…Hillary Clinton said yesterday that her presidential campaign will be more careful about scrutinizing donors. Norman Hsu, who has donated large sums to numerous Democrats including Clinton and Barack Obama, has been wanted by California authorities for 15 years in connection with a fraud case.
Of course we should trust the lady’s good intentions. But somehow I don’t. As Hillary herself says, ”if you find a turtle on a fence post, it didn't get there by accident”.
And the headline to that Globe story, “Clinton vows 'vigilance' in accepting funds” sounds familiar. Haven’t we heard that line somewhere before? Yes we have, but it involved that other Clinton administration. Finally, the Globe story reports:
Clinton's campaign said Wednesday that it will give $23,000 it received from Hsu to charity.
But Ed Morrissey cited an LA Times story yesterday and noted:
“The amounts add up to $92,100 going directly to Clinton. She's giving up $23,000.”
Is Ed right? Of course the Globe story was technically correct, regardless. It did not report that the $23,000 was the full amount Hillary received. The story reported only that the Clinton campaign will give $23,000 it received from Hsu to charity. The Globe story also said:
Clinton also told the Globe that the campaign would return any of the contributions that Hsu raised from other donors if they turned out to be tainted.
Tainted donors? Exactly how are they “tainted”? Actually I think in all their verbal gymnastics the Globe meant the tainting to apply to the donations rather than the donors. Does this mysterious language refer to the $92,000 that Ed Morrissey reported so much more clearly yesterday? Your guess is as good as mine. The Globe does not say. This wording is probably what columnist Mark Steyn once called:
“…the sound of the genteel Victorian matron discreetly draping chintz over the provocative piano legs of the story”.