MyDD :: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud

Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud

by Shaun Appleby, Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:19:47 PM EST

Well, the other shoe has dropped in the Norman Hsu case according to the AP this morning:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Federal prosecutors unsealed a criminal complaint Thursday charging Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu with breaking campaign finance laws and creating a "massive" Ponzi scheme.

The complaint says Hsu - who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and others - violated campaign finance laws by making contributions to candidates in other people's names and perpetrated a Ponzi scheme to defraud victims across the United States of more than $60 million.

Pat Milton - AP Sep 20, 07 2:33 PM EDT

In spite of the prompt response of the Clinton campaign to return the $860k of donations bundled by Hsu it would seem that there is little hope of the monies being re-contributed by the original donors if a substantial portion of these monies are found to have been made through straw donors as is alleged in these charges. There is no suggestion of culpability on the part of the campaign but it cannot be welcome news given the significant amount, approximately 2%, of the total funds raised for her campaign.

The money was apparently obtained through a scheme which defrauded investors of up to $60M for non-existent deals to provide bridging finance for the manufacture of designer label fashion clothing in China. Apparently these monies were then used to make contributions to Democratic candidates, primarily Clinton but also including Obama, Kennedy and others in the Democratic party. There was also at least one contribution to a Republican campaign as well. Which of these contributions violated Federal law by being made illegally through other people's identities is not clear. It may turn out that campaigns which donated these contributions to charity when the original fraud allegations were revealed should have held them in escrow pending this investigation and potentially returned to the defrauded investors.

Norman Hsu's motives are difficult to discern, from all accounts he represents no special interest and sought only to be photographed with the candidates and included in the social milieu surrounding the fund-raising activities themselves.

This will certainly insure a regime of closer scrutiny on bundler contributions by all campaigns with commensurate administrative overheads, but may prove too late to contain the damage to public confidence caused by this incident. I can think of no stronger argument for a return to public campaign finance and expect this issue to become a topic for discussion in the campaign itself. I would be disappointed if it doesn't.

[Update] Copy of the Criminal Complaint

Tags: election2008, norman hsu, campaign finance, hillary clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 52 Comments :: Post a Comment

hey shaun (2.00 / 1)

get ready for Hillary's people to say Obama and Edwards did it too

no matter what it is

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:24:23 PM EST

Re: hey shaun (2.00 / 1)

yeah, even though Obama has sent letters out to all those affected in his "pre-presidential" fundraising and are awaiting responses from donors if they want the refund. But again, we are dealing with "raising funds for a presidential campaign", meaning here and now. And that video from Hardball, tells the whole story about the Clinton Campaign. Paid for by the corporate lobbyists.

by iamready on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you even read the diary? (none / 0)

get ready for Hillary's people to say Obama and Edwards did it too

no matter what it is

Did what too? Hillary Clinton received a donation and returned it. Does it anywhere say that she is responsible for the means by which he obtained the money? No.

So what's your point?

This was a (very succinct) summary of what Hsu allegedly did and its impact on future campaigns.

While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

So that the Bush/Cheney DOJ could file cases like these for maximum political gain.

by hwc on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:25:41 PM EST

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (2.00 / 1)

Do you really think that is what is going on here? We have been discussing this tangentially in recent days and I have had my doubts given the disappearance of millions on the one hand and the appearance of large sums from this particular bundler on the other. Who do you think is making this up? The prosecutor?

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no one's explained (none / 0)

how a postal carrier can donate more than his salary in political contributions

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no one's explained (none / 0)

Well it seems that horse has already bolted but in all fairness the Paws haven't been reported as being named in the complaint. Yet.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

It is called "denial", even though the "facts and evidence" are in your face.

by iamready on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

Of course, it's what's going on here. Look, the facts may be that Hsu is a con artist. But, this has all the earmarks of a politicized DOJ prosecution, starting with the leaks to the Wall Street Journal that got people asking questions about Hsu. It's no different than the US Attornies who were fired because they didn't bring charges to embarrass Democrats.

It's business as usual. Part of the game. I don't begrudge the Republicans. It is frustrating that Democratic Party supporters, here and elsewhere, buy into it and help push the Republican agenda.

by hwc on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (2.00 / 1)

Well there may be more of the same coming our way, via the WSJ, as you noted:

BRISTOW, Va. -- When Hillary Rodham Clinton held an intimate fund-raising event at her Washington home in late March, Pamela Layton donated $4,600, the maximum allowed by law, to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.

But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were reimbursed by her husband's boss for the donations. "It wasn't personal money. It was all corporate money," Mrs. Layton said outside her home here. "I don't even like Hillary. I'm a Republican."

[snip - employer Mr. Danielczyk denies allegations]

Asked about the donations bundled by Mr. Danielczyk, Mrs. Clinton's campaign said yesterday it would return the $9,200 donated by Mr. and Mrs. Layton.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said: "These allegations are troubling and we will again ask each of the individuals solicited by Mr. Danielczyk to affirm that their contributions were given with their own funds." Mr. Wolfson said the campaign will return any contributions that didn't come from the donor's own money.

WSJ - Brody Mullins and Ianthe Jeanne Dugan Sep 20, 07

I hope you don't think I am buying into right-wing frames with this, but it is troubling. There seems to be a micro-trend emerging here. I was really hoping to open a discussion about public campaign finance with this diary as well as follow up on the Hsu case, it seems about time.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (2.00 / 1)

Well, that kind of stuff surely goes on with every single candidate, except maybe Mike Gravel, who I don't think has raised $4,600 yet.

It's one thing to say that you should check out your million-dollar fundraisers more closely, but obviously there's no way on earth anyone could have known that this couple got reimbursed by their boss. So it means nothing to me either way.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:31:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

Well, it means that the $4600 campaign contribution limit has just nudged the fund-raising into yet another grey area for every candidate. I agree that it is absurd for a campaign to be expected to vet the bank account records of every donor and even then they have no practical way of insuring that these kind of violations have not occurred.

Looks like it is public campaign finance or nothing and I would like to see that point addressed in this campaign by someone. As far as I can see Senator Obama is still the only candidate advocating significant overhaul of the current system and no-one seems particularly interested.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

I support public financing so you'll get no argument from me on that score.

As to the donation rules, since we can't really expect the campaign to detect these sorts of things, the way we enforce them is by making it illegal for the DONOR to circumvent the limits. This couple's boss, if the offense can be proven, might face fines or jail time. Generally, that's enough to dissuade people from crossing the line.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

You are aware that the campaigns make donors fill out a form confirming that the contributions are made from their own funds and providing all of the required employeement information, etc.?

Clinton Donation Link

Confirm Your Eligibility

By checking this box, I confirm that the following statements are true and accurate:

This contribution is made from my own funds, and not those of another.

This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.

I am not a Federal government contractor.

I am not a foreign national who lacks permanent resident status in the United States.

I am at least 18 years of age.

This contribution is made on a personal credit or debit card for which I have the legal obligation to pay, and is made neither on a corporate or business entity card nor on the card of another.

Sounds like to me that the "Republican wife who didn't want to attend the fundraiser" may have attempted to mislead the Clinton campaign. Why am I not surprised that the Wall Street Journal failed to mention these donor forms? I wonder if she was wearing a Linda Tripp wire?

by hwc on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

Yes, I understand the point about the donor form. The woman was inditing herself with her statement. The point is that the form doesn't seem to prevent these things from occurring and the ethical, if not legal, onus is on the campaign.

I doubt this is entrapment but the whole system seems to be unwieldy and unworkable.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

Flawed though the system may be, why are Democrats attacking Democrats over something that every political campaign in the country encounters? Look it up...there isn't a campaign anywhere, in either party, that doesn't have to refund some donations along the way.

This is like the Wall Street Journal running an article from unnamed sources who saw a Democrat going above 65 mph on the highway. And then, silly Democrats, jumping on the story.

Here's a shocker. I bet that half of the husband and wife $4600 donations are really coming just from one or the other.

by hwc on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:18:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (2.00 / 1)

The New York office has traditionally been one of the most independent US Attorneys' offices out there. I believe that's still true.

According to the NYT, Hsu was supposedly the organizer of a $60 million Ponzi scheme. It seems like the contributions to Hillary and other Democrats may have been a small part of the overall scheme; I really doubt he stole all that money just to give it to Democrats out of the goodness of his heart.

We have no way of knowing if the charges are true, obviously, but we do know the guy was already a fugitive from justice and therefore a slippery character. I think it's jumping to conclusions to suggest there's something political about this prosecution.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:51:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

So far the total of his contributions to all campaigns comes in at about $1.6M but until all campaigns reveal the associations of their bundlers with the individual contributions which they have bundled, which they are not required to do by law, we won't know.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Correction (none / 0)

his contributions should read his bundled contributions

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

Steve:

The prosecution may be completely warranted. But, if the NY prosecutors office is so apolitical, where did all the leaks to the Republican house paper (the Wall Street Journal) come from? Haven't you put 2 and 2 together with the DOJ attorneygate? The whole point was to stock the pond with partisan prosecutors who would make maximum political advantage of every opportunity for prosecution that came their way.

by hwc on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

Yeah, but who's the partisan prosecutor in this case? There were no firings in the SDNY. The US Attorney here is Michael Garcia and I've never heard anything bad about him.

I mean, the leak is one thing, although I don't think the WSJ's reporting team (as opposed to the editorial board) is a bunch of Republican hacks. But the prosecution itself sounds legit at this point, until I see a reason to think otherwise, which makes the whole thing kind of moot.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

I have no doubt that the prosecution is legit. It's the pattern of leaks to the offical newspaper of the Republican Party that make me smell a political rat.

I don't even have a problem with Republican oppo researchers digging into every Democratic contributor. I'm sure that the Clinton oppo researchers are doing the same thing. What I have a problem with is Democratic supporters buying into the Republican oppo research memes, hook, line, 'n sinker.

BTW, I expect the NYTIMES to be the official newspaper of the Clinton campaign during the fall election.

by hwc on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

Well they are running the story too. With a link to the WSJ piece cited above as well as the one in the Washington Post describing similar problems for Edwards and Romney. That's my point, really, the $4600 limit has apparently created an irresistible temptation to try and circumvent the law by fair means or foul.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

Why do you keep calling the WSJ the official newspaper of the GOP?

Other than the odiously right-wing editorial page, the WSJ is one of the most respected news sources there is. If the Republicans have an official mouthpiece, I guess it's the Washington Times.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

And the NY Post. Very tacky tabloid.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:57:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (1.00 / 1)

I support the NY prosecutors to go after the Clinton dirty money machine...The Clintons are corrupt to the bone and Hillary is unfit to be president.

by JaeHood on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad Gonzales politicized the US Attornies (none / 0)

Jae, please...

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

This might be some tactic for diverting attention from the heat your candidate is getting for apparently ducking that vote ( now that is a profile in courage and political calculation ) or else I don't know what the use of the diary is.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:26:25 PM EST

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

it's called 'audicity of hope'...

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:32:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (2.00 / 1)

Look it seems bad form to respond in my own diary but I find it hard to accept that you are equating Obama's missed vote with the prospect of a major fund-raising scandal. I am not suggesting that Hillary's campaign had anything to do with this but it is certainly not good news for her. Was that the best you could do?

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

I don't see any major fundraising scandal in what you wrote or even a sense that one is brewing , thats why i wonder the essence of the diary .

yes you are right it is bad form i recognize that and i don't usually cross that line but this is one that i make exception to because i don't see the usefulness of the diary other than as a diversionary tactic.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

Well the mere fact that her total fund-raising for the first two quarters has taken a hit would be significant enough, I would have thought. But there were many of her supporters, I seem to remember you specifically, that opined that her prompt refund of the money reflected well on her campaign, which I agree with, and that she would likely get it all back again. Well, as I suggested might be the case at the time, you were wrong.

Does it strike you as odd that her campaign had no idea about any of this? He was one of her top 15 HillRaisers, as we know. I can accept that, on first principles, but I'm betting we get to hear all about it very soon.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

Nobody knew about Hsu. Even the State of California, where he had an outstanding warrant, had no clue that this was the same guy. It's not like his face was on the FBI's most wanted posters.

All you can realistically expect from a campaign in this kind of situation is to return the money the guy raised.

by hwc on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

Fair enough too, as I said. And almost impossible to determine if the donor had been reimbursed by a third-party even where the funds originate with the donors account. All the more reason to question the whole bundling concept which is an inevitable consequence of our attempt to reform campaign finance by half-measures, isn't it? So where is the discussion on public campaign finance? It seems the only solution.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

people forgot (none / 0)

Hillary's staff and her top aide Patty sollis doyle were partying with Hsu in vegas at his expense.
Twice

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:10:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: people forgot (none / 0)

What does this mean, exactly? Patti Solis Doyle doesn't strike me as a big party girl? She had dinner with a major fundraiser? Big whoop.

Don't you see? This whole thing, starting with the very first Wall Street Journal article, has been a classic Republican partisan DOJ hit against the Democratic candidates.

The Democratic candidates should give the money back and move on. Democratic supporters should not be joining in the Republican hit. Democratic supporters should be talking about Ted Stevens in Alaska.

by hwc on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: people forgot (none / 0)

Well let's say that you were an insider who had knowledge of a case like this one, assuming the straw-donor aspect turns out to be significant, would you blow the whistle on it or just hope it blew over? Just because the Republicans are jumping on the story doesn't mean they created it. To me it is an example of what is wrong with the process and maybe that applies to both parties once in awhile.

And Stevens is a goner anyhow, it seems.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

I wouldn't say I find it odd that her campaign didn't know. I've encountered any number of major Ponzi schemes (Bennett Funding, Mid-America Foundation, just to name a couple) and people often get away with it for years and years. Everyone thinks they have a legitimate money-making business going on. This is particularly true where a guy claims to have overseas business interests, like Hsu.

It goes to show you how careful you have to be when you enter into any kind of non-traditional investment. Some of the most sophisticated people out there get taken in by this stuff for a long time.

If someone who is GIVING Hsu large amounts of money, ostensibly to invest, doesn't even ask enough questions to ensure that there's a legitimate business operation involved, it's not very surprising that someone who is RECEIVING lots of money wouldn't ask those questions. I'm sure he seemed like just another wealthy businessman to them.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

As I said, I accept that on first principles.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (2.00 / 1)

I've heard rumors that the Clintons camp were trying hard to gets Hsu's donors he bundled to re-donate the 860k to her campaign and with today's news , i think this scheme is now impossible since Hsu is under heavy investigation.....My guess is that some of those businesses that Hsu defrauded will ask for that money back..Every single dollar of it so Hillary wont get her filty hands on the cash.

by JaeHood on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:35:09 PM EST

Re: LOL (none / 0)

how many rumors have you been touting along the way? Not one seems to have materialized...

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 0)

There's no question they were trying or are still trying to get Hose's donors to re-donate this large sum of money..An anonymous Hillary campaign personnel went on record and stated exactly that...This is why she refused to release the names of donors that Hsu bundled checks from...They didn't want rival campaigns to go into their database and check on those people.

My guess is that many of those people on Hsu's donor list used his ponzi scheme money to donate to Clinton.

I'm hearing that the FBI will ask the Clinton campaign to release Hsu's donor list so they could pay back all the companies Hsu's defrauded....If some of those people re-donated their 2,300 back to Clinton , she will have to hand it over to those businesses Hsu stole money from.

Good news for America.

by JaeHood on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:52:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 0)

I'm hearing that the FBI

You have heard lots of things... LOL.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:00:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (2.00 / 1)

HERE

In a complaint unsealed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Mr. Hsu, 56, was accused of strong-arming his investors into giving money to various political causes and to candidates running for president or for seats in the Senate or House of Representatives. One of those candidates, the authorities said, was Hillary Clinton, who was aware of the investigation and has cooperated with it fully.

You better believe the investigators probably warned her to hand over Hsu's donor list...

This also means that she will lose donors + wont be able to even try to separate legit Hsu donors from the straw donors because the investigators will want all money that Hsu bundled to pay the businesses Hsu defrauded.

Not good news for Hillary...No wonder had a lobbyist fundraiser in DC a few days ago...She's losing donors and money.

by JaeHood on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:13:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 0)

I can't imagine that legitimate donors wouldn't be able to re-contribute it is just going to take a while to verify that the donor contributed from their own funds without reimbursement.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:23:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (2.00 / 1)

I take your point about the money, I reckon she can kiss it goodbye, but I must object to your characterisation of her hands as filthy. At this point there is no evidence of her campaign's culpability in this case.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:39:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (2.00 / 2)

That's quite a scam. Personally, I find it unlikely that Hsu had no financial motive of his own. I suspect that aspect of the scam will be revealed through further investigation, just my hunch from having seen similar fact patterns.

I find it kinda funny that people are responding to this diary like it was some anti-Hillary hit piece when, obviously, it's not.

Thanks for an informative diary.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:45:41 PM EST

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

I think if we compare the $60 million supposedly stolen in the scheme with the approximately $1 million donated to Democratic candidates, it's obvious he was up to more than just stealing money to give it to the Democrats. What that may have been, heck if I know, but it may be interesting. Hillary's campaign is doing the right thing and cooperating with the criminal investigation.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:53:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

The very fact that they are involve in this is not good news for her.

I'm hearing background noise that she will have to throw awaY more cash because of another bundler's scandal.

by JaeHood on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:06:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hsu Charged With Campaign Funding Fraud (none / 0)

Norman Hsu has done nothing wrong. He's still a Hillraiser. We all know how innocent Hillary's HillRaisers are.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/Hi llRaisers/

Fred P. Hochberg
Norman Hsu
Jill Iscol

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:45:59 PM EST

Re: Hsu Charged With (none / 0)

I will soon write a diary about all the bad apples who are in charge of bundling money for Hillary...She has a bunches of gangsters and criminals on her team...This shows you that she will accept money from anyone , as long as the money goes to her presidential camapaign.

by JaeHood on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:00:31 PM EST

Re: Hsu Charged With (none / 0)

Sorry, Jae, but the allegation of bunches of gangsters and criminals on her team seems inappropriate, she has enough to worry about with managing the pubic perception of this recent development as it is.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.