lily
09-20-2007, 11:22 PM
Well, it looks like I'll be eating crow for dinner tonight. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20790552/site/newsweek/)
With a Little Help From My Friends
The Hsu scandal sheds light on how—and why—pols bail each other out when the
going gets tough.
By Michael Isikoff, Mark Hosenball and Evan Thomas
Newsweek
Sept. 24, 2007 issue - It was Clinton-campaign standard operating procedure:
when on the defensive, deflect and attack. Earlier this month, Hillary
Clinton surrogates invited onto TV talk shows were issued "talking points"
in anticipation of awkward questions about the mysterious Norman Hsu. A top
"HillRaiser"—someone who brings in more than $100,000 for the campaign—Hsu
was wanted on an arrest warrant for a 1991 fraud conviction in California.
(After failing to show up for a court appearance earlier this month, he was
later arrested by the FBI after falling ill and writing an apparent suicide
note.) If asked how Hsu's criminal record could have slipped through the
cracks in the campaign's vetting process for donors, the Clinton supporters
were instructed to say they hadn't participated in the vetting. If pressed,
they were told to take a none-too-subtle swipe at Clinton's chief rival.
"Long before Hillary's presidential campaign took money from Mr. Hsu, Mr.
Obama's senate campaign had as well as a bunch of others," read the memo,
given to NEWSWEEK by a Clinton supporter who didn't want to be identified
revealing internal campaign communications.
Nobody handles campaign message control with more zeal or efficiency than
the Clintonistas. (Campaign communications director Howard Wolfson and
spokesman Phil Singer distributed the talking points.) Ever since the birth
of the "war room" in the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton operatives have
perfected the art of cutting and thrusting, ducking and weaving, via fax and
e-mail. Word that the Clinton campaign was returning $850,000 from about 260
donors tied to Hsu came at 6:40 p.m.—just in time to miss the evening
news—on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11. But just how did Hsu's shady
past escape the notice of Clinton's campaign fund-raisers?
The campaign had reason to beware of shadowy businessmen bearing gifts. In
the 1990s, a legal fund set up to help President Bill Clinton had to return
(or refuse to accept) at least $640,000 from an Arkansas businessman named
Charlie Trie, whose Macau-based business partner had ties to the Chinese
government. Hillary's campaign wants to avoid anything that might remind
voters of Clinton scandals past. There was, however, at least one heads-up
about Hsu. Last June, a southern California businessman warned the campaign
that Hsu was involved in a Ponzi scheme. "I can tell you with 100 [percent]certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme. He is
COMPLETELY legit," wrote back Samantha Wolf, the former West Coast
campaign-finance director, according to an e-mail obtained by the Los
Angeles Times.
Hsu was a defendant in multiple lawsuits dating back to 1985, had filed for
bankruptcy in 1990 and had been a fugitive from justice since he failed to
show up at his sentencing in a California state court after pleading guilty
to fraud in 1991. But when the Clinton campaign checked databases looking
for Hsu's name, the vetters did not use the two middle names he used in the
California case, says a Clinton campaign spokesman. (From now on, the
campaign will do criminal background checks on major donors.)
It's possible some Clinton campaign workers wouldn't have wanted to search
too hard. With Barack Obama surprisingly raising more than Clinton in the
first half of 2007 ($58 million to $54 million), the pressure has been on
her to amass a war chest big enough to hold off challengers in the primary
season. A Clinton official, who didn't want to be named discussing campaign
fund-raising, denied that the campaign had relaxed its scrutiny to
accommodate big donors like Hsu and noted that Hsu had already been vetted
when he gave a $2,000 donation to Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:MM8hQ6XGsKMH6M:www.republicanvoices.o rg/eating_crow.jpg
With a Little Help From My Friends
The Hsu scandal sheds light on how—and why—pols bail each other out when the
going gets tough.
By Michael Isikoff, Mark Hosenball and Evan Thomas
Newsweek
Sept. 24, 2007 issue - It was Clinton-campaign standard operating procedure:
when on the defensive, deflect and attack. Earlier this month, Hillary
Clinton surrogates invited onto TV talk shows were issued "talking points"
in anticipation of awkward questions about the mysterious Norman Hsu. A top
"HillRaiser"—someone who brings in more than $100,000 for the campaign—Hsu
was wanted on an arrest warrant for a 1991 fraud conviction in California.
(After failing to show up for a court appearance earlier this month, he was
later arrested by the FBI after falling ill and writing an apparent suicide
note.) If asked how Hsu's criminal record could have slipped through the
cracks in the campaign's vetting process for donors, the Clinton supporters
were instructed to say they hadn't participated in the vetting. If pressed,
they were told to take a none-too-subtle swipe at Clinton's chief rival.
"Long before Hillary's presidential campaign took money from Mr. Hsu, Mr.
Obama's senate campaign had as well as a bunch of others," read the memo,
given to NEWSWEEK by a Clinton supporter who didn't want to be identified
revealing internal campaign communications.
Nobody handles campaign message control with more zeal or efficiency than
the Clintonistas. (Campaign communications director Howard Wolfson and
spokesman Phil Singer distributed the talking points.) Ever since the birth
of the "war room" in the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton operatives have
perfected the art of cutting and thrusting, ducking and weaving, via fax and
e-mail. Word that the Clinton campaign was returning $850,000 from about 260
donors tied to Hsu came at 6:40 p.m.—just in time to miss the evening
news—on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11. But just how did Hsu's shady
past escape the notice of Clinton's campaign fund-raisers?
The campaign had reason to beware of shadowy businessmen bearing gifts. In
the 1990s, a legal fund set up to help President Bill Clinton had to return
(or refuse to accept) at least $640,000 from an Arkansas businessman named
Charlie Trie, whose Macau-based business partner had ties to the Chinese
government. Hillary's campaign wants to avoid anything that might remind
voters of Clinton scandals past. There was, however, at least one heads-up
about Hsu. Last June, a southern California businessman warned the campaign
that Hsu was involved in a Ponzi scheme. "I can tell you with 100 [percent]certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme. He is
COMPLETELY legit," wrote back Samantha Wolf, the former West Coast
campaign-finance director, according to an e-mail obtained by the Los
Angeles Times.
Hsu was a defendant in multiple lawsuits dating back to 1985, had filed for
bankruptcy in 1990 and had been a fugitive from justice since he failed to
show up at his sentencing in a California state court after pleading guilty
to fraud in 1991. But when the Clinton campaign checked databases looking
for Hsu's name, the vetters did not use the two middle names he used in the
California case, says a Clinton campaign spokesman. (From now on, the
campaign will do criminal background checks on major donors.)
It's possible some Clinton campaign workers wouldn't have wanted to search
too hard. With Barack Obama surprisingly raising more than Clinton in the
first half of 2007 ($58 million to $54 million), the pressure has been on
her to amass a war chest big enough to hold off challengers in the primary
season. A Clinton official, who didn't want to be named discussing campaign
fund-raising, denied that the campaign had relaxed its scrutiny to
accommodate big donors like Hsu and noted that Hsu had already been vetted
when he gave a $2,000 donation to Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign.
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:MM8hQ6XGsKMH6M:www.republicanvoices.o rg/eating_crow.jpg