Gee! $850,000 right after $13,000 not to mention all the money in the 90's. IS she being investigated?
2007-09-12 05:03:57 · 23 answers · asked by No Black Box 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because we'd have to put the whole of Congress in jail. They don't ask and they don't tell regarding where the money comes from. Therefore, it's easy to just make the whole illegal act go away by giving the money to charity -- but then again, how many of you have asked what charity is the money going to and who is the head of that charity? My guess is that if we truly follow the money -- it goes back to the person who accepted the illegal contribution in the first place. In fact, we don't have to guess, just pay the money and get the list of the contributors and then research the list and see what you come up with. I've done it and I know. I'm thinking about writing an expose on the inner workings of government and political contributions. I just have to ensure that I can keep myself anonymous long enough to get it published. Otherwise, I might just end up dead like others who have exposed, or threatened to expose the inner workings of the government. Did you notice that Oliver North of the Iran Contra affair is given a position of authority by the Media even though he was forced to resign and wasn't he convicted of a crime?
2007-09-12 05:09:00 · answer #1 · answered by Mindbender 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
So if someone unknowingly has someone in her campaign accepts money from someone and didn't know the background of that person or the hundreds of thousands of other donors and subsequently gives back the donation when they discover it is tainted they are somehow a criminal? GOP and Abramhoff would be another example but in that case the money was not returned. If Hillary had kept the money I would tend to agree but since she is not keeping the money nor are others who were duped by Hsu I suggest the right thing is being done.
2007-09-12 05:42:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is Hillary Clinton we're talking about here. The same standards that the Clintons apply to everybody else don't apply to them. During the 90s, the Clintons complained about women being abused by men on a constant basis (including creating the dubious "crime" of date rape), then flip-flopped once Bill Clinton was outed as having been abusing women for years. Why is it any surprise that Hillary is violating the same campaign finance laws she has fought so passionately for?
Opponents of the Clintons made a major mistake by sacrificing their own position to attack Bill Clinton for his sexual actions in the 90s. It would be a similar mistake to go after Hillary for violating the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law.
The Clintons merely weaken their own position when they cannot follow the same laws they encourage everybody else to follow. Why not simply encourage Hillary to support repeal of McCain-Feingold instead, since she clearly isn't following it?
2007-09-12 05:22:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Its not as simple as jut throwing her in jail, first there needs to be an investigation, then a charge, then a trial. But don't worry, her opponents are going to be looking to see if there is something to charge her with, and as soon as they find it, it will be all over the news. I'm not sure why she hasn't been investigated for something yet, it ought to be easy enough
2016-10-05 07:59:01 · answer #4 · answered by wombatfreaks 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because she didn't. Unknowingly taking money from someone who got the money illegally is not a crime.
Slander, on the other hand, is something that someone can be sued for. If she ever decided to sue all of the people who have slandered her over the years she would have enough money for 10 presidential campaigns.
I'm not necessarily a fan of Hillary but I do believe in playing fair. The constant barrage of cheap shots allegations she has received from right over the past 15 years, up to and including murder, are pathetic.
2007-09-12 05:13:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Hillary, like hubby Bill--is NO angel. Hillary may have the right people hiding corrupt tracks. Then again: enough damaging evidence may be in someone's hands---and it's only at the right moment that such evidence will be used against her.
High level politics is BOTH dirty and dangerous.
2007-09-12 05:11:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
For the same reason that half the Republican Party isn't in jail for taking illegal contributions from Jack Abramoff.
2007-09-12 05:10:56 · answer #7 · answered by ck4829 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
First because she is a Klinton and above the law.Second the Klinton Klan has a history of accepting dirty money from Chinese sources. since the 90s .And third she is only returning the money because once again she's been caught with her hand in the cookie jar!
2007-09-12 05:26:43 · answer #8 · answered by Dragons Slayer 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
A candidate is not directly responsible for money given to their campaign. The problem is with the donor and the donor gets it in the neck. With the scrutiny all around people running for president, Clinton would not knowingly take illegal contributions.
Think about it and don't let your ire run your thinking.
2007-09-12 05:10:12 · answer #9 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Maybe because she gave the money back and did not know they were illegal when she took them. I know everyone is getting into a lather because they want to nail Hillary so bad, but it ain't gonna happen.
2007-09-12 05:09:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋