts and crooks. If the demonicrats did the same the only majority they would have would be in jail. God save this once great republic from the wanton power lust of Hideous Rotten Clinton.
The power to iGNORE
September 3, 2007 - 23:02 ET by m1xramLook, if the press can ignore, play down, and or generally trivialize Kerry getting presidential campaign contributions from Iran, anything can be ignored. That's a pro-terrorist position. What's Hillary's pro-felon position compared to that?
m1xram
Beelzebub and Soros
September 3, 2007 - 23:30 ET by RevolvrHRC could get donations from Beelzebub himself and not make the MSM. Unless....
Unless George Soros decides to back someone other than Hillery - like Obama perhaps.
_____________________________________________
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Hillary's Blue Turban
September 4, 2007 - 09:30 ET by Cool ArrowHillary decided not to wear the blue turban provided when she discovered it was made from a dress recovered from the evidence room.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~