October 21, 2007

The Chinatown Dodge

Hillary Clinton keeps having problems with donations from the Asian-American community. First her biggest bundler, Norman Hsu, turns out to be a convicted con man and the donations he bundled appear to have come from families whose modest incomes do not lend themselves to the large donations he claimed. Now another set of donors from similar communities appears to have been a front for other bagmen (via Power Line):

A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.

Shin K. Cheng is listed twice in federal records for giving $1,000 donations to Clinton's campaign on April 17.

But the address recorded on campaign reports is a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, hemorrhoids and skin disease.

No one at the address knew of a Shin K. Cheng.

Another donation came from a Shih Kan Chang on Canal Street. But the address listed is a shop that sells knock-off watches and other pirated goods. The sales clerk there did not know the donor.

Hsiao Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13. Contacted yesterday, she told The Post she had written a check.

But it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council, and Wang told The Post that Guo had repaid her for the $1,000 contribution.

Such "straw donations" are strictly prohibited by federal law.

Knock-off watches. Pirated goods. Phony addresses. Straw donors.

What does that say about the Hillary Clinton campaign? Once could have been a mistake. Twice looks like a pattern. Taking into account 1996 and the same kinds of criminal activity in her husband's re-election effort, three times is a bad habit and not a mistake at all.

Nominating Clintons to the White House three times doesn't qualify as a mistake for Democrats, either. This demonstrates a lack of ethical oversight on the part of their party that reflects the kind of governance they represent. If Hillary wins the nomination after having her campaign conduct these kinds of criminal and ethical violations, then that tells Americans quite a bit about their threshold for corruption in pursuit of power.

And where does this money originate? Who wants Hillary elected so badly that they keep using Asian-Americans as straw donors to flood her coffers with their cash? Who has this much cash to dump into the presidential election? Perhaps the FBI will start looking for those answers -- and soon.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Chinatown Dodge:

» Hillary Clinton Watch: Unlikely Chinatown Campaign Contributions Raise More Questions Part Two from FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
Powerline (Via Captain Ed) has the continuing story:Chinatown, part 2 Yesterday’s New York Times reported that the Clinton campaign returned $7,000 of the $380,000 in Chinatown money that we noted yesterday. Sweetness and Light comments here; ... [Read More]

Comments (39)

Posted by NahnCee | October 21, 2007 11:17 AM

China leaps to mind. But I can't imagine what the quid pro quo would be once Hillary became elected. Obviously they expect her to sell America down the river, but how?

Posted by Amendment X | October 21, 2007 11:23 AM

No consequences for the NYT for outing a secret wiretap program. No aftereffect for the MSM compromising a funds/asset tracing program used by jihadists the world over. Sandy Berger gets a uncomplimentary letter put in his personnel file(say, where did he get the $50,000 to pay that fine? And what is his salary with Hillary? Well in excess of whatever it cost him in fines I bet). And you seriously think that the FBI is going to look into this third instance of illegal Asian funds to the Clintons with any kind of sobriety and purpose? Nah. Better to use federal funds in the Department of Justice to prosecute Border Agents and send them to prison.

Posted by Bailey | October 21, 2007 11:24 AM

"Perhaps the FBI will start looking for those answers -- and soon."

Ha ha Captain Ed, you simply have to stop trying to cut into Scott Ott's turf. You are funny, but not Scrappleface funny!

I'm sure the FBI will be getting right on it, any minute now.

Posted by RD | October 21, 2007 11:52 AM

Cynicism sets in as far as the Clinton modus operandi. I believe they are corrupt, you believe they are corrupt, anyone with brains and an open mind would believe they are corrupt but it is their corruption that wins them their elections. Is everyone in the halls of justice bought and paid for or blackmailed?

Posted by Otter | October 21, 2007 12:07 PM

Just think how the White House (and future democrat (NOT 'democratic') party fund-raisings) would be run under hillary: little snippets of the US, politcal, philosophical, economic, PHYSICAL, sold off to the agents of various oppressive nations: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, the UAE... huh. Most of the nations I can think of would be muslim. How about that!

All to keep in power. The new Serfdom is that close to being.

Posted by NRA Life Member | October 21, 2007 12:18 PM

If the contributions turn out to be from China, the big question will be: will any Democrats care? Until Hillary is rejected by her own supporters for taking money in this manner, we are all just preaching to the choir (pretty much the same way it was the last time with Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie and whoever else it was).

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | October 21, 2007 12:25 PM

CE: "...Perhaps the FBI will start looking for those answers -- and soon."

This is correct, of course, but as has been noted, it ain't gonna happen. No way, no how.

Besides, play this out a bit. The FBI is ordered to investigate in earnest a political opponent's fund raising during the middle of a campaign - nevermind that campaign season now begins the day after every election in a continuum. So, spinmeisters have the default template that Bush is on a witch hunt to oppress a democratic (little "d") rival threatening the very fabric of our nation by abusing his authority via a federal agency. Do you think alternate media has the voice yet to report the story honestly and loudly enough over the interference of the liberal MSM? Not a chance.

Maybe by the time Chelsea runs for the office, there will exist enough of an opposing media to trump MSM-led politics, but not yet. Short of a sworn confession in front of the Supreme Court televised at primetime on every media outlet on the planet, the Clinton machine will get a pass. Besides, Bush hasn't really shown enough intestinal fortitude to wage the proper battles in his Justice Department, much less one that goes after a politician. See "Cold Cash" Jefferson, Sandy Burgler, and Ramos and Campeon.

Posted by Greg Toombs | October 21, 2007 1:01 PM

I think it's time I go back and reread 'The Art of War' again. I've a feeling it might be part of the current Chinese playbook for war games.

Perhaps a g-g-g-g(et al)-son of Sun Tzu has written an update about corrupting foreign politicians through political donations. Perhaps we should search for it.

Posted by daytrader | October 21, 2007 1:52 PM

What is wrong here is that it is well known that every presidential campaign has donation tracking software (it is actually reported in the FEC data which software and what version is used to submit their filings).

The software suite does not only do the filings it also bounds checks for exceeding limits of donations and automatically holds back donations it flags until over ridden by a staffer.

The software packages also generate data on fundraising by the candidate and competitors based on current reporting and historic donation patterns.

That Chinatown fundraiser had to be raising all sorts of alarm flags on the historic v present differential which prompted the review and then refund of 7000.00 by the Clinton camp.

A cursory review of those reported by the La Times and now this report will show that there are many more questionable donors than that amount and in fact admitted straw donors and people claiming to have not contributed come close to exceeding the amount they returned.

Next up will be other cities with Chinatown communities to look at.

I have already seen articles playing the China bash ethnic card and others expressing remorse for their own community again choosing to lower their community into the dirty political sludge for the second go round.

Some of those opposed to the taint caused by this are encouraging members of their community to come forward with information that they may have on the issue.

Posted by Steve | October 21, 2007 1:55 PM

Even though I dislike the positions of Senator Clinton (whose positions on abortion and the selection of federal judges make her unacceptable in my sight), I will play devil's advocate with the following thoughts:

1. How much of her total campaign budget is a result of contributions that are either shady or allegedly illegal?
2. How much of this situation can be attributed to overzealous supporters behaving in an unethical manner and how much can be attributed to negligence on the part of the Clinton campaign?
3. A candidate can not control the ethics or lack thereof of his/her supporters, and a candidate does not have an infinite amount of resources available to put towards checking out all donations.

Posted by Poole | October 21, 2007 2:06 PM

Bill Clinton's biggest scandals are usually about sex. It is Hillary who gets him out of his troubles.

Hillary Clinton's biggest scandals are usually about money. Hillary blames everyone else to get out of her troubles.

When the scandal becomes so blatant that even her fan club in the media start asking too many questions, someone in the inner circle will be become expendable in a game of political musical chairs. I wonder who it will be?

Posted by opeck | October 21, 2007 2:13 PM

It is too much of a stretch to think that all of these straw contributors who happen to be chinese are not funneling money from China. That last time the Chinese funneled money into Bill's campaign, the Chinese got our missle guidance system making it easier for them to hit US cities with their ICBMs (that should make you sleep better) What do you think they will get for their money this time if Hillary is elected?

Posted by daytrader | October 21, 2007 2:31 PM


In response, most of these donations (90%) were raised at a single fundraiser gathering. Cross checking and validation should at been done at the event itself. When the amounts were so out of line with historic trends alarm bells should have been and probably were ringing.

If you look at the quarterly filings with the FEC especially the Schedule B line 28A items which list the returned donations you will see that the Clinton camp was way ahead on illegal donations (over federal limits) long before the Hsu story broke.

Thus far the Clinton camp is kicking up near 1000 donations being returned so far this trip.

Some are multiple line items from a single donor.

They have more returned donations than all other presidential campaigns combined also even before the Hsu issue broke.

Most candidates have less than 20 total returned donations.

The Clinton camp (unless I missed it) is the only one who received a letter from the FEC officially informing them of over the limit donations beyond the 2300 primary / 2300 general limits.

Some were refunded in excess of 6000 dollars excess contributions.

Posted by daytrader | October 21, 2007 2:49 PM

The total raised at the single Clinton fundraiser was more than 15 times the total Kerry raised in the entire Chinatown community during his full donation history.

Posted by kyle | October 21, 2007 3:10 PM

Sun Tsu, the guy noobs quote to prove their 1337ness in video games?

Pick up the counterinsurgency field manual; it can change your life by helping you avoid speeding tickets. Such as spotting the cruiser hull down in the median of the interstate with just the top of the windshield sticking up. While reading the "book" the first time, i often wondered how quickly the mob could be wiped out if General Petraeus were president.

7-28. Civil security holds when institutions, civil law, courts, prisons, and effective police are in place and can protect the recognized rights of individuals. Typically that requires that-
• The enemy is defeated or transformed into a threat not capable of challenging a government's sovereignty.
•Institutions necessary for law enforcement-including police, courts, and prisons-are functioning.
•These institutions are credible, and people trust them to resolve disputes.

The money trail though, if you squint really hard, possibly could be a conspirational insurgency approach. Hillary, with outside military assistance, pulling of an equivalent of the bolshevik revolution? I don't mean to insult lenin with the comparison, but i do remember a few members of the us population that were both disgusted enough about living in a red state that they were looking to move (to a blue state or canada or western europe) and also apologized to the other nations of the world for having elected a certain president. I even saw a map suggesting the breakup of north america into the identity-focused groups of "people's republic of canada" and "jesusland". I guess it is a good thing, when it is cheaper to buy a politician (that talks more than walks) than stage an armed uprising. Paper tigers eating linen legal tender that has no actual backing.

Posted by NahnCee | October 21, 2007 3:24 PM

Why must the FBI be the only agency charged with looking into this. We've got a new Attorney General coming on board, and this strikes me as an excellent opportunity for him to get his boots wet. Robert Kennedy used to wield quite a lot of power and strike terror into the hearts of some pretty nasty Mafia types using just his Justice Department, and sidestepping J. Edgar who was out to get both him and JFK.

Likewise, if the Washington Post could spring a couple of eager young Turk reporters loose and let them play Watergate (i.e., follow the money) this would be an excellent opportunity for "professional journalists" who can actually go out and knock on doors and ask questions to redeem themselves.

I wonder if anyone will take advantage of these God-given opportunities.

Posted by quickjustice | October 21, 2007 3:31 PM

The tip of another Clinton iceberg.

For a detailed discussion of what the earlier Chinese money likely bought from the Clinton Administration (the LORAL missile guidance technology already has been mentioned here), check out Http://wwww.alamo-girl.com.

And don't forget the Red Chinese General who later informed us that Red Chinese missiles now are capable of hitting Los Angeles.

The problem with the Clintons is that they can be bought by foreign powers. "Manchurian Candidate" anyone?

Posted by PackerBronco | October 21, 2007 3:42 PM

Steve writes:

A candidate can not control the ethics or lack thereof of his/her supporters, and a candidate does not have an infinite amount of resources available to put towards checking out all donations.

keeping mind that you are playing Devil's Advocate here, I would point out that in presidential elections we are electing more than simply one person, we are electing an administration. If Clinton surrounds herself with underlings who are dishonest then it is fair to believe that those underlings will hold positions of authority in the administration and will continue to be dishonest -- esp. when they are holding the reins of power.

Posted by Dr. Mercury | October 21, 2007 4:02 PM

"If Hillary wins the nomination after having her campaign conduct these kinds of criminal and ethical violations, then that tells Americans quite a bit about their threshold for corruption in pursuit of power."

That may very well be true, Ed.

But who's going to tell them?

I have another question, but this is one of those 'delicate' questions you read so much about in Reader's Digest. It's not pretty, and those among you with weaker constitutions may wish to avert your eyes.

Ed, I know you hate hearing about this, but as we get nearer and nearer to the elections, I think the question becomes more and more pertinent. I'm sure your other guests here are much too polite to mention it, so I guess mean ol' me is elected.

Here goes.

Doesn't it seem just the slightest bit disingenuous, Ed, to be bad-mouthing Hillary in one part of the blogsite, while this is going on in another? It just seems odd, is all, and it's only going to seem odder.

Of course, I've elected to use the word "odd", but I'm sure many other words would work as well.

It hasn't meant much in the past, but as the elections draw nigh, bloggers are going to start endorsing their candidates -- and it would be hard to imagine a bigger endorsement than a huge picture of your fave candidate right next to the site's banner.

I'm just sayin'.

Posted by eaglewings | October 21, 2007 4:06 PM

It was wonderful reading Her Thighness' flack, Wolfson who stated that Billary 'does not ethnic profile' campaign donors.
Well, gee, doesn't the campaign have the LEGAL obligation to ethnic profile donors TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE CITIZENS and/or otherwise qualified to make DONATIONS to FEDERAL Presidential candidates such as BILLARY?

Posted by John Wilson | October 21, 2007 4:24 PM

The donor might not exist but the check does. What is the process to audit the check to see where the money really came from. Is that an FEC audit after the election, or what?

Posted by Ray in Mpls | October 21, 2007 4:58 PM

Dr. Mercury,

Don't confuse advertisements with endorsements. Just like TV commercials, Internet ads don't reflect on the opinions and believes of the blog owner. Most people understand this, which is why you don't see a lot of people complaining about it.

Also, there are web browsers that block ads from loading. I use firefox with the adblock plus extension installed. I don't even see the ads, including the one you find "odd." If you hadn't provided a screen shot, I wouldn't have even known that the ad existed. Ad blockers are wonderful things to have. You should check it out.

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 21, 2007 5:13 PM

Dr. Mercury,

I'm sure the Clinton campaign made sure that Hillary's face is plastered all over CQ. So, tell me, how many visitors to this site has her ad convinced to vote for her? If they have that much money to throw away on their Light Brigade charge card, all the more power to them.

Of course, there is the problem with the Captain accepting tainted money from Clinton, but that can be fixed in the same way that Hillary fixed it -- by the Captain donating the tainted money, or a few pennies thereof, to the charity of his choice. Given Rush Limbaugh's example, he can undoubtedly choose one which is neither the National Organization of Women nor Planned Parenthood.

Posted by JeanneB | October 21, 2007 5:38 PM

Who wants Hillary elected so badly that they keep using Asian-Americans as straw donors to flood her coffers with their cash? Who has this much cash to dump into the presidential election?

Who, indeed?! I think that honor belongs to her own husband. He who now brags about all his "wealth". He who has raised hundreds of millions for his library/global foundation. And...guess which non-profits have failed to disclose donors or to file required details about their funds disbtibutions. Why, Bill's library and foundation!

Here's how I think it works. The Asian connection was easy...left over from the Arkansas Riady/Trie/Chung/Huang days. Now that Bill's out of office, they and the Saudis et al are free to pour money into his coffers---undisclosed and undetected.

So how does he get it to Hillary? I think it's done through neighborhood/ethnic syndicates. Asians, Puerto Ricans, orthodox Jews, Hispanics....recall that were implicated in the pardons scandal. You can probably add the well "organized" Russian immigre areas and a significant portion of Muslim communities.

Now, those communities all have somthing in common: organized syndicates which "rule" the neighborhood, especially where new immigrants are prevalent. Some call them "gangs". They are organized and powerful.

The MSM sees Hillary's inroads in those communities and sighs, "Diversity". I imagine it's more sinister. Let's say an Asian syndicate created a non-profit called...oh, I don't know..."Fujian American Cuisine Council" (See Ny Post article). Now suppose Bill's foundation made a significant (undisclosed) grant to that organization. And that organization then dispenses the cash to poor immigrants (the kind most likely to be under the thumb of the gangs) and instructs them to donate the cash to Hillary.

Voila! An undisclosed, untraceble track for foreign funds to flow into her campaign.

Posted by patrick neid | October 21, 2007 5:43 PM

Were it is found that the Clinton's are getting money from hamas etc. nothing will happen.

They would do what she/they do so well, blame it on a snafu by some one in a junior position. The newsrooms wanting her elected would give the wink and nod. The junior person agrees and the Clinton's walk.

Tried and true.

Posted by reliapundit | October 21, 2007 6:04 PM


forget it; it's Chinatown!

Posted by Captain Ed | October 21, 2007 6:30 PM

Is everyone a little demented? That's not a Hillary ad, it's an ad for an on-line polling service. Jeez, try checking this out before making accusations.

Posted by daytrader | October 21, 2007 6:30 PM

I am keeping an eye out for variations from historic trends.

Some of the noted ones readily available are what percentage of your funding comes from lawyers, doctors , unions and others readily available.

There are two items with the Clinton campaign right now that are raising flags in my software.

One is that there is a high percentage of donors to Hillary that have never donated to any campaign before either federal or local. The one and only candidate they have chosen to donate to is Hillary. The didn't even donate to Bill for crying out loud.

Most donors tend to have a history of local election financial support along with support to multiple federal candidates like senators and representatives and such.

Totally virgin donors are usually a minor percentage in the mix.

The other thing my software is picking up is the legally undocumented under 200.00 donations. Again her stats skew from the historic trends.

You have to calculate that amount from Total donations - individual donations over 200 -Pac contributions -loans - inter campaign transfers and a few other things to come up with the number.

Right now her campaign has a little over 52000 line items of donations. Most people have two items one for the primary and one for the general.

There is a big loophole that can be exploited here.

One way is to have a magical virgin donor give the 2300/2300 limit but be just a name picked out of the phone book as the source.

I do a lot of work on the FEC data base so I would get a clue if my name showed up as a Clinton donor, but tell me when was the last time you checked to see if someone said you maxed out to somebody who you would never give the time of day, much less a dime.

The same even more goes for under 200 donations.

You can't even go to the FEC an plug your name in to find out, because it is never reported to them.

So I don't have to launder money thru a dishwasher for a 1000 dollar donation that people will look at strange, I only have to say I picked up a bunch of 25.00 donations I don't even have to document, so there is no audit trail.

I could spam that loophole more than a online Ron Paul internet poll victory.

Posted by RD | October 21, 2007 6:41 PM

Voila, I think JeanneB has a workable theory. Himself has more wealth and international recognition than he ever dreamed possible but there is one major thing bothering him and that is the blot on his legacy (no not the stain on the blue dress)... the IMPEACHMENT...that sticks in his craw and he has working for him some innovative lawyers trying to parse the laws in order to remove this stain...but first he has to get into a position of power once again so it can be ram-rodded through. (IMO only)

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 21, 2007 7:40 PM

Have these Chinese money people donated to any other Democrats running for President? Or to any Republican Presidential contenders?

Posted by Aldo | October 21, 2007 8:12 PM

Once could have been a mistake. Twice looks like a pattern. Taking into account 1996 and the same kinds of criminal activity in her husband's re-election effort, three times is a bad habit and not a mistake at all.

Considering that essentially the same group of people have been responsible for the Charlie Trie, Peter Paul, and Norman Hsu scandals, it seems that the Clinton machine should be eligible to be prosecuted under RICO Act.

If Hillary wins the nomination after having her campaign conduct these kinds of criminal and ethical violations, then that tells Americans quite a bit about their threshold for corruption in pursuit of power.

Ron Cass makes the same point regarding her decision to bring Sandy Berger back on board her team.

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 21, 2007 8:12 PM


Do you think Hillary cares about the stain? Mr. Clinton was never convicted of any crime, and managed to dodge all those "bimbo eruptions" (apologies to his maligned victims). He wasn't forced to resign, so what can be done by Hillary other than what she would do anyway should she gain executive power again?

Posted by John | October 21, 2007 8:41 PM

I feel like I am being slowly poisoned to death by the Chinese. Am I paranoid?+

Posted by daytrader | October 21, 2007 8:57 PM


I am working mostly at the moment on the Hillary issue haven't really looked at either the cross dem or cross party amounts since I am 100% on Hillary's case right now.

But Hillary is doing a lot of reach out to various asian groups and has held a lot of fundraisers among them

NY City is in the news now but there is also a lot of issues coming with Seattle, San Francisco and LA
which also have large asian communities

Posted by jaeger51 | October 21, 2007 11:08 PM

Oh, we all know, short of a Clinton machine gunning someone at high noon on the Capitol steps, the media will gloss anything over for them....Bill was scandal ridden and impeached, he's still held up by them as a lovable important celebrity..don't remember them fawning on Nixon during the 80s...Hillary can get away with practically anything and she knows it. Her only problem is that most people don't like her and never have. It will be interesting to see if the media will be able to get her elected...if so, it bodes very ill for the country.

Posted by Loadmaster | October 21, 2007 11:18 PM

This is America...this cannot and will not be accepted. Somewhere these flags are on someone screen and they will get acted on. The hole for Hill is getting deeper and deeper. She's up to her neck and the water is rising.

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | October 22, 2007 1:11 AM

Well said Captain...

Time to write numerous letters to the Justice Dept., the FBI, Congress, etc., to investigate these vivid Campaign violations and apparent corruption.

It would be a long shot, knowing the political pressure to ignore the glaring concern, but Public Encouragement may be the only way to get the proper folks to take a peek.

The Democrats once ran Torricelli unopposed for a return to the US SENATE in NJ.

The Democrat Party knew full well how corrupt he was, and just like the Clintons, they did not care.

The only time they showed interest in removing this negligent Con Artist from power, was when it became apparent that Torricelli was going to lose the election.

The Clintons prior corruption, ie: peddling pardons, should have forced Democrats to reject any idea of returning Hillary and Bill to Office.

Even the former NY Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, seems to have expressed concern with the malfeasant Clintons.

It is really sad to see the corrupt promoted.

It works poorly for everyone concerned.

Instead of a more honest debate about sound policy, the Clintons will lie about everything, working the old 'pay for play' game in exchange for power.

We must firmly rebuke this folly in 2008.

Posted by Christoph | October 22, 2007 10:13 PM

Perhaps the FBI will start looking for those answers -- and soon.

I'm going out. Perhaps I will meet a Russian supermodel at the lineup in the grocery story and she will ask to sleep with me.


Post a comment