Friday we showed extensive problems Hillary Clinton has had with ethics, campaign finances, corruption and finance fruad, the latest of which has been was what Wapo head lines as "Dishwashers for Clinton", mentioning that her campaigns "zest" for campaign cash, trumps "judgment".
DONORS WHOSE addresses turn out to be tenements. Dishwashers and waiters who write $1,000 checks. Immigrants who ante up because they have been instructed to by powerful neighborhood associations, or, as one said, "They informed us to go, so I went." Others who say they never made the contributions listed in their names or who were not eligible to give because they are not legal residents of the United States. This is the disturbingly familiar picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign presented last week in a report by the Los Angeles Times about questionable fundraising by the New York senator in New York City's Chinese community. Out of 150 donors examined, one-third "could not be found using property, telephone or business records," the Times reported. "Most have not registered to vote, according to public records."
This appears to be another instance in which a Clinton campaign's zeal for campaign cash overwhelms its judgment. After the fundraising scandals of President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign, the dangers of vacuuming cash from a politically inexperienced immigrant community should have been obvious. But Ms. Clinton's money machine seized on a new source of cash in Chinatown and environs. As the Times reported, a single Chinatown fundraiser in April brought in $380,000. By contrast, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry raised $24,000 from Chinatown in the course of his entire campaign.
It might have taken a shovel to the head for the MSM to finally jump on board by starting to ask some pertinent questions, but the fact that they have started shows us that those latest Zogby numbers stating that 50% of the general population would NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton, might just start rising to even higher numbers in the not too distant future, once Clinton is forced to start actually answering questions.
One has to wonder why the FBI and the Federal election officials have not been asking these questions and if they have, why we haven't heard anything about it?
Associating herself with crooks like Norman Hsu, criminal felons like Sandy Berger, corrupt officials like Mayor Samuel Rivera of NJ and donations from low income Chinese dishwashers that have denied making any donations or claimed to be "pressured" into it, just to name a small portion of the ethical problems already facing Hillary, is finally all coming to light in a very public manner.
What else is Hillary Clinton hiding and why?
Newsweek points to other transparency problems with Hillary. She wants to claim "experience" yet is hiding all papers relevant to said experience, until after the 2008 elections?
The response Smith got isn't unusual. Nearly three years after the Clinton Library opened—and more than 21 months after its trove of records became subject to the Freedom of Information Act—barely one half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mail messages at the federally funded facility are public, according to the National Archives. The lack of access is emerging as an issue in Hillary's presidential campaign: she cites her years of experience as First Lady as one of her prime qualifications to be president. Like other Democratic candidates, she has decried the "stunning record of secrecy" of the Bush administration; her campaign Web site vows to bring a "return to transparency" to government. But Clinton's appointment calendar as First Lady, her notes at strategy meetings, what advice she gave her husband and his advisers, what policy memos she wrote, even some key papers from her health-care task force—all of this, and much more documenting her years as First Lady, remains locked away, most likely through the entire campaign season. With nearly 300 FOIA requests pending for Clinton documents, and only six archivists at the library to process them, Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper says it is "really hard to predict" if any of this material will be released before the election.(Emphasis mine)
Read the whole Newsweek article... what IS she hiding so desperately?
Perhaps more news organizations should start asking her directly.
.
