SubscribeShocker: Hillary Would Like Returned Cash Back
From the Baltimore Sun:
Clinton: Won’t ask, but wants her money back
by David Nitkin
She doesn’t want to ask, but it sure sounds like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wants her $850,000 back.
Clinton confirmed today that she is open to re-collecting the money that her campaign is returning to donors who were solicited by convicted businessman Norman Hsu, but she said she was not overtly making such a request.
“I’m not predicting that. We are not asking that that be done,” Clinton said. “But I believe the vast majority of those 200-plus donors are perfectly capable of making up their own minds of what they will or won’t do going forward.” …
She is counting on everyone to do the right thing.
Related Articles:
- Hsu Wrote "Suicide" Letters Blaming Obama
- Hsu Was Financed By "Woodstock" Creator
- Hillary Clinton To Return $850,000 Raised By Hsu
- "Hill-Raiser" Hsu Arrested In Colorado Hospital
- Shocker: DNC's Norman Hsu Skips Out On Bail
- Justice Dept Probing Hsu's Democrat Fundraising
- Top Hillary Fundraiser Hsu Turns Himself In
- Our Unbiased Media At Work - Craig Vs Hsu
- The NYT Whitewashes Democrats' Hsu Scandal
- Indicted Hillary Fundraiser Fled US In March
- Hillary Fundraiser Hsu Wanted For Grand Theft
- WSJ Uncovers Chinese Money Funnel To DNC
22 Responses to “Shocker: Hillary Would Like Returned Cash Back”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Why does that picture make me think of the line, Thank you sir may I have another.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
That is the most hideous photograph I have ever seen…. That is what nightmares are made of.. But this is even worse. ***** http://thehive.modbee.com/file.....linton.bmp
September 12th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Well this all just makes perfect sense to me. She just wants the money……..”Show me the money”. Doesn’t matter that the money may have come from ill-begotten sources. Doesn’t matter the money may have been out and out stolen. Doesn’t matter that maybe the money came from a foreign government. As long as some snake oil salesman can make it comeback “cleansed” she’ll take it. Personally, I hope she does because the toothpaste is out of the tube on this one and I think she’ll pay dearly for it in the end. Maybe I’m just being too optimistic, but that’s just me.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Whoever said she gave the money back? The MEDIA? Just because they said so? PUH LEEZE……….. Only a Democrat could be that STUPID.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
You bring up an interesting point lipstick.
Even if she did give the money back, The cash was funneled from Hsu via the donors.
Just who was the money returned to? The donors? Hsu?
Anybody have any help on this? Cause this looks like a spider web from hell.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:39 am
FRAUD……
All the way around.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:42 am
OK, a simple question fellow S & Ler’s, my understanding is the maximum allowable donation by an individual is $2,600 even when “bundled” with other “contributions”, quote / unquote. I have not verified if this is indeed a true limit but something seems amiss here.
Shrillary’s camp, by their own admission, is returning $850K to about 260 individual donors, well, at least that’s the story being propagandized.
Hmmm, simple math says that is an average of roughly $3,269 dollars per “donor”. My math skills may be a bit rusty but IMHO, that seriously exceeds the limit set forth by the FEC, no matter how you cut it.
Am I wrong in my assumption? Just sayin’….???……;o)
September 13th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Hey Gila,
I remember from college that there are imaginary numbers. They are used extensively in algebra and apparently in Democratic accounting practices.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Here’s an update from Colorado’s KJCT8.com:
September 13th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Think about it…
1. Hillary “Milhouse” Clinton gets caught with fradulent donation dollars.
2. Promises to return it (you’re right, to whom? - hello secret service is there an available forensic cpa or international money laundering consultant available?)
3. Has the mind blowing - out of touch reality audacity to suggest that if they want to give the money back they can (oddly enough a predictable thought given their past wacky logic)
I am reminded of the woman who ran over her husband TWICE. What, the second time is free?
Note to Mrs Clinton: Dear, you really need to lay off what ever it is you’re taking to put up with your husband. It’s starting to show.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
SG…..do you know if that’s a federal or state bond? Curious about why it will take so long for the San Mateo sheriff to claim him and why federal marshals don’t just take him back after he waived extradition. This case is screwy.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Why are they even offering bail? How many times does he have to jump bail before he is denied?
He has already plead guility, just throw his ass in jail and be done with it.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Good question 1st…of course why are we talking bail in the first place when he has already been convicted (plead no contest). Probably some statute that requires the judge to set a number, but if he should come up with the money, the judge could add conditions. Just my guess. Anyone know if he’s ever been actually sentenced for his plea in the original case?
September 13th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I knew it would come back to her one way or another.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Hillary had to make the statement - because it would cover her
1) if someone ever ferrets out her secret accounts as to how come they are so high
2) if someone catches on that she never returned it in the first place - she can just claim that they ‘re-donated’ it to her
3) if someone figures out she never donated any of it to charity - she can claim that they ‘re-donated’ it to her
4) if someone squeals that she never returned it - she can claim they they ‘re-donated’ it to her
Ok class, let us all now ’suspend disbelief’ on any and all stories about Hillary. It’s only fair.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I don’t get the bail option at all. Hsu has now skipped bail twice, why allow bail when he’s obviously a flight risk?
The two week timetable for CA authorities to take custody is also ridiculous. What, has the San Mateo Sheriff’s Dept gone green and decided to take a twenty mule team to Grand Junction?
WI, I believe Hsu skipped town for his sentencing hearing back in 1992, he plead no contest earlier.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
“What, has the San Mateo Sheriff’s Dept gone green and decided to take a twenty mule team to Grand Junction?”
GM…that’s not green….think of the methane from the flatulence of the mules. The carbon footprint would be….well….globally warming.
But thanks for the info. That’s kind of what I thought but it’s starting to get very confusing. Especially for us senior citizens (a new term I use now that I’m eligible for, but not yet collecting, social security…LOL)
September 13th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Bicycles?? And the deputies can’t eat beans or chili…..;o)
September 14th, 2007 at 1:11 am
“Hmmm, simple math says that is an average of roughly $3,269 dollars per “donor”. My math skills may be a bit rusty but IMHO, that seriously exceeds the limit set forth by the FEC, no matter how you cut it.”
Individuals can give a total of $4,600 to a single candidate during an election cycle, $2,300 for the primaries and $2,300 for the general election.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Thanks SG, I wasn’t sure but that certainly clarifies the situation.
Does that mean Hillary is only returning money from this election cycle or is this going back to her re-election in 2006?
Hsu’s donations go back to at least 2000 when the Hildabeast was first elected in NY so hmmm, where is the line really drawn?
September 14th, 2007 at 10:05 am
You’re right, GM. We need to know what election cycles they are talking about.
But it might include all the money he has raised for Hillary since 2004. (Which I think is when Hsu began fundraising for Hillary.)
September 14th, 2007 at 11:08 am
That may be something we will never find out SG, unless of course Shrillary’s camp releases information concerning the contributions. I wont be holding my breath for that.
By the way, I did find that Source Financing Investors, mentioned on the other thread about Hsu, is a valid NY corporation. Interestingly, they are registered as a “Foreign LLC”.
http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.u.....lts_page=0
I’m not sure about the significance of that fact at the moment but IMHO, this Hsu, Clinton, SFI thing sure has a foreign dirty money air about it.