Runaround Hsu

Here is a little comic relief for your Wednesday afternoon:

From the fine folks at Hot Air.

What about Bill’s Funny Money?

Lest you think the only fishy money these days is the money raised by Hillary fundraiser extraordinarie Norman Hsu, it bears noting that husband Bill has been earning and raising some pretty hefty sums and in some questionable ways.

Note this Wall Street Journal story on Bill’s aide Douglas Band:

Mr. Band, a Florida native, joined the Clinton administration as an intern in 1995 and rose to become the president’s personal aide. In 1998, he was interviewed by investigators for independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who were looking into Mr. Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Band told them he got to know Ms. Lewinsky at the White House and, at her request, had accompanied her to the 1995 White House ball, according to an interview memorandum prepared by investigators.

[. . .]

When Mr. Clinton left office in 2001, Mr. Band stayed with him. Without his young aide, Mr. Clinton said in a 2003 speech, “I could not get through the day.” Adds one longtime Clinton associate: “When Doug calls up, it’s like having the president call up.”

Given the large sums of money involved, and the presidential campaign, it is only a matter of time before these funds and relationships come under some scrutiny:

As he embarked on his post-presidency life, Mr. Clinton and his wife had relatively few assets and millions of dollars in legal bills. Over the next half decade, he hopscotched the globe, often with Mr. Band at his side, giving speeches at up to $450,000 a pop. He raised large sums for his library and his foundation and snagged nearly $10 billion in commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative.

To help keep Mr. Band from accepting job offers in the private sector, arrangements were made to supplement his income, people familiar with the matter say. Mr. Burkle’s Yucaipa operation, for example, paid Mr. Band through a company called SGRD, these people say. In 2001, Mr. Band and a family member set up two entities in Florida using the SGRD name, public records indicate. Mr. Clinton’s spokesman didn’t respond to questions about Mr. Band’s financial relationships, other than the one with Mr. Follieri.

Do we really want the Clinton’s back in the White House with even more funny money and who knows how many promised payoffs? Bill and Hillary have brought scandal and questionable ethics wherever they have gone. Don’t look for that to magically change just because Hillary is the candidate and Bill the loyal spouse.

The Corruption of Clinton’s Campaign

In case you missed it on the front page, Richard Collins has another column on the continuing Hsu affair. As I have noted here, Collins asserts that this latest scandal has to put a dent in the vaunted discipline of the Hillary campaign:

If there is one thing the media agrees upon it is that Hillary Clinton runs a shrewd and disciplined campaign. This mantra runs through practically every media mention as they report the tried and true horse race story lines.

But the ongoing Norman Hsu fundraising scandal has to call into question this basic premise. The New York Times noted this week that Hillary was afraid that a fundraising scandal could harm her campaign. And yet faced with an unknown figure coming out of nowhere to become one of her, and her party’s, biggest fundraisers didn’t raise any red flags.

Read the rest.

HILL BILL FOOTED BY HSU

The Hsu story just keeps on going. More today from the NY Post:

Members of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign staff got a nice payoff last year for their work to get her re-elected – a trip to Las Vegas funded by her fugitive former fund-raiser.

Among the Sin City guests of disgraced former fund-raiser Norman Hsu was Patti Solis Doyle, one of Clinton’s most trusted advisers who now runs the senator’s presidential campaign.

According to The Los Angeles Times, Hsu – who raised more than $850,000 for Clinton before being jailed last month on charges related to an investment scheme – treated the senator’s campaign staff to several days at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, complete with free show tickets and dinners at posh restaurants.

Doyle was accompanied by two junior staffers and a New York-based fund-raiser, the report said.

Read the rest.

Quote of the Day

This week, Newsweek has a cover story on how Hillary will govern and asks on the cover: “What Kind of Decider Will She Be?” The magazine never really answers the question, but we at least we have learned one thing about her decision-making this week. When it comes to accepting contributions from a Hong Kong fugitive or a Chinese family of modest means, micromanager Hillary Clinton, with all her experience, just put out her hand and decided not to ask some very obvious questions.

- Myrna Blyth

Hsu undercuts competence argument

Much of the praise that has come Hillary Clinton’s way has been due to her campaigns seeming discipline and competence. But that reputation is taking a blow as the Hsu fundraising scandal continues to play itself out.

Two stories today underline this trend. The Washington Post notes that although the campaign blames the problem on a lack of red flags thrown up by a public records search, such flags were there if you looked:

Though a commonly used public record search shows that Hsu had multiple business lawsuits filed against him dating to 1985, filed for bankruptcy in 1990, and was a defendant in two 1991 California court matters listed as possible criminal cases, the campaign said its computer checks used insufficient search terms that did not include the two middle names Hsu used in the California case. “In all of these searches, the campaign used the name Norman Hsu, which, like the search results of other committees and campaigns, did not turn up disqualifying information,” Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson explained.

But even without more sophisticated searches, they had warnings before the scandal broke. The New York Post echoes earlier stories that reveal that the campaign was warned:

Wolf [Clinton campaign staffer] was reportedly contacted by California Democratic Party officials after an Irvine-based businessman named Jack Cassidy, who’d learned of Hsu’s business ventures from a pal, reached out to contacts within the party, and inside Team Clinton.

On June 18, Cassidy wrote to a party official with an urgent warning in an e-mail, saying, “There is a significant probability that a man using the name of Norman Hsu is running a Ponzi scheme . . . The math does not work!”

That prompted the Democratic operative to turn to Wolf, who wrote back that such allegations were baseless.

So Cassidy tried Wolf himself, the Times reported.

“I am more than ever convinced that a man claiming to be a big fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton is running a Ponzi scheme,” he wrote, adding that he was concerned someone he knew could “lose her home” over the possible scam, adding that he feared Hsu was “using your good name in vain.”

As noted previously, this warning provoked Wolf’s infamous claim that Hsu was “COMPLETELY legit.”

So, even though Hillary knew this kind of story would be likely to harm her campaign, and despite the fact that there was supposed to be an emphasis on stringent background checks, despite warnings specifically about Hsu, Hillary’s campaign simply couldn’t resists the money. This says a lot about her character and management.

Even the WaPo notes the problem:

That such a basic mistake could slip through the famously disciplined Clinton campaign has raised eyebrows among strategists in both parties. Clinton herself is known for doing background research on people before she meets them, digging for personal details she can introduce into a conversation. The sheer amount Hsu raised as a virtual unknown in a short period of time should have raised questions, some say.

Hillary is banking on voters belief that she has learned from the mistakes of the past – or ignorance of those mistakes – but this story undercuts that theme. It appears that the Clinton’s still choose money and power over character and ethics.

Waxman to probe Clinton documents

Hillary still has stepped up to facilitate the release of millions of documents related to her time in the White House, but it looks like another cache of documents will be made available:

In a concession to Republicans, House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has promised to ask the National Archives for documents relating to President Bill Clinton’s Office of Political Affairs.

[. . .]

The broadening inquiry, which Republicans contend will take the committee down unpredictable avenues, could be a headache for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is trying to push a message of change amid unwanted reminders of her husband’s administration, including a scandal centered on one of her biggest financial supporters.

I am sure they find nothing but professionalism and a respect for the rule of law . . .

Hillary worried about Hsu effect

Interesting article in the New York Times today Clinton Sees Fear Realized in Trouble With Donor. It seems that despite her fears of exactly something like this happening, and despite warning signs, the need to raise large sums of money won out.

It also offers some insights into the Clinton’s (or a reminder of the Clintons):

“People have often said about the Clintons, they don’t care who they hang out with as long as the people can be helpful to them,” said one of Mrs. Clinton’s major fund-raisers. “The larger point in all of this is that the Clintons are the ultimate pragmatists in who they hang out with; if you can be useful to them, they will find a way to make it work.”

Advisers say Mrs. Clinton is not so much furious about the scandal, as she is worried about containing the political damage.

To that end, Clinton campaign aides refused yesterday to release the names of the 260 donors whom Mr. Hsu recruited to the campaign, preferring to wait until they finish their own research on the individuals. Mrs. Clinton and her advisers are concerned that rival campaigns or the news media will dig into the background of each donor, and they want to be prepared if some of the donors end up having money funneled to them from Mr. Hsu or have shady backgrounds.

The War Room is up and running and you can be sure if any of her rivals raises the issue she will be ready to hit them with their own fundraising issues.

Hillary Using 9/11 Anniversary to Raise Money

On the heels of the Norman Hsu scandal it appears Hillary’s fundraising tactics are coming under increased scrutiny. ABC’s The Blotter has the news that a week after the anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 Hillary is cozying up to homeland defense interest to solicit funds:

Just days after the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic lawmakers will be getting uncomfortably cozy with moneyed interests who have stood to reap billions in post-9/11 homeland security spending, watchdog groups say.

On the sixth anniversary of the attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is slated to attend a sober memorial service near Manhattan’s Ground Zero.

One week later, the junior New York senator is scheduled to speak at a homeland security-themed, $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for her campaign in the downtown Washington, D.C. offices of a powerful legal firm.

As The Blotter points out, the fundraiser raises questions not because Hillary appears to be using the anniversary as a way to raise money for her campaign, but because it appears to be leveraging key policy makers to generate donations:

For the price of a ticket — from a $1,000 personal donation to a $25,000 bundle –- attendees will get a special treat after the luncheon: an opportunity to participate in small, hour-long “breakout sessions” hosted by key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important subcommittees on the Homeland Security committee.

“It’s an outrage,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Washington, D.C. good-government group Project on Government Oversight.

“You never want to see lawmakers trading on their national security credentials…to people making large donations,” Ellis concurred.

A Sandy Burglar Comeback?

Jonathan Adler at Volokh Conspiracy point us to this column noting that Sandy Berger is one of Hillary’s most trusted foreign policy advisers.

For Adler this raises red flags:

Why do I find the report that Hillary Clinton is using Sandy Berger as one of her key foreign policy advisors so unnerving? Because it shows both poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s legal and ethical breaches. I also find it quite surprising. Hillary Clinton has impressed me as a Senator and as a candidate. Whatever her other faults, she is intelligent, savvy, disciplined, and determined; by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field. All this makes her apparent inclusion of Berger in her foreign policy “triumverate” all the more difficult to fathom.

For those who forget, Berger repeatedly stole and destroyed classified documents, resulting in the temporary loss of his security clearance. Berger has never provided a plausible explanation for his actions. By voluntarily giving up his law license, he avoided a cross-examination from bar counsel, so we still do not know precisely what he was doing and why. Indeed, the only assurance that Berger did not destroy unique copies of classified national security documents — such as copies of reports containing notations in the margins and the like — comes from Berger himself, something that the 9/11 Commission was not told when it was preparing its report (as I noted here).

In sum, I do not believe one needs to be an anti-Clinton partisan to find this report disturbing. Judging by the comments, it seems many many Democratic-leaning readers agree.

Hillary is nothing if not loyal to those she feels are loyal to her. The problem is that those most loyal to her are the very people behind so many of the ethical lapses of her husband’s administration (including her own). Hillary may seem different from her scandal tainted years in the White House but her questionable judgment and reliance on ethically questionable loyalists remains. Hillary in the White House means Sandy Berger handling sensitive national security information.

Just one more reason to prevent that from happening.