The Clinton campaign's announcement yesterday that it is returning the $850,000 bundled by fugitive felon Norman Hsu actually strives to make it sound like the whole episode is a big positive.
First, nothing wrong really happened -- the campaign acted only out of an "abundance of caution." And it was decisive: "When voters look at how the campaign reacted to this situation, they will see that we acted quickly and appropriately - both to return his contributions AND to enhance our vigorous vetting procedures to guard against this kind of situation in the future."
It's almost enough to make you lose sight of the fact that questions were first raised about Hsu two weeks ago. And that Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, apparently without bothering to do any very good research, quickly leapt to the defense of the moneyman by saying "there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question."
Oh -- and let's not forget that yesterday's action came only after the Los Angeles Times reported that a Hsu associate said he had tried to warn the Clinton campaign about Hsu in June, to no avail. "He is COMPLETELY legit," a Hillary fundraising official wrote in a June e-mail, according to a follow-up in today's LAT.
Abundant? Quick and appropriate?
Comments (1)
With all of the alleged corruption surrounding Hilliary over the last upteen years, I seek an answer to a question off the corruption question.
Does she concur or disagree with the whacky MoveOn.org headline calling General Petraeus...General Betrayus??