The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.
And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs -- including dishwasher, server or chef -- that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.
Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.
Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton.This would seem to be an area where the FBI should be investigating if the donors actually gave of their free will, or if their contributions were 'bundled' and they were later illegally reimbursed. The story continues by saying, that at least some donors' existence could not even be confirmed. The Times wrote,
The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000.
In a recent visit, a man, apparently drunk, was asleep near the entrance to the neighboring beauty parlor, the Nice Hair Salon.
A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.
A man named Liang Zheng was listed as having contributed $1,000. The address given was a large apartment building on East 194th Street in the Bronx, but no one by that name could be located there.If Hillary is gaining illegal contributions that may be coming from foreign sources, or if her campaign is using asssociations to force residents to contribute, then they are breaking the law, and should be investigated and prosecuted. The LA Times admits that it was not able to confirm the existence of some of these listed donors. The question now is, will the media actually spend any effort in investigating these shadowy donors? Based on past experience, I'm not holding my breath. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.