Looking for the perfect scandal name for the Norman Hsu scandal? The connection noted in today’s Wall Street Journal gives a perfect opportunity to create an enduring label for the rapidly-expanding scandal behind one of the Democratic Party’s biggest fundraisers. The apparent con of Joel Rosenman, the man behind the Woodstock concerts in 1969 and 1994, makes this … Hsustock!
Speaking of music, Hillary Clinton remains tone-deaf about the damage that Hsu’s money has created for her and her Democratic allies. After finally announcing that her campaign would return Hsu’s bundled donations, Hillary suggested that the recipients return the refunds:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose campaign is returning $850,000 in contributions linked to disgraced fundraiser Norman Hsu, indicated Wednesday that donors who contributed that money could donate to her presidential campaign once again.
“We’re not asking that that be done,” she said in a teleconference with reporters. “But I believe that the vast majority of those 200-plus donors are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about what they will or won’t do going forward.”
Clinton’s remarks were her first public comments on the affect Hsu’s unraveling fortunes have had on her presidential campaign. Hsu was a leading money “bundler” for Clinton, earning the title of HillRaiser for his fundraising activities.
For her first remarks after more than a week of silence, Hillary didn’t prepare very well. The exposure of Hsu’s machinations make it very likely that the money didn’t originate with the contributors. Rosenman’s missing $40 million he gave to Hsu. Why would she ask people who could have participated in a fraud to continue associating with her campaign?
She obviously still doesn’t realize all of the implications of the scandal. Those donors may need the money for legal retainers. Someone had better start explaining it to her. Is it possible that no one at the Clinton campaign understands that this might be stolen money?