Sant or Shaitan? S.S. Chatwal and the Clintons

Posted on by

The Washington Post has an in-depth exploration of the long-term connections between Bill and Hillary Clinton and Sant Singh Chatwal, a New York based businessman.

Alongside outsourcing, the connection to Chatwal is another of the issues raised by the Obama campaign memo back in June. Funny how that won’t go away.

I suppose there are two questions that come to mind. One is, is Chatwal merely a bad businessman, or an actual “crook”? He’s settled his debts to the IRS ($4 million), forfeited a building he owned that had a lien on it, and the $12 million loan he didn’t pay to the Bank of New York was eventually resolved in court (Chatwal had to pay $125,000). The Indian banks that had accused him of bank fraud eventually dropped the case against him. Chatwal’s lawyer puts it like this:

“The man came to this country, accumulated an empire, lost it during the time of real estate [softness], and has struggled and worked to try to pay off his debts,” said A. Mitchell Greene, Chatwal’s lawyer for 25 years. “It has been a long battle, but he has cleared up all of his obligations, and in the process he is trying to accumulate his wealth again.”

To my mind, he’s somewhere in between “failed investor” and “crook” (where “crook” admittedly isn’t so much meant as a legal term as it is a kind of moral judgment), partly because at the peak of his troubles he and his family continued to live pretty extravagantly — as if nothing were amiss.

The second question is, what is wrong with Hillary Clinton accepting campaign contributions from (and more importantly, through) Chatwal? If we presume that he’s now out of legal and financial trouble, is it unethical for Clinton to be involved with someone who was once in this kind of trouble? Most of the real pull that someone like Chatwal has comes through his connections, not his actual bank account (which may or may not have much dough in it); if Chatwal is accepted by the Indian-American community, how relevant are his personal financial and legal troubles? If you look at the bloggers who are most excited by this story, it’s mostly Republican blogs like “AgainstHillary.com”; clearly the right is going to want to spin this a certain way: Clinton accepts dirty money from crooked “foreign” businessmen (the Norman Hsu situation doesn’t help).

Is it possible to rise above the cloud of partisan spin, and evaluate this openly and honestly? How would we react to this if we were talking about a Republican candidate like Giuliani, rather than Clinton? Incidentally, the WaPo article I linked to above does mention some of the campaign contribution controversies that have come up with both Obama and Edwards, though the emphasis is really on Clinton.

24 thoughts on “Sant or Shaitan? S.S. Chatwal and the Clintons”

  1. I guess the Chapter 11 question is, does Vikram Chatwal have to stand in line at Tenjune these days?

  2. How would one react to this if we were talking about a Republican candidate like Giuliani, rather than Clinton?

    How would the Republican blogs have reacted if it were a crooked [/irony on] “American” [/irony off] businessman instead of a crooked “foreign” one?

  3. How would the Republican blogs have reacted if it were a crooked [/irony on] “American” [/irony off] businessman instead of a crooked “foreign” one?

    What’s odd is, there haven’t been any comparable allegations affecting Republican candidates thus far — even with “American” donors. Are the people giving money to Giuliani and Romney all clean as a whistle?

  4. Are the people giving money to Giuliani and Romney all clean as a whistle?

    Well, there just aren’t that many people give money to Giuliani and Romney. ;>)

    Besides, it’s really tough to be more crooked than a Republican politician.

  5. the most recent GOP one was Alan Fabian who raised for Mitt Romney… sure enough, alternet has coverage. It’s not quite the same (in Fabian’s case, the ‘bad’ money doesn’t look like it got bundled… yet… while in chatwal’s and Hsu’s, there’s some chance they were spending $$$ that belonged to their creditors…)

    But hey, politics is a dirty game on both sides of the aisle…

  6. How would the Republican blogs have reacted if it were a crooked [/irony on] “American” [/irony off] businessman instead of a crooked “foreign” one?

    With all those “sex scandals”, they dont have to worry about getting money from Bidnessmen, “phoren” or “Amrikan”. I think Republicans are pretty entertaining!. I dont know, what I would do without them, WORRRLD would be such a boring place.

  7. Runa, I was thinking exactly the same thing.

    Although, as the NYT quoted a Republican strategist saying [with respect to the recent slew of “sex” scandals], “YUou cannot make this stuff up!”

    vinod, Mitt Romney? Really? Please. 🙂

  8. partly because at the peak of his troubles he and his family continued to live pretty extravagantly — as if nothing were amiss.

    amardeep, this is the first time i am reading about his ‘loss of wealth’ and the extent of his indebtedness – i thought he was doing quite well, esp. b/c his financial troubles seemed to have started at just the time he and his son started making appearances on the society pages (desi and western), and esp. after that crazy big wedding for vikram…was the $12m loan for the wedding? (j/k)

    runa, though race/ethnicity has certainly played a vicious part in some campaigns (e.g. mccain’s bangladeshi-born daughter) the corruption angle is one that has dogged many candidates. also, the clintons have definitely had a history of shadiness in terms of donations and the people with whom they choose to associate – maybe it’s an easier target for the republicans to just add this one on and then bring up that history again.

    btw, i don’t have a (solid) opinion either way about this – but do people think that the two parties play the game differently when it comes to smear tactics? i have an inclination to say the republicans have been more viscious (e.g. patty dukakis as a target, clinton’s impeachment) but i’m wondering if that’s just a selective memory on my part.

  9. btw, i don’t have a (solid) opinion either way about this – but do people think that the two parties play the game differently when it comes to smear tactics?

    If you didn’t know already, who would you think ran this ad? Reps or Dems? 🙂

    I think there may be a difference in degree of corruption, but it is the Dems who modified many of the procedural rules when they were in the majority, to shut out Reps from the law-making process in the Congress. This came back to bite them in the ass when Reps upped the ante after capturing the House during Clinton’s presidency, and used those same rules to pass laws without much debate or participation by Dems during Bush presidency. Boston Globe did a feature story on it a while ago when the Dems cried wolf. Neither party plays clean.

  10. Politics are just dirty in general. I thought it was interesting that a week after articles were published about Chatwal hosting a huge fundraising dinner for Hillary, his restaurant (Bombay Palace) was shut down for a few weeks by the city health department. The restaurant posted signs saying closed for renovations but it was right above the health department notice. Makes me wonder, was this a political ploy or is he just irresponsible.

  11. what is wrong with Hillary Clinton accepting campaign contributions from (and more importantly, through) Chatwal

    Pretty much on the same lines as a battered women’s support group calling O.J to speak on domestic violence… he too was acquitted by a jury of his peers…

  12. I have seen brazen corruption from the local Democratic Politicians in the city of Detroit. Company I worked for loaned me to a business owned by the son of Wayne County Commissioner…surprisingly our company was awarded some no-bid work based upon flimsy reasoning…. Lets not forget that Congressman Jefferson guy found with 80,000 dollars in his freezer, or Sandy Berger absconding with National Archive documents or Hillary turning $1000 into $100,000 as a novice investor in commodities market, Budhist monks and Gore. Politicians from both parties are corrupt. Blame the individuals not the parties.

  13. Politicians from both parties are corrupt. Blame the individuals not the parties.

    I blame a campaign finance system that encourages corruption!

  14. There is clearly a conflation of scandals with Chatwal and Norman Hsu. The Hsu thing blew up first and now some other democratic donors are getting pulled into the fray. Hsu is a donor and “bundler” with no visible or verifiable income. Where is his money coming from? With Chatwal, it seems that he does or did have legitimate business interests which went sour. Hsu. Chatwal. it’s all good.

  15. I think Republicans are pretty entertaining!. I dont know, what I would do without them, WORRRLD would be such a boring place.

    I meant Republican Politicians!

  17. If you didn’t know already, who would you think ran this ad? Reps or Dems? 🙂

    speaking of ads, while the max cleland ad featured his likeness on the same screen as bin Laden and Hussein got a lot of attention, a similar (presumably) kerry attack ad on dean never quite got the same press.

  18.  Chatwal is news to the Washington Post, the newspaper which was and remains a cheerleader for the Iraq War.  The Washington Post decided that Bob Dole's longtime affair was not news, but every salacious story about Bill Clinton was.   The Washington Post's political writer in 2000 Ceci Connelly deliberately misquoted Gore on Love Canal then refused to apologize for her misquote which was corrected by High School Students. (See Daily Howler for details)  Why should we be surprised that the Washington Post features a photo of a turban wearing guy next to Bill Clinton (I thought Hillary was running for President)and proves in detail that businessmen sometimes fail and when they do they get sued?  It's funny how the article didn't mention any Republicans who have taken money from businessmen with lawsuits in their past.   Notice that Ghosh Nanga contributed to the story so we have to assume that an appeal to nativism had no part in the story.  Remember this is the paper which says it can't call the Iraq War a civil war until the US government calls it a civil war.

  19. What bothers me about Chatwal’s relationship to Hillary is that so many of his shenanigans were on public record even as he was a close personal friend of the Clintons. Chatwal wasn’t just another big money donor, he was someone they knew well and yet they continued to have him on as a fundraiser even as law enforcement in both the USA and India was on his tail for all his chicanery, con-artistry and overall thievery. It’s hard to keep count of how many people were bilked or even ruined by his treachery. It’s so frustrating, because it seems like every time a prominent Desi gets big media attention, he (or she) turns out to be a major crook, which continues to tarnish the image of Indians in the USA and abroad.

    FWIW, I won’t be voting for Hillary in the general election, even though I’ve been a Democrat-leaning Independent for many years. She’s just too much in bed with many of the worst corporate interests and war profiteers, this Iraq mess being just one example. I’d vote for and even contribute money to Obama if he was nominated, but I won’t support Hillary for any election she’s running for.

  20. And BTW, Hillary is also far too cozy with Rupert Murdoch among others. A slave to power IOW, and not someone that the Democrats should countenance.

  22. Here are a few mainstream media rules of thumb: Minority Democrats in public office are inspirational role models. Minority Republicans in public office are embarrassing sellouts.

    Minority Democrat politicians are principled. Minority Republican politicians are misguided. Minority Democrat politicians represent the hopes and dreams of all Americans. Minority Republican politicians are traitors to their “communities.” These rules are unwritten, of course, but the minority politician double standard is glaringly obvious in the national media fawning over U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Il.

  23. My father works with a government bank in India and has often times told me about how prominent families like the Chatwals are more on the crook side of the scale. Admittedly, all politicians have shady finances. But the Chatwal’s pattern of fiscal difficulties bears testimony to a naked finagling of the system. Beards and turbans aside, a crook is , despite any racial subtexts that may be perceived, a crook.

  24. i think he is a krooook of our times.he has all the money, but dos,t want to pay back,it is very interesting to know that he met the indian prime minister for only three seconds & his photo is all over in the news, he was declined a personel meeting with him, but since he is a big kroooook,he managed it all,& embarassed our HON;ABLE PM