The Hillary Clinton campaign said Monday that it will return money solicited by Norman Hsu from more than 250 donors.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Sen. Hillary Clinton will return about 850,000 in contributions tied to disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu.
Clinton, a New York Democrat seeking her party's presidential nomination, will send the money back to approximately 260 donors, a senior campaign official said in a statement Monday evening.
"In light of recent events and allegations that Mr. Norman Hsu engaged in an llegal investment scheme, we have decided out of an abundance of caution to return the money he raised for our campaign" Clinton campaign official Howard Wolfson said in the statement.
Wolfson emphasized that the campaign was unaware of Hsu's alleged illegal activities and noted that they have put in place a more rigorous back ground check for future donors.
–CNN Political Editor Mark Preston
And don't forget to return that $50,000 in interest you've collected of that political blood money too!
Have you seen Hsu lately Hillary? As if you knew nothing about his squirrely dealings. Riiiiight..
I thought this "person" only had $23,000 to give to "charity" from this guy?
Now it is almost a milion bucks?
Come on Clintonista's, this guy was not a simple donor, he is photographed with her . was a "Shrillraiser" and this is no small amount of dough.
More lies from this crook, I am waiting for her to lose the election so she can do infomercials on how to turn $1000 (wink, wink) into $100,000 overnight, just send $19.99 and Bill and I ....................
In other more important news that known Republican loser Craig burped today, story at 11:00.
What a joke, he got the earmark he wanted AND got his donations returned! Looks like ol 'Hill was hoodwinked by the apparel magnate. How would she do trying to deal with foreign governments? Probably about as well as the "Agreed Framework" deal hubby made with North Korea, they got tons of goodies, and still built their nuke!
Please, look at the other candidates and don't blindly pledge allegiance to her because the media likes her more than the others.
More of the same from Hillary. She is so dirty. I will bet the farm there is lots more than the $850,000 she has to claim. She really needs to go. She is back room old boy polotics and as corrupt as the rest of them,GOP inculded.
We need a change Obama/Edwards 08. Lets clean up our act and throw her to the wloves, even if she does eat the pack.
I am a Democrat and agree with the comments above, i find it unfair that everytime a Republican Senator is affiliated with corruption it is reported ad nauseum, but when a Democratic Senator, specifically one who's last name is Clinton, is caught doing the same, the story is buried..makes you think who really is running our media?
This really makes me pine for the simpler days of the ninties and "Whitewater". Back then, Hilary knew better how to deal with scandal.
I don't know what to do with this new superficially ethical Hillary. She'll confuse me yet!
CNN (Clinton News Network), you are not slick. I see you are trying to get this issue off the ticker as quickly as possible. Shame on you!! Your bias is showing bright like the noonday sun.
leopard doesn't change it's spots.
she was dirty then and is dirty now
The photo shows that birds of a feather flock together.
so, because this man is a fugitive and Hillary per say had no clue he was, until after his warrant became public, and she returning $850,000 from her campaign funds, she is a criminal too? I hardly see how any of this is her fault, and his fugitive actions should not reflect her as a candiate, because I'm sure there are plenty of fundraisers out there for all likes of politicians, who have not completely abided the law, yet remains out of the public eye. And what proof does anyone have that she has ever been convicted or edited for any criminal action?
Posted By Claude, Mesa AZ : September 11, 2007 12:09 pm
Claude, the Clinton-Hsu connection makes up 2 of the 12 stories from today. How much coverage would you like? Would you prefer that the Petraeus related stories get buried to make room? Or more about Fred Thompson, who seems to get 1/3 of all the topics now that he's finally declared what everyone knew 6 months ago.
Actually, you probably would like the Petraeus stories buried, since the topic in itself highlights what is approaching 5 years of Republican controlled failure to quell the violence in Iraq due to a lack of political gains, all while our military succeeds on it's side of the effort, to no avail.
Here I go, trying reason, logic, and facts yet again. Sen. Clinton didn't return the money after being caught with a red-hand in the cookie jar or whatever other metaphor anybody out there might care to employ. She got up, read the paper, learned that Hsu was wanted on an outstanding warrant, and immediately donated to charity the $45,000 he admitted giving to her campaign.
Moreover, she didn't change her story about how much he'd donated. He ALWAYS claimed that he'd directly donated $45,000. However, he BUNDLED an additional $850,000. After taking two weeks to ascertain that that money was probably laundered - NOT an unreasonable time period considering the amount of money and number of donors involved - she returned that money as well.
I don't see questionable behavior here, much less an ethical lapse or crime of any sort. More to the point, none of Sen. Clinton's critics has even begun to articulate one.
If this was a Republican, this would be story one on all the MSM for two weeks (print, TV etc, etc) until the Republicans were smart and asked them to get out of the race.
Not the Queen though, where is 60 minutes and that stalwart Dan Rather when you need him to do a truthful piece on a candidate running for President?
Never mind, we'll just add this to the list of "right-wing conspiracy" ads that will be run during the general election to defeat her.
Go anybody but Shrillary 08.
I think Sen Clinton should withdraw from the presidential race. Anyone who has to return $850K in political contributions must have mud on their feet.
"Moreover, she didn't change her story about how much he'd donated. He ALWAYS claimed that he'd directly donated $45,000. However, he BUNDLED an additional $850,000. After taking two weeks to ascertain that that money was probably laundered — NOT an unreasonable time period considering the amount of money and number of donors involved — she returned that money as well.
I don't see questionable behavior here"
How does one "bundle" and additional $850,000 to a political campaign? And how does that political campaign not fully vett where and who that money came from? Ridiculous to think the American Public will believe that anymore than a "wide-stance" theory...
It was the right move. It's not like she can't make the money back.