On the wall of Hsiao Yen Wang’s apartment, a cramped, 17th-floor public housing unit on the city’s Lower East Side, are photographs of her husband, David Guo, a cook who specializes in Fujian cuisine. One photo stands out: Guo shaking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hand, a memento from a $1,000-a-person fundraiser for the New York senator held in New York’s Chinatown last April.
Last week, Wang got another memento — a calling card from a Justice Department criminal investigator. The investigator asked Wang if she was coerced into giving money to the campaign and whether she knew of anybody else who may have been forced to contribute. In an interview with The Associated Press, Wang said she and her husband had given willingly and that she knew of no coercion. A Justice Department spokeswoman would not comment on the inquiries.
Scott Horton with the context:
Back on September 22, 2007, I reported on information I had received about a major campaign which had been launched by the Bush Justice Department to disrupt fundraising efforts by John Edwards’s presidential campaign—a project which antedated the 2004 presidential election and was marked by attorney-general level authorizations, and a vast redeployment of resources. It was, I am told, “a diversion of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to block tens of millions of campaign contributions to the enemy.” The “enemy” in this case, being, as usual, the Democratic Party. Dollar for dollar, not an investment of taxpayer money that the increasingly Democratic electorate is likely to find amusing. Hence the Justice Department’s attitude of keeping the whole program deep under wraps.
When I ran the story, I got a number of comments—some of them from folks at Justice—telling me that the report was “too narrow,” that the target was not just John Edwards, but also Hillary Clinton.
What to think about that? Over to you, Ted Olsen:
[I]t is one of the most important responsibilities of the attorney general to insist that the line between national policy and personal advantage never be crossed. Whenever that barrier has been breached in the past, whenever politics has permeated the decision-making or the atmosphere at the Department of Justice, as occurred in Watergate, the consequences for the nation have been grave.
Alas, if only those brave Republican defenders of DoJ independence had been allowed to run the country.
cleek
they’re only doing this to protect us from making the deadly mistake of electing a non-Republican in 2008. they know what’s best. we don’t.
Dreggas
Tim,
Not that what you are saying is not true (given this admin I would believe anything) but there have been reports prior to this and independent of it of “bosses” such as block wardens or whatever they were being called, in chinatown in NYC coercing people into giving money to clinton, these block wardens are kinda like gang leaders who run protection rackets or some such, sully had more on it. Not saying this is the case, it may not be but it is a possibilty.
LITBMueller
Here’s the ironic thing: I can see why the Administration sees Edwards as a threat, but, of all the Dem candidates, Hillary is probably the most likely to maintain the status quo in terms of Iraq and the War on Terra (if the amount of defense industry contributions she’s getting is any indication). So, why try to knock her down before she can win the primary?
Plus, these DoJ efforts ain’t workin’ too good: Hillary blows the GOP out of the water in funds.
Zifnab
I wonder what Mukasey’s stance on “investigating illegal campaign contributions” is? Isn’t it a damn shame that the entire head of the Justice Department has been lopped off just a year before the ’08 elections? If only Gonzo was in power, he’d get to the bottom of what are clearly coerced or criminal bribes for deeply corrupt Democratic Candidates.
Jay C
Tim (& Dreggas):
From most published accounts of the investigations in HRC’s latest venture into creative campaign financing, the main question seems not to be so much that contributions were “forced” or “coerced”, but that a bunch of Chinatown residents of, rather modest means were being used as fronts for larger donors – to get around contribution limits, or whatever.
Hey, it’s Chinatown… maybe Jake Gittes can get to the bottom of it…
Tim F.
Look, I have worked in campaigns. At some level every candidate who has money has some tainted cash. Is Hillary’s campaign particularly heinous by historical standards? Candidate Bush has a bursting stable of criminal pioneers and corporate bundlers with employees who never knew that they gave. Does her campaign even stand out compared with other candidates this year? Nobody can seriously think that a guy with Rudy Giuliani’s character judgment can make it through primary season without letting some of the dark side in. I have seen candidates with more integrity in their pinky than Rudy will ever shake hands with take money that everyone knew had a stink on it.
Hillary probably does have some cash with coke powder still on it, but until someone shows that her problems (a) rise above historical standards or eve (b) exceed the problems of other candidates this year it is all just argument by anecdote. Find out how many resources the DoJ is throwing into investigating Republican candidates and get back to me.
Grumpy Code Monkey
Somewhere, Richard Nixon is smiling.
Pete Johnson
How come they didn’t interview Vince Foster about this, oh yea never mind.
Zifnab
See, that’s what really bugs me. I’ve always envisioned Hillary Clinton as the Dick Nixon of the Left.
Dreggas
Tim that works but is nearly as bad as the “Clinton did it too” defense the Republicans use, at least when it comes to the campaign contributions. Maybe it’s a bit idealistic but I would expect better (then again it is Shillary and “chinese” in the same sentence). That being said maybe there is something to it and it should be investigated. I believe TPM is even reporting on this as shady.
TenguPhule
Man, soon as Hillary seizes the royal crown, Republican Donors are probably going to experience a wave of terminally fatal accidents like never before.
It’s like the idiots of the right don’t seem to realize just how far down this path things can get very very ugly.
nightjar
I’ve spent some time over at Captain Ed’s the past few months trying to get some idea where this comes from. Granted, the Clinton’s have had Chinese and other foreign donors who are a bit on the shady side–the same of which republicans have as Tim says.
I was amazed, however at the depth and breadth of the conspiracy theories about the Clinton’s and the Chinese. It’s right up there with the Clinton Narco trafficking operation in Arkansas. These wingnuts rail on about the “leftist” 9-11 “troofers” conspiracy nuts but they’re minor leaguers compared with the Clinton/ChiCom winger nuts.
They’ve constructed vast and intricate scenarios based on echo chamber “facts” that basically concludes that both the Clinton’s are either Chinese spies themselves of collaborators in espionage having sold or given US State Secrets for campaign cash. And they truly believe this nonsense. Scary.