The reason you can't get the public excited about this is that it's "old news" that the Clintons are crooks.
Name that party: Chinatown
DON SURBER BLOG
If Hillary were a Republican, would AP wait until the 16th paragraph to say it couldn't find half her donors?
Three weeks after the Los Angeles Times broke the news that dishwashers and busboys "gave" $380,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Associated Press finally did its own reporting. It looked at a few donors and led its story with the sympathic plight of Hsiao Yen Wang and her husband, David Guo, "a cook who specializes in Fujian cuisine."
The FBI interviewed her. She told AP that she gave gladly. Still Clinton returned the money.
Paragraph 6 of the AP report:
Still, less than three weeks after the April 9 fundraiser, the Clinton campaign's vetting operation had flagged the check and returned it. Wang's contribution, delivered by Guo, was one of a handful obtained at the Chinatown event that the campaign turned back, citing an "abundance of caution."
Gosh, what a paragon of virtue that Hillary is.
It is not until Paragraphs 16 and 17 that AP admitted that the FBI may have reason to investigate.
The Associated Press conducted a spot check of 44 addresses listed in campaign finance documents as belonging to donors at the April 9 fundraiser. All the addresses checked out and reporters spoke to 19 persons who said they donated.
One address was a mahjong parlor. At another, a donor identified as a cashier could not be found, and the building superintendent said he had not heard of the person. Associates of some people listed as donors said they were in China and could not be contacted. Others did not return messages left with families.
In now 3 presidential campaigns the Clintons have faced serious accusations of taking money from foreign governments filtered through poor people. Remember how Buddhist monks "gave" money to the 1996 campaign?
To be sure, when you are raising that kind of money there are bound to be mistakes.
But it is not the AP's job to run interference for the Clintons. Yes, let them and their campaigns explain these things. But don't bury the lead in Pragraphs 16 and 17 and try to pass it off as objective journalism.
If you want to voice opinions, take a job as an editorial writer and get a blog.
Otherwise, be fair.
blogs.dailymail.com |
