Clinton to donate cash
-
- August
- 30
Hillary Rodham Clinton is donating money she received from a campaign contributor who it turns out is a fugitive on a grand theft charge in California.
Here’s an article from the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton will give to charity the $23,000 in donations she has received from a fundraiser who is wanted in California for failing to appear for sentencing on a 1991 grand theft charge.
The decision came Wednesday as other Democrats began distancing themselves from Norman Hsu, whose legal encounters and links to other Democratic donors have drawn public scrutiny in the past two days.
Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, both of Massachusetts, also planned to turn over Hsu’s contributions to charity. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California; Al Franken, a Senate candidate in Minnesota; Reps. Michael Honda and Doris Matsui of California; and Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania also said they would divest Hsu’s contributions.
Hsu is a fundraiser for Clinton and is described as a devoted fan of the presidential candidate and New York senator. He had planned to co-host a money event for Clinton on Sept. 30. In a statement Wednesday, Hsu said he believed he had resolved his legal issues, but said he would halt his work raising political money.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, August 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm by Noreen O'Donnell.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
$23,000? How much did she reap by this fugitive’s largesse? Considerably more, by most accounts. Ditto the others. Don’t reporters ask these questions? He “believed he had resolved his legal issues?” How can that be when he was found guilty and absconded? His statement is insufficient.
Most reporters, columnists and editorial page writers are too busy being cheerleaders for their favorite Democrat candidates to ask such question. Unless, of course, they smell blood in the water. Then they pretend they’re tackling the “tough issues” when in reality they’re just piling on to a story that’s already broken after the damage has been done.