"As Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu confronted an old criminal case and faced a new
FBI investigation Friday, a fundamental question persisted: How did Democratic
presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign fail to see the red flags
in Hsu’s contributions?…The most obvious red flag: A check of a commonly used database
produces a 1990 San Francisco Chronicle news story detailing how Norman Hsu had been kidnapped by gang members in the San Mateo County suburb of Foster City. A second widely used database discloses that Norman Yuan Yuen Hsu of Foster City had a bankruptcy in 1990…In most instances, a donor’s background is well-known. But if the person is not known to the campaign, that person will be vetted.All major campaigns employ researchers who investigate their opponents, and pick over their candidates’ donors,
particularly those who are raising six-figure sums. Some campaigns retain
consulting firms specifically to vet donors.One consultant said some campaigns
ask donors for permission to run background checks because political opponents
almost certainly will investigate the sources of their foes’ campaign money."
Yesterday I was talking about how I just didn't believe that Hsu did not know about the law looking for him. His story just does not sound credible to me. Today we look at Hilary and how credible is her denial of knowledge of Hsu and his situation. Was she aware of the problems that are not only associated with his criminal record, but how a middle class family in San Francisco was able to donate in the six figures to a political party.
No comments:
Post a Comment