Hillary Clinton Remains the Teflon candidate. About two weeks ago it was reported that something was fishy about some of her recent donations from Chinatown. As reported by Lee Cary in the American Spectator:

To date, here’s how major newspapers have covered the NYC Chinatown Donorgate story:

October 19: The Los Angeles Times reported that the Clinton campaign received $380,000 from poor Chinese living in largely ethnic New York City neighborhoods — one is heavily populated by “recent immigrants from Fujian Province.” One-third of 150 donors could not be located; many gave false addresses. Other donors found and interviewed gave varying motives for their contributions. “Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders.” Some cited an interest in immigration issues. One donor was proud to have had his picture taken with Mrs. Clinton — he sent it home to China.

October 20: New York Times reporter Patrick Healy, in “Clinton Returned $7,000, Campaign Said,” wrote that the campaign staff had “identified the concerns about the Chinatown fund-raising on its own,” and had already returned seven separate $1,000 donations. (Really, to whom? Those the L.A. Times couldn’t find? And only seven?) Healy quoted campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson — “Asian-Americans in Chinatown and Flushing have the same right to contribute as every other American.” (Who said they didn’t?)

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

October 22: The message of the Washington Post’s editorial, “Dishwashers for Clinton,” is reflected in its subtitle — “Once again, a zeal for campaign cash trumps common sense.” It’s just another instance, as with Norman Hsu, of carelessness born of zeal. The Post states that, “In the case of seven $1,000 contributions, donors did not respond, and their checks were returned, according to the campaign.” (How do you return checks to those who don’t respond?) The Post repeated Wolfson’s statement and recommended the campaign tighten its vetting process. (Tighten again?)

Thats it, the entire kit-n-kaboodle. Makes you kind of wonder if Ms Clinton was a republican would the press be reporting them. Or maybe they are afraid of Media Matters, Hillary’s media Police.

“The three tenement addresses of missing donors highlighted by the L.A. Times fit in a box roughly 100 by 200 yards within a neighborhood, inside Manhattan’s Chinatown, heavily populated by immigrants from the Fujian Province of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Fuzhou is the province’s main city.

……Fujian Province is a major base for operations for criminal brokers known as ‘snakeheads’ who, using contacts around the world, orchestrate the movement of illegal Chinese immigrants to the United States, Canada, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Australia.” A map of Fujian Province is featured on the cover of an August 2004 report entitled “Characteristics of Chinese Human Smugglers” issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.”

So these missing donors living in an area where human smugglers bring their “prey” and no one thinks its a story except for internet pundits?

It’s not unreasonable to suspect that the missing donors directed by community “associations” to give to the Clinton campaign are illegal Chinese immigrants smuggled into the U.S. by snakeheads who continue to wield control over them.

Did all the donors use their own money, or were some straw donors who were given money to donate? What do those who may have facilitated the violation of federal campaign laws hope to gain? Is their motive connected to the emerging struggle between Pro-PRC and Pro-Taiwan influences in major Chinatowns across the U.S.? What sort of influence might the unnamed “associations” hope to leverage concerning immigration policy?

These, and other questions, remain under-covered by the major newspapers who reported the Chinatown Donorgate story.

Meanwhile, Howard Wolfson played the Asian race card. Was that an effort to deflect attention away from what may be the real underlying race issue of this story? Namely, did the Clinton campaign financially benefit from the on-going plight of illegal Chinese immigrants? To assume that the campaign staff was unaware of scope of odd donations requires what a politician once called “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

Read Lee Cary’s full report at NYC Chinatown Donorgate Under-Covered