When does independence in a politician become inconsistency? Does it matter? An election held near my town this week says it does – and that inconsistency sometimes just doesn’t pay.

The race was for a state senate seat. The candidates were two experienced politicians – one an alderman in the state’s largest city, the other a former state senator trying to reclaim his old seat. The district sprawls over a Democrat-leaning large city and several GOP-leaning towns. In the previous two elections, the district alternated between Republican and Democratic winners. In short, the usual indicators showed no hard advantage for either of this week’s candidates.

The Democrat won, and it wasn’t close. “A stunning repudiation of the Trump-[state governor] agenda,” crowed the state Democratic director, in a statement that was probably drafted on election night 2016 and kept in a drawer for a day like yesterday.

Nice try at grabbing the credit, but neither the President nor the Governor had a thing to do with it. Consistency, and neighbors who respected it, made the difference.

The Democrat is a down-the-line party man. Local voters who agreed with him on issues had every reason to come out and vote.  Apparently, some voters who disagreed with him didn’t find a compelling alternative on the one-race ballot.

The Republican, a nice enough guy with a positive voting record in many respects, was nevertheless inconsistent. Sometimes he voted along party lines, sometimes he didn’t, and sometimes he see-sawed on a topic.

  • The state party is pro-right-to-work and anti-casino (the latter, mostly because of the effect a casino would have on local small businesses in the hospitality and lodging industries). This week’s candidate was the opposite.
  • The candidate supported Medicaid expansion when it came up for a vote a couple of years ago, despite uncertainty in how to fund it – effectively making a promise to indigent residents without having the resources to back it up.
  • The party, on paper anyway, is pro-life; the candidate had been on the prevailing side five years ago when the state senate rejected an informed-consent-for-abortion measure on a 12-11 vote. Even so, he had pro-life votes as well over the years, including a splendid series of votes against anti-First-Amendment zones outside abortion facilities.

Call it independence or call it inconsistency, but it didn’t work out for him this week, even though he may be a nice guy and an experienced public servant. In a special election, with nothing else on the ballot, too many people couldn’t get excited enough over his mixed record to get to the polls.

I overheard a conversation this morning between a state GOP official and a GOP state representative. The party official detailed the things the party had done in the state senate race: door knocking, phone calls, ads, poll standers, the whole routine. The state rep then gently broke the news to her: it wasn’t the party that lost the election. It was the candidate. “That Medicaid expansion vote killed him.” And that was a friend of the candidate talking.

Independence of mind and spirit and conscience – that’s one thing. Throwing on a party’s mantle and expecting it to cover a multitude of inconsistencies – that’s another. When there’s only one race on the ballot, a candidate’s record looms large.

Here I’ll quote Skip Murphy of Granite Grok, a friend of DTG, who has been known to preach this particular message with a revivalist’s fervor: consistency breeds trust yields votes. 

Inconsistency breeds special election result like yesterday’s.

Ellen Kolb blogs about New Hampshire life-issue policy at Leaven for the Loaf and looks farther afield in ellenkolb.com

By John Ruberry

Donald J. Trump may not be going through a witch hunt, but he’s surely the only president to face so many attempts to remove him from office.

What follows is a brief summary of the plots.

Shortly after his surprise win over Hillary Clinton, Democrats and their media wing tried to delegitimize his triumph by claiming that Russians, meaning of course Vladimir Putin, hacked the election results. To date no evidence has emerged of a single vote changed because of Russian interference. And the liberals also claimed that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the presidency.

In December, shortly before the Electoral College met in the 50 state capitols and the District of Columbia, a group of has-been Hollywood celebrities calling themselves Unite for America released a video asking Republican electors to vote for someone other than Trump. Another group, the Hamilton Electors, also unsuccessfully made a similar call out to the electors.

The Electoral College didn’t punt–Trump won the most electors.

The following month a smattering of Democrats tried to convince Congress not to certify the Electoral College results. A few days after Trump was inaugurated a leftist group sued him, claiming that Trump was in violation of the obscure emoluments clause in the Constitution because a representative of a foreign government, might, just might, stay at a Trump Organization hotel. Remember, just a few days later. Besides, the president removed himself from running the company.

In May there was a spike in impeachment calls after the president fired FBI Director James Comey, citing obstruction of justice. Late last month Trump Tweeted about the MSNBC show “Morning Joe,” drawing attention to a facelift of co-host Mika Brzezinski.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsWhich led to calls by Democrats to have Trump removed from office under the 25th Amendment, calling into question his mental health.

Blogger with a man claiming to be Trump

The latest impeachment dustup centers on his son, Donald Trump Jr., meeting with some Russian operatives last summer, which have brought new life to the collusion charges. Let’s dial this back. Trump’s son met with some Russians, so the president should be removed from office. Trump Jr. met with those Russians. Not the president. If that makes sense to you–then you are probably a leftist.

Let’s not forget the regular stoking of the ouster flames with the regular calls for Trump to release his tax returns–although there is no legal requirement for any president to do so.

You know what? All of this sounds like a witch hunt to me.

Or, as Lou Dobbs said on Fox Business last week, “This is about a full-on assault by the left–the Democratic Party–to absolutely carry out a coup d’etat against President Trump, aided by the left-wing media.”

Yep. A witch hunt. Definitely.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Graphic courtesy of the Illinois Policy Institute

By John Ruberry

On Thursday the Democratic-dominated Illinois House, with aid of ten Republicans, overrode Governor Bruce Rauner’s veto of a 32 percent income tax hike. The corporate rate jumped by 35 percent.

Apologists for the income tax increase love to point out that many states have higher income tax rates, but last week’s override places Illinois within the top 20 of the 50 states. And these tax lovers always leave out some painful facts. For instance, while sales tax rates vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, Illinois’ sales tax rates are very high across the board. Chicagoans, at 10.25 percent, pay America’s highest sales taxes. And depending on who you talk to, Illinoisans suffer under America’s largest property tax burden–or they are near the top. Chicagoans deal also suffer with nuisance taxes such as a seven-cents-per-bag tax at grocery stores, and had a judge not temporarily struck down a Cook County–where Chicago is–a penny-per-ounce sugary drink tax would be in place right now. Food stamp recipients don’t have to pay those last two. And those nuisance taxes add up, of course.

As a lifetime resident of Illinois, I can assure you that the services we receive from the state are terrible. Last year the Chicago Tribune phrased it more eloquently, “As a result, Illinois government is a massive retirement system that, during work hours, also offers some services.”

Illinois’ personal income tax rate is now at 4.95 percent and the corporate rate is now 7 percent, but because of a local only-in-Illinois 2.5 percent state personal property replacement tax, the corporate rate is really 9.5 percent, which makes the overall rate the fourth-highest in the nation.

And before these tax hikes Illinois was one of the few states losing population.

So ends the Prairie State’s national record two-year span of operating without a budget.

“Shake Up Springfield, Bring Back Illinois”

Governor Rauner, a Republican, was elected by voters to, as his campaign slogan vowed, “Shake Up Springfield.” While never averse to a tax increase, Rauner, who never held public office before, said he’d approve one as long as it included such items as term limits, redistricting reform, workers’ compensation law changes, and property tax freezes. House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), who has held his job for 32 of the last 34 years, of course views term limits as anathema to him, and this master gerrymanderer created legislative maps that gave the Democrats supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly in the first two years of Rauner’s term. The Dems still have a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

One of the reasons the Republican General Assembly members who sided with Madigan gave for their votes was that Moody’s and S&P warned that if Illinois didn’t have a budget in place for fiscal year 2018 its bonds would be rated as junk. Guess what? Moody’s says it might downgrade Illinois’ bonds anyway. The new taxes don’t address how Illinois will tackle its $100 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. Pension payments already consume a whopping one-quarter of the Illinois budget. And even assuming enough funds are there for Illinois schools to open in the fall, more legislation is needed for allocating that cash. The state has over $15 billion in unpaid bills-which is over 40 percent of the ’18 budget. That backlog will take years to pay off. Adding to the debacle is a late June ruling by a federal judge for Illinois to pay $586 million per month to bring down its past-due Medicaid bills. Which means that other vendors will have to wait even longer to get paid. How many of them will go out of business waiting for their bills to be settled?

Didn’t I mention that Illinois is losing population?

Blogger at the border

At best, the Illinois budget deal is a band-aid for much more serious problems.

Rauner is a candidate for reelection in 2018. That task was made more difficult by the manner that the tax hike was passed. In the first go-round 15 Republicans–the Madigan 15–voted for the tax hike. That allowed Boss Madigan, who has been chairman of the state Democratic Party since 1998, to allow, yes, allow 11 Democrats in vulnerable districts to vote “No.” In the override vote, four of the Madigan 15 voted “No.” Another one missed the roll call. Of course Madigan “found” the other five votes among his caucus.

Democratic candidates for governor are of course calling the tax increase “bi-partisan.”

But already one Madigan 15 member has announced he’s not running for reelection.

In my opinion bankruptcy, even though it will be called something else, is still coming to Illinois, despite this budget “fix.”

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

One final thought about #ga06 a lot of you who are proclaiming this a defeat for democrats for silly reasons like this

are missing the point.

I mean sure if your actual goal was to win the election and send a Democrat to be a minority member of congress and create a false “Trump is losing” meme then yes GA06 is an unmitigated disaster.

But if you are a member of the professional Democrat political/media class this was a huge success.

If you are a professional Democrat fundraiser you were able to bring in tens of millions of dollars and you got your percentage of the funds to allow you to live in the manner that you have become accustomed to and more importantly you are able to tell the next sacrificial lamb: “Hey If I was able to raise $23 mil for a loser so pathetic that he proposed to his girl of 12 years to try to get elected think of what I can do for a bright (insert SJW approved pronoun here) like you!”

If you are an employee of said fundraiser you not only got a paycheck (likely nothing better than minimum wage certainly not the 15 an hour living wage) but you have “fundraiser for Ossoff” on your resume and the next pol looking to hire is not going to see the “L” he’s going to see the “$23 mil” in his head.

If you are a consultant hired by the Ossoff campaign you not only got a big share of that $23 million to continue to live in the lifestyle that you’ve become accustomed to but you made the hiring decision on who to spend a good chunk of that $23 mil on meaning that hundreds, perhaps thousands of people are dependent on you for patronage and a paycheck and thus loyal. Furthermore you got to decide what companies made signs and what properties were rented by the campaign and thus you are a source of patronage to them (presuming you actually pay those bill rather than leave them as bad debts)

Meanwhile if you are media, you didn’t, particularly if you are a guest commentator you did OK yourself.

Your network and newspaper got weeks of content out of this election with most of the information provided to you by said consultant or employees of said consultant who were happy to provide you the exact pro-democrat spin you were looking to hear before the election was won, and then are willing to provide the so-called “inside dirt” as to who to blame for its loss (you will note that the person blamed will never be said consultants).

And even if you are one of those hollywood or Cape Cod Millionaires whose money was wasted, you’re disappointed but not unhappy for three reasons.

While $23 million sounds like a lot, the reality is for most of you the money you gave is like a regular person putting 50 cents in a pinball machine to play a game, it doesn’t make a dent of a dent on your finances.

You have made said consultants and fundraisers defer to you as a person to be solicited, meaning said people will grovel toward you feeding your ego

At the same time your ego is being fed, you are also virtue signaling, for what counts as pocket change to you, you are able to claim the mantle of liberal morality so no matter how little actual virtue you have, if you cheat on your wife, ignore the actual poor in your neighborhood et/al you can point to this and to the liberal left all your sins are washed away.

This isn’t an election, it’s a Ponzi scheme, and you dear regular liberal who isn’t rich or connected who sent $20 you couldn’t afford and got your hopes up, are the mark. and these are the folks who played you as RedState notes

This flush campaign chest meant that his campaign resembled a military operation, and with it he enjoyed a wildly imbalanced advantage over Handel in many crucial categories:

 

ADVERTISING

Ossoff: $11.2 million

Handel: $1.3 million

 

CAMPAIGN STAFF

Ossoff: 170 members

Handel: 14 members

 

POLLING/FOCUS GROUPS

Ossoff: 1.7 million

Handel: $374K

And all those folks played you perfectly, in other words, Georgia 6 was a perfect success!


If you like a site that will tell uncomfortable truths that the MSM does not and if you think this site and our writers are worthwhile goal consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.  And new subscribers will get a copy of my book coming out soon Hail Mary the perfect Protestant (and Catholic) prayer from Imholt Press. Unlike the Georgia 6th Democrat Ponzi scheme you know what you’re buying here.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in we are happy to get your prayers.

The Early Election in England backfired on Theresa May in a big way.

There has been a lot of speculation as to why this is the case, but I think it comes down to one simple thing.

People don’t like their kids blown up or their fellows stabbed when out on the town. Furthermore they really don’t like paying to support the people who do it nor encourage it done.

In fact the only reason why Theresa May’s program of protecting people from Pam Geller and Robert Spencer on the grounds that their warning about those trying to kill them will provide an excuse for people to kill them vs protecting them from those who never needed an excuse to kill them didn’t lead to a Labor’s majority is that Labor is even less likely to do the job then she is.

Update: Today’s British leadership in two tweets

Some kind of mask at the Chicago Moons the Trump Tower rally two months ago

By John Ruberry

On Saturday, three days before the deadline to file 2016 federal income tax returns, there were a couple of dozen rallies across the nation that called for President Donald J. Trump to release his returns to the public.

The republic somehow managed to survive nearly 200 years before Richard M. Nixon, under pressure by the way, became the first president to release his federal tax returns.

Yesterday I worked. I was building my income for next year’s tax deadline date, so I cannot pass on my eyewitness observations on any of yesterday’s anti-Trump rallies. But as with another tax-related anti-Trump gathering, one that I did see in person, Chicago Moons the Trump Tower, according to media reports, there were many colorful costumes, including masks, as well as meticulously designed signs. Leftist rallies are part protest and part Mardi Gras. For the progs these festivals are nothing more than a way to blow off steam, and a less expensive method than a session at a shrink’s office, unless, of course, you spent a lot of money on your Trump mask with devil horns, bright orange hair, and a Hitler mustache.

The mainstream media, that is the anti-Trump media, fawned over this springtime Festivus, unlike the dismissive tone they took with the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party rallies, which were arguably the halcyon moment of the Tea Party movement, that is, until Trump’s election last year.

Blogger running the Boston Marathon in 2004

“Someone should look into who paid for the small organized rallies yesterday. The election is over,” Trump tweeted this morning. And yes the election is indeed over. Despite last year’s haranguing by the Democrats and their media allies, Trump still won the presidency even though he didn’t make his returns public. That bus left the station. Very few Americans passionately care about Trump’s tax returns, unlike such concerns as keeping more of their income.

But there is an upside to Saturday’s frivolities. At least those leftists who designed those striking Trump masks already have their Halloween costume in hand. Make Halloween Great Again.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

 

Bob:No no, kamo perolalosi, meredite, nokolapati pob lakino lapa lamakine pukete. PERO NO! Labi bibap, nure barata, papu tabushi,…[laughs]…So… instoo meradante, la pate, yes ki giban, PATUTEE!!!

Minions 2015

Now that hopeful spin for the left for an upset in Kansas were proven baseless,  Democrats having no bench and still smarting from Hillary’s defeat have decided to learn the exact wrong lesson from the election of Donald Trump.

Actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus says she has been asked by top Democrats to run for office.

The star of “Veep” responded that it will never happen, according to the Washington Post.

Because nothing says “winning” like reviving the old “I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV meme:

In fact the New Republic has been all aboard the celebrity express for a bit:

Democrats would do well to embrace her and fellow Hollywood stars. The party could recruit Streep and others to bait Trump, and perhaps, as Moore suggested, groom some to be presidential candidates. In 2020, the Democrats could run Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Beyonce, Matt Damon, or Rosie O’Donnell. Some might guffaw at this idea. After all, wouldn’t running a celebrity candidate further associate Democrats with coastal elitism? But Democrats’ main problem last year wasn’t in appealing to anti-elitist voters; it was in getting out the party’s base. A magnetic, attractive movie star would have a far better chance of accomplishing that than just another accomplished, dowdy politician.

Of course Trump one advantage that a lot of celebs did not. He actually had decades of running a business empire before he ever appeared on TV and while his celebrity certainly helped in terms of bypassing the media (something a liberal celeb doesn’t need to do)and establishing a persona (which was no different than his existing reputation) based on the interviews I did during the primaries of voters, it wasn’t his celebrity that put him over the top as much as the combination of his business experience and his willingness to say bluntly things people were afraid to.

Of course a celebrity candidate might energize low information voters on the left and if the Democrats want to run someone who will just be a figurehead for the deep state they’re welcome to do so, but I suspect even with yesterday’s defeat in Kansas in a race against a weak opponent after 90 continuous days of attacks on both the GOP and the President, they haven’t quite reached the point where they go with a King Bob slate.

Even if he does give one hell of a speech.


If you think this and all we do is worthwhile and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

The urgency of national news sometimes casts local politics into the shade. Watch out for that. I spent the last election season preaching “downballot” to anyone who would listen. I have no regrets, in view of some of the issues coming up in my area at the state and local levels that are sure to be reflected in federal policy a few years down the road. Furthermore, the candidates succeeding locally are apt to look to higher office sooner or later.

This came to mind as my Facebook feed kicked up a new ad, inviting me to “like” a Model Citizen’s new page. My internal alarms went off. This MC ran last cycle for mayor of the largest city in the state, and lost by a whisker. She’s back for another crack at it.

Ms. Model Citizen was endorsed last time around by EMILY’s List, which was established for exactly one reason: to elect pro-abortion women. Ms. MC downplayed that in her last campaign. The EMILY’s List material promoting her, knowing that the unrestricted-abortion line wouldn’t play well in the city, emphasized her aldermanic experience. I’m betting on the same game plan this time.

And when that happens, it’ll be last time all over again: ask any ten likely voters in that city if they’d support a pro-abortion candidate for mayor, and most would say no. Ask them if they’ve ever heard of EMILY’s List, and nine of them would go “huh?” But ask them if they’d support the alderman from ward X, and it’s a different story.

The last time the mayor of the largest city in the state ran for higher office, he wound up in Congress. Local experience and name recognition counted heavily.

It’s not just the prospect of upward mobility that gives me pause; it’s the more immediate effect on local policy. Who determines local school policies, as least as far the feds allow? Who lends credibility to certain groups by marching or volunteering with them? Who names volunteers to local committees? Who determines the priorities in municipal budgets?

Yup: the locals. While Sean Spicer is briefing reporters about developments in Washington, there’s plenty going on in your own town, without much publicity.

Watch those candidates, whenever your local elections may be. Watch those campaign finance reports. Shine a light on stealth efforts, like EMILY’s List mailings that fail to mention abortion advocacy. Care now, because you can be sure there are interest groups who would be happy for you to leave the caring to them.

Ellen Kolb blogs about New Hampshire life-issue policy at Leaven for the Loaf and looks farther afield in ellenkolb.com

Strike a blow for independent journalism by subscribing to Da Blog!

if you like what you see from our full time twice a week writers like JD Rucker (Thursday Afternoons and Sunday Evenings) Fausta Rodriguez Wertz (Wednesday and Friday Afternoons) Baldilocks (Tuesday and Saturday Evenings) Our Weekly Writers like Zilla of the Resistance (Friday Evenings) RH (NG36B) Saturday Afternoon , John (Marathon Pundit) Ruberry (Sunday afternoons) Pat Austin (Monday Afternoons) and Christopher Harper (Tuesday Afternoons) Our part Time Writers Jerry Wilson (Most Thursdays), Michigan Mick (Twice a month on Mondays), Pastor Kelly (occasional Fridays), and our monthly/substitute writes Ellen Kolb, Tech Knight and Jon Fournier (Wednesday evenings) then please consider subscribing to help me pay them.


Choose a Subscription level



Your subscription pays the writes (except the two who won’t take pay) and helps me toward my goal of not just posting daily but doing this full time again. You will also get our podcasts directed mailed to you ahead of others.

Or If you want to help with the incidental bills (like the massive hospital bills coming or the cost of the used car I need) but don’t want a monthly commitment please consider hitting daTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

And if you aren’t inclined or in a position to kick in financial

During one of my more heated exchanges with the liberal NIRFTA folks at CPAC I was asked if I believed that three million voted illegally last time around and tried to refer them to this piece on the subject. But at Granite Grok they noticed another source of shall we say interesting votes

Eleven out-of-state UNH students were arrested Wednesday 02/23/2017 on criminal mischief charges during the Patriots over-celebration. I checked the Durham voter checklist today for coincidences and had six coincidences pop up.

Garrett Colantino, 22, of Reading, Mass. – A Garrett John Colantino is NH voter #300469904

Elizabeth Connolly, 19, of Dorchester, Mass. – An Elizabeth Mary Connolly is NH voter # 300469921

Sophia Benedetti, 20, of Danbury, Conn. – A Sophia Marie Benedetti is NH voter # 300471995

Jean Douglas, 19, of Canandaigua, N.Y. – A Jean Riley Douglas is NH voter # 300467558

Reid Shostak, 19, of Augusta, Maine, A Reid Quin Shostak is NH voter # 300437735

Michael Barbieri, 19, of Newton, Mass. There are TWO! One is a NH voter. Checking police records. For one of the two middle names I have. I will have birth dates shortly. The week is young.

It’s even more fun if you extrapolate the math out

Since UNH has about 10,000 students and about half are out-of-state tuition kids, this random sample provided by the Durham Police may indicate, statistically, that we have a number to work with if we want to measure non-citizen voters. Just for arguments sake, how about 2,500 just from UNH.

Stuff like this is one of the reasons why the MSM never interviews Ed Naile or any of the Grok team on the subject.  They know too much, have written about it too long and backs up what he says

And while I wait for my helpers to dig up birth dates on the Durham coincidences I will use resources I have to see if any of these coincidences voted at their legal domicile the ones they gave the Superior Court and Durham Police. The one on their driver’s licenses. The domicile they pay out-of-state tuition fromwhere they are liable for state income taxes, etc.

Maybe I will go to Concord and see if I can get them all a NH fishing license. Oh, wait. You need a valid NH ID to get a fishing license.

Yet you don’t need one to vote in the state.

If you wondered how Hillary managed to hold NH and why Kelly Ayotte is not still in the Senate, now you know.

China’s bid to influence the 1996 election for Bill Clinton stands as one of the most damning examples of foreign interference in the U.S. political process.

Unfortunately, the Chinese connection has largely been forgotten, including its continuation in Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.

Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign received millions of dollars in illegal contributions from Chinese donor that were channeled through the Democratic National Committee, according to a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform.

Johnny Chung, a businessman born in Taiwan, had a partner, Liu Chaoying, a high-ranking military leader and intelligence officer in China. Liu wired hundreds of thousands of dollars, which illegally went to the DNC. The duo also sent campaign funds to U.S. Sen. John Kerry for his reelection bid to the Senate. Liu’s father was one of Mao’s fellow travelers.

Chung visited the White House nearly 50 times—most of them authorized by Hillary Clinton. In one visit, Hillary met with Chung and his visiting delegation of Chinese businessmen from state-run companies. After another visit, Chung paid the DNC $50,000. In exchange, Chung was allowed to bring some of his investors to see the president deliver one of his radio addresses.

Another operative for the Clintons was John Huang, who raised millions of dollars for Dollar Bill in the Asian-American community. In 1996, Huang bundled $3.4 million for the DNC—much of which was returned after a Senate investigation found that the contributions were illegal.

Charlie Trie owned a restaurant in Little Rock that was frequented by his friend then-Governor Clinton. After Clinton won the presidency, Trie went to Washington to cash in on their friendship. He thought his association could help him develop more business contacts in Asia. One of them was Hong Kong businessman Ng Lap Seng. Seng would wire a million dollars to Trie. From 1994 to 1996, Trie directly sent $200,000 to the DNC. Trie provided the rest of the money to other people who later sent that money to the DNC. Trie also helped raised another $640,000 for Bill Clinton’s Legal Defense Fund.

According to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 94 people were called to testify about the illegal campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton campaign and the DNC. Of nearly 100 people called before the committee, 57 invoked the Fifth Amendment, 18 fled the country and 19 foreign witnesses refused to testify.

But the China connection to the Clintons didn’t end there. A Chinese billionaire gave the Clinton Foundation $2 million in 2013. The Justice Department investigated the payment from Wang Wenliang, a former delegate to the Chinese parliament. No charges were filed.

Fast forward to Hillary’s 2016 campaign and the Wikileaks emails from the DNC.

The Chinese ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, requested a meeting with Hillary Clinton’s top aides in January 2016, according to an internal email circulated among the former Secretary of State’s senior presidential campaign officials.

“Chinese Ambassador Cui invited me over to the residence Tuesday for a coffee and to make a request. He wants to have an informal, private, off the record get together with a few of us to discuss the next year and the current state of US-China affairs,” wrote Clinton campaign aide Kurt Campbell in the Jan. 7, 2016, email to campaign head John Podesta.

“He asked me to host a social meal at my house in the next month. He was fairly insistent and indicated that he wanted to pass along some perspectives. I told him I’d reach out to you all to see about your judgement [sic] on this and possible availability. I’m happy to make some chili and cornbread by the fire but let’s first decide whether this makes sense. Please let me know your thinking,” Campbell wrote.

Somehow these deep connections between the Clintons and the Chinese have gone mostly unnoticed in the current kerfuffle about foreign involvement in presidential elections.

Christopher Harper is a visiting Scholar in China