The Hillraisers: Another day, another fugitive

posted at 9:05 am on August 30, 2007 by Bryan

His name is Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, originally from Pakistan. He allegedly funneled loads of money to the Clinton campaign, stood accused of same, and fled to Pakistan. In May, he surrendered to the FBI, flew back to the US to answer the charges against him, and collapsed in court.

Gateway Pundit has the Wanted poster that the FBI released on Jinnah last year. Rantburg has the original LA Times article about Jinnah’s flight. Michelle has a few more details about the case.

I have a few questions: Who else has been illegally donating to the Clinton campaign machine? In two days we’ve learned of two illegal contributors who went on the lam. Yesterday’s miscreant, Norman Hsu, wasn’t just an illegal Hillraiser himself: The available evidence suggests that he was using the Paw family as a conduit to pass his own money through, on the way to the campaign coffers of scores of Democrats. The Clinton campaign, along with all the other Democrats who have been connected to Hsu, have promised to return all the money they received from him. What about the Paws’ money? And are there any other shells out there whom Hsu used to illegally contribute to Clinton or any other Democrats? And where did all the money that Hsu was bundling for the Clinton and other campaigns come from in the first place?

And are there any other fugitives who’ve made their way onto the mighty Hillraiser list? Does the Clinton campaign vet its donors for legality before or after they get caught contributing illegally?

Update: Stop the ACLU has a very useful timeline on the Peter Paul affair. The allegation at the base of that affair is that Hillary Clinton flagrantly violated campaign finance law by filing false FEC reports, and thereby committed a felony.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I still don’t get the connection between the Democratic party and unlimited immigrants into the country…duuuuh.

right2bright on August 30, 2007 at 9:08 AM

oh this should be fun…

zane on August 30, 2007 at 9:11 AM

How long before……

“everybody does it”

subbottomfeeder on August 30, 2007 at 9:12 AM

Yesterday it was nostalgia. Today it’s same old – same old.

Jaibones on August 30, 2007 at 9:16 AM

This reminds me of Johnny Chung who was fronting for the Chinese government when they were trying to influence the 1996 election for the Clintons. The fact that Clinton gave them access to satellite technology in return shows how corrupt they are.

Google: Johnny Chung

volsense on August 30, 2007 at 9:16 AM

I think it is time we throw the entire government out on their collective bums. Between the sex in the bathrooms, with pages and in cat houses, illegal fund raising, kick backs, poor handling of the Iraq war, increases in taxes, decrease in freedom and civil rights, lack of border control, lack of budget disipline, pork projects, lack of investment in needed infrastructure, “free unrestricted trade into this country, loss of good high paying jobs, increase in CEO and Hedge fund mangers pay to the highest levels in history, social security and medicare meltdowns, and the gap between the rich and poor at record levels

I think it’s beyond time that ALL government officals get a pink slip.

unseen on August 30, 2007 at 9:17 AM

535 people should not control 2.9 trillion dollars. The hubris this instills, the corruption this causes, and the vacuum this opens between our leaders and us CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED.

We either need to expand the House, cut taxes, enforce the founding documents, or a mixture of all three. If not our country will cease to be

unseen on August 30, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Far be it from me to sound like I’m defending Hillary, I’m certainly not, but what should the standard be for vetting donors?

Every national candidate has to raise millions and millions of dollars in a relatively short period of time to run a viable campaign. In addition to all of the time and effort required to generate contributions, how much time and effort is considered reasonable to be spent on due diligence regarding the contributors?

And what, if any, is the threshold for vetting a contributor.

Do they vet all of them? (an impossibility)
Only those contributing the maximum?
Those who host fundraisers?

kjspeedial on August 30, 2007 at 9:24 AM

I have a few questions: Who else has been illegally donating to the Clinton campaign machine?

Bryan,

Jeffrey Feiger. Check right hand column for recap of stories. Note how he is going to claim it was a violation of the “Patriot Act”.

George Soros. What a shocker!

Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 9:25 AM

And the other question is, with all the other skeletons that have been brought out of her closet, does anyone even care about corruption in the Clinton household?

Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 9:25 AM

Not to be a pessimist or anything, but the Clintons have already done this for eight years in office. After some initial stuff in the press, no one cared any more.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 30, 2007 at 9:26 AM

kjspeedial on August 30, 2007 at 9:24 AM

With technology today the need to raise multi 100′s of millions to get your message out is not there. The entire point of giving money for these big donors is influence. they are buying our government. We need to stop it and we need to stop it now.

unseen on August 30, 2007 at 9:27 AM

OK, and corrrect me if I am wrong, but I thought I saw a pic of Hsu with Hillary. Does she still get Secret Service protection? Shouldn’t THEY know that a fugitive is standing next to the ex first lady?

bbz123 on August 30, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Money laundering isn’t the easiest crime in the world to catch. For every one of these guys who get caught, there are at least a dozen more out there.

How long before…… “everybody does it”
subbottomfeeder on August 30, 2007 at 9:12 AM

I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. When Bill Clinton got caught soliciting and accepting bribes from the Chinese Communist government, the lead story on ABC, NBC and CBS for that week was how the Republicans got more campaign donations from the “evil” tobacco companies than the Democrats did. (Turns out it was about 2% more, but that part wasn’t covered.)

BTW, I think that’s a good word to use. Technically, an illegal contribution is not a “campaign donation,” it is a BRIBE.

logis on August 30, 2007 at 9:32 AM

With technology today the need to raise multi 100’s of millions to get your message out is not there.
unseen on August 30, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Actually, the primary technology used to get their message out is still TV, which costs an arm, leg and testicle for even one minute of prime time advertising. Until a majority of us get our faces out of the boob toob, nothing will change there.

PatrickS on August 30, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Who else has been illegally donating to the Clinton campaign machine?

Which year?

What about the Paws’ money?

Was it actually their money? Or was he giving it to them to donate? The husband supports the family, and makes about $55,000 per year. They’ve donated $45,000 to Clinton.

And are there any other shells out there whom Hsu used to illegally contribute to Clinton or any other Democrats?

Oh, I’m sure.

And where did all the money that Hsu was bundling for the Clinton and other campaigns come from in the first place?

Good question. Hsu apparently has a lot of money, but we know it came from other people, too.

And are there any other fugitives who’ve made their way onto the mighty Hillraiser list?

Yes, but in the past they’ve also made their way to the Clinton Pardon List.

Does the Clinton campaign vet its donors for legality before or after they get caught contributing illegally?

Neither. They flatly deny accusations until there is rock-solid proof, then quietly donate the money to charity without saying much of anything.

Let’s remember when the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” really became famous. Accusations were being made against Bubba that he was having an affair with his intern, and she went on air accusing the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” of trying to destroy her husband. We all know how that turned out.

amerpundit on August 30, 2007 at 9:36 AM

bbz123 on August 30, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Yes and yes. You sir are the winner.

DCA on August 30, 2007 at 9:43 AM

Yea, and then there was this guy who resigned from Congress over allegations that he didn’t follow a law that wasn’t on the books when he supposedly broke it….

And by the way… its been two years and the case is still not totaly resolved…

Romeo13 on August 30, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Does the Clinton campaign vet its donors for legality before or after they get caught contributing illegally?

Are they really required to? Don’t get me wrong — I think Hillary & co. are handling this in their normal slick way and the MSM will do its best to spin in positively for them, and if at all possible, find a negative slant for ‘pubs… but politics aside, I can understand not looking a gift horse in the mouth.

krakatoa on August 30, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Flashback. Hillary and Bill spoof The Sopranos.

Heh.

kjspeedial on August 30, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Those are fair questions. How about eyeing anyone who donates numerous times, particularly to political races that are outside of the State they reside in? That is a huge red flag to me.

Clearly campaign finance laws and the vehicles for enforcing them are a mess, and ultimately useless.

In Soros’ case it took 3 years and they were fined less than a million dollars but… America Coming Together (ACT) raised $137 million for its get-out-the-vote effort in 2004, but the FEC found most of that cash came through contributions that violated federal limits.

The damage is done, their candidates got elected, and we’re stuck with them.

Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 9:47 AM

Yeah, I’d be shocked if anyone fully vetted their campaign donations, at least the majority of them. I think that’s a loaded question.

SouthernDem on August 30, 2007 at 9:50 AM

May we please hear more about the “culture of corruption” that Miz Pelosi was so fond of speaking about.

Jeff on August 30, 2007 at 9:52 AM

It continually amazes me to see how far the Democrat party has fallen since JFK (Kennedy, not that other Masshole). At least Jack Kennedy tried to govern, and to his credit, he seemed to be turning away from engagement in Vietnam for its own sake.

For all their collective whining, today’s hard political Left seem to have forgotten that Vietnam was a Democrat war, escalated on their watch (anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, based on an event that was designed from the outset to be a political tripwire?), and mangled with so-called “rules of engagement” that bordered on lunacy.

Then in 1968, the spiritual ancestors of today’s hard Left came to power and threw the Democratic National Convention into chaos. Their chosen candidate for President had sworn not too many years before that he would uphold segregation “forever”. Yet in their loss, the hard Left, in league with the slightly less Left MSM, swung public support against Vietnam.

Their next President, in 1977, completely forgot that his first, highest duty to the Office was to act in the interests of the American people – which gave us detente with the Soviets (on the basis that we just had to live with it) and destabilized friendly governments because their emerging alternatives “felt” better.

But far and away their worst President took office in 1992.

Not because of his sexual peccadilloes, either (I recall once that LBJ bragged that he had more women than JFK ever did). Rather, because he wantonly disregarded the Office to which he was elected, solely to keep himself in power through a second term, and then to ensure that his wife would have a shot at a high political office once his term ended.

Hillary!care was a distraction, by comparison.

While WJC was apologising for every sin that previous generations could possibly be blamed for, he sold out the security of the US and its citizens to run an office that he didn’t give a damn about, except for the trappings of power that came with it. Among his achievements were:

* Vince Foster’s suicide investigation;
* Travelgate;
* Whitewater;
* Somalia disaster;
* Twin Towers bombing investigation;
* Selling out to China (fundraising and Hughes-Loral);
* TWA 800 investigation;
* Khobar Towers bombing investigation;
* Downsizing the Army from 18 divisions to 10;
* Bosnia debacle;
* Stonewalling on ballistic missile defense;
* Allowing the nation’s nuclear arsenal infrastructure to wither;
* Airport security commission findings implementation;
* Lax security at the highest levels of government; and
* Treating Islamofascism generally as a “law enforcement problem”.

The sad part is, I’m pretty certain I missed things in that list.

Meanwhile Hillary! won’t open up her archives as First Lady until after the 2008 election. Perhaps those archives have gone missing, like the FBI files on top Republican officials that mysteriously ended up in the White House during Bill’s presidency?

But, hey, it’s all “old news”, right?

Wanderlust on August 30, 2007 at 9:56 AM

I have a few questions: Who else has been illegally donating to the Clinton campaign machine?

Better question for you: Who hasn’t?

BKennedy on August 30, 2007 at 10:12 AM

Does the Clinton campaign vet its donors for legality before or after they get caught contributing illegally?

Since when does legality enter the equation in the “it wasn’t me” world of the Clintonistas? Power and influence drive there every move, and twisting the law into a pretzel while laughing at their adversaries is their aphrodisiac.

Damn those legalities, full speed ahead.

fogw on August 30, 2007 at 10:12 AM

President Clinton has spent the last seven years courting investors in India, China, and their common conduit in London. Senator Clinton has managed to take the Indian-American community from small time political contributors to one of the largest politically contributing ethnic groups in the United States. If I recall correctly, Hillary has already raised about 20 million from the Indian-American community alone.

The Peter Paul case is done. The DoJ has completely botched the case. In prosecuting David Rosen, Hillary’s former finance chair, the DoJ tried to flip FOB(Friend of Bill) Jim Levin, Chicago strip club owner and former executive for Tru-Link Fence, to testify against Rosen. Levin contributed one million dollars to the Clinton Presidential Library. If you’re keeping score, Friend of Hillary, David Rosen, is on trial with witness testimony from Aaron Tonkin and Friend of Bill, Jim Levin. Did anyone think David Rosen was going to be convicted?

The Clintons are damn good at this game. They know how to roll out the red carpet and when to pull it out from under their guests.

What I want to know is, which charity is going to receive these campaign contributions from Senator Clinton? They aren’t by chance going to end up in the coffers of the Clinton Global Initiative?

gabriel sutherland on August 30, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Again I ask, is there anyone who honestly believe that this is going to impact the Teflon Queen in any way shape or form? As I said before the Democrats love a winner, and they do not care one single bit what the winner has to do to win, they are perfectly O.K. with lying stealing cheating and killing as long as their candidate wins.

When a Republican does something wrong the Republicans demand that that person resign, when a Democrat does something wrong the Democrats close ranks and defend even the indefensible. Hell the Democrats gave a standing ovation to one of their own when he was caught having a illegal homosexual affair with a underage congressional page.

The Democrats will close ranks around Hillary and protect her because they believe she can and will win and for Democrats that is the only thing that is important.

doriangrey on August 30, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Neat little tool if you want to keep track of political connections.

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/

gabriel sutherland on August 30, 2007 at 10:25 AM

What the h___ would you expect? I give you the last few days President Clinton had in office. Think ” Pardons.”

oldelpasoan on August 30, 2007 at 10:34 AM

Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 9:47 AM

You are absolutely right that donations (especially multiple donations) from out of state are red flags. That’s the main reason that I won’t support a congressional or senatorial candidate outside of my home state.

And your observation about the 527 groups getting fined well after the candidates they have supported are in office and the “damage” is done, does not go without notice. In fact, I’m certain that in today’s political climate these groups along with the national committees of both parties will weigh the cost of fines 2 or 3 years down the road against the opportunity to get their candidate in office as a risk worth taking.

In this case, delayed justice is no justice at all.

kjspeedial on August 30, 2007 at 10:51 AM

The American people will never elect Hillary Clinton president.

Labamigo on August 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM

A majority of Americans will never elect Hillary Clinton as President. Then again, a majority of Americans never elected her husband President either.

Hillary needs a wedge candidate just like Bill.

gabriel sutherland on August 30, 2007 at 11:21 AM

How many of these people are moving money for other countries. I recall there being links between daddy Clinton donors and Chinese intelligence.

I believe Kerry had a number of Iranian supporting his campaign. At least one was a rabid supporter of the status quo in Iran.

Just like yersterday’s revelation of $150 million wrongly spent, will we find out after the fact about further problems.

davod on August 30, 2007 at 11:54 AM

The Clintoons (both ‘law’yers) would never have gotten this far without committing loads of felonies. The ends justify the means you know.
I keep having this day dream that Vince Foster’s ghost scares Hillary so much that she forgets she’s running for the leader of the free world. I can dream.

Christine on August 30, 2007 at 12:21 PM

I keep having this day dream that Vince Foster’s ghost scares Hillary so much that she forgets she’s running for the leader of the free world. I can dream.

Christine on August 30, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Oh come on, Vince wasnt murdered, he just fell on his own sword to protect the anti-christ Clintons.

doriangrey on August 30, 2007 at 1:14 PM

kjspeedial on August 30, 2007 at 10:51 AM

This business of out of State donations is tricky, and deserves a lot of debate and discussion. I don’t think I have a problem with donating to candidates for primary runs in States where you can’t just cross over and vote for any Party in the Primary, but I could be convinced otherwise.

For instance, if a viable conservative candidate wanted to run against Collins or Snowe in Maine, I would want to support that candidate’s run. How a Senator in Maine votes effects the rest of the Country, and at least as a Republican, I am having a say in who is in the pool of candidates. If I gave money to the RNC, they would probably just support the incumbents, so that would not help in a situation like this.

Where I have a problem is where huge donations from groups like Emilys List or The Sierra Club are used to support (or defeat) candidates in “local” elections. In a small State like Maine their contributions could very well exceed what individual local donors contribute, and State elections can be determined nearly as much by outsiders who have nothing to do with that State than with the actual voters themselves.

It also goes to the problem of where so-called “reform” limited the amount of hard money donations, which only encourages more soft money, which is harder to police and far less transparent.

I don’t know what the answer is, but it also does us no good to let the other side go on a mad contribution spree while we stand on principle.

Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Buy Danish: If there was law restricting campaign contributions to the residents of the state or the district, I imagine both parties would be affected, but the Democrats much more so. With so much money originating in Hollywood and New York City, they would lose the gravy train.

2004 South Dakota Senate race was pretty good case for limiting contributions from inside the state. However, it would also help bolster incumbents.

gabriel sutherland on August 30, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Yeah, I’d be shocked if anyone fully vetted their campaign donations, at least the majority of them. I think that’s a loaded question.

SouthernDem on August 30, 2007 at 9:50 AM

It turns the issue on its head. Focusing the discussion on vetting deflects inquiry away from looking for the actual CONNECTIONS between Hillary and the money-launderers.

All she has to do is say is: “I have the exact same procedures in place as every other candidate!” Case closed.

Imagine that. It’s all the fault of the evil system yet again. And the only possible solution? Pass another whole new set of campaign finance laws.

logis on August 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM

“I never met a large pile of small-denomination bills I didn’t like!”

mojo on August 30, 2007 at 3:28 PM

The American people will never elect Hillary Clinton president.

Labamigo on August 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Somehow, when it comes down to it, I don’t think that will stop the dems from pulling it off. See elections circa 2006. For example, every single race went to the dems in the 2006 Dallas elections. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. If you’re from the area you realize just how unlikely that should actually have been.

Like malcom x preached, “…by ANY means neccessary”.

Would that they were that committed to victory against, you know, our real and declared enemies and not just those evil rethuglicans.

techno_barbarian on August 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM

What I want to know is, which charity is going to receive these campaign contributions from Senator Clinton? They aren’t by chance going to end up in the coffers of the Clinton Global Initiative?

gabriel sutherland on August 30, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Excellent question gabriel!
I saw the b**ch on TV saying that she had returned the money and I also heard that she was going to donate the money to charity. Which is it?

I would hope that the heat will be kept on to determine exactly where the money goes, if anywhere. If the money goes to that phony charity thing that Billy Boy set up then it somehow is distributed back out to his library or any other place that they (the Clinton Mafia) want it to go. The same thing happened before with all the Chinese money that they said they had returned. Nobody asked (or demanded) that they prove they had returned the money. These two don’t make a move or take a breath unless it is to their advantage, either financially or politcally.

Come on Hot Air and other bloggers – keep the pressure on and demand proof of where the money goes. We the people have a right to know!!

OBX Pete on August 31, 2007 at 3:17 AM

Actually, the primary technology used to get their message out is still TV, which costs an arm, leg and testicle…
PatrickS on August 30, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Crap! Hillary has twice as many testicles (her’s, Bill’s) to spend than any male candidate. Except Edwards, of course. Zero x any number = zero.

Wingo on August 31, 2007 at 10:45 AM