Hillary-giver

I couldn't believe it when I heard Hillary Clinton was returning $850,000 in contributions linked to fugitive Norman Hsu.

Of course, it was the right thing to do. But since when does that mean anything with a Clinton?

TRENDING: Ben Carson stands for Trump, blasts impeachment, censorship, swamp-creature GOP in bold interview

I mean, $850,000 is a lot money. I wondered why she was so willing and eager.

It became clear this week.

On Wednesday, she told reporters those "returned" contributions would be welcome back into the campaign. All those "contributors" needed to do was to say the money came from their own personal funds.

Quite a scam.

It's reminiscent of turning a $10,000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 asset overnight.

In case you're not familiar with the background of the story, Hsu is a somewhat mysterious Chinese-American who became a major Democratic Party benefactor – even while being on the lam for a 1992 theft conviction in California.

Hsu not only wrote huge checks to Hillary and other Democrat politicians for 15 years as a fugitive from justice, he also apparently gave money to others so they could make contributions in their own names, thus avoiding campaign finance limitations on personal giving.

And that's the $850,000 Hillary returned this week – suspect funds connected to Hsu's suspected "bundling" efforts.

But should the money just be given back?

If those funds are believed to have been contributed to a campaign illegally, shouldn't the funds be turned over to the authorities and those who made the contributions investigated?

What was all that talk about "campaign finance reform"?

You mean to tell me if I make an illegal campaign contribution, I get the money back? That's my penalty?

It seems a little strange to me.

Further, it seems even more bizarre that all I need to do is give my word the money really came from me and I can send it back to the campaign.

Is this how it works?

Is this how it should work?

Of course not.

But think of all the illegal activities we've seen just in presidential election campaigns since 1992, when Bill Clinton first ran. We've seen our elections corrupted with unaccounted-for foreign cash from China and elsewhere. We've seen Hillary intimately involved in the details of raising illegal cash with no price to pay.

Why is it that the politicians get away with the crimes?

What kind of reform is that?

Shouldn't the politicians orchestrating the illegal giving, encouraging it and overlooking it be the people who face the consequences?

Wouldn't that be real reform?

Instead, we've got a system that punishes only the givers.

Does that make sense?

Doesn't it take two to tango?

"It was very difficult for us to make any decision other than returning the contributions that were in any way connected to him (Hsu), and that is what we decided to do," said Hillary.

However, she only did it because she expects at least part of those funds to come right back with notes exclaiming: "Hillary, please accept my contribution. I swear all the funds came right out of my own savings!"

That's the only way Hillary would give back $850,000. The fix is in.

Related special offers:

"Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton"

"I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words"

"Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists"