in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| CNS | Well Then: Hoyer: ‘The Fact Is You Don’t Need a Budget’ |
0 |
| Ballot Box | 2012 Watch: In wake of Proposition 8 ruling, Santorum attacks Obama |
0 |
| Gallup | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| Heritage | Disturbing: The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Clinton campaign dismissed alarm bells raised by California businessman about Hsu
The LA Times reports that the Clinton campaign “dismissed allegations about Hsu” made by Irvine, CA businessman Jack Cassidy:
Before the announcement, new evidence surfaced that the Clinton camp had dismissed allegations about Hsu made by a Southern California businessman. In an e-mail obtained by The Times, a Clinton campaign staffer told a California Democratic Party official in June that the businessman’s concerns were unwarranted.
“I can tell you with 100 certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme,” wrote Samantha Wolf, who was a campaign finance director for the Western states.”He is COMPLETELY legit.”
In fact, Hsu was a fugitive wanted on a 15-year-old bench warrant stemming from an early 1990s investment fraud case.
The businessman’s query prompted Clinton staffers to review public records about Hsu, but no problems surfaced, the campaign source said. In part because of that incident, the campaign also announced Monday that it would institute more stringent procedures to vet major contributors, including running criminal background checks.
How could Hsu’s fugitive background have been missed, considering this:
Generally, campaign officials said, those background checks involve a campaign worker running the name of a major donor or bundler through a public database such as LexisNexis, which provides access to newspaper, magazine and journal articles, as well as congressional transcripts and television broadcasts.
You’d think that the leading contender for the Democratic nomination would be a lot more careful in the company it chooses to keep right?
Questions about Hsu were first raised in June by an Irvine businessman, Jack Cassidy, who contacted the Clinton campaign and party officials about his suspicions, which he had heard about through a friend.
“There is a significant probability that a man using the name of Norman Hsu is running a Ponzi scheme,” Cassidy wrote to a California Democratic Party official on June 18 in an e-mail obtained by The Times. Describing the deal he understood Hsu was offering to investors, he wrote: “The math does not work!”
The party official passed Cassidy’s concerns to Samantha Wolf, who rejected them.
On June 20, Cassidy sent an e-mail directly to Wolf.
“I am more than ever convinced that a man claiming to be a big fundraiser for Hillary Clinton is running a Ponzi scheme,” he wrote. He said he feared that an associate “may lose her home” because of her participation in the scheme and cautioned Wolf that Hsu may be “using your good name in vane.”
As Betsy Newmark notes here, the LA Times itself did a search of Norman Hsu’s name on a two “commonly used databases” earlier this month and found this information on Norman Hsu :
The most obvious red flag: A check of a commonly used database produces a 1990 San Francisco Chronicle news story detailing how Norman Hsu had been kidnapped by gang members in the San Mateo County suburb of Foster City. A second widely used database discloses that Norman Yuan Yuen Hsu of Foster City had a bankruptcy in 1990.
Having established that he lived in San Mateo County, a check of the San Mateo County Superior Court’s website reveals that Norman Yuan Yuen Hsu had a criminal case.
So let me get this straight: Cassidy had heard through another businessman about Hsu’s shady business schemes, and the information was passed on twice to the Clinton campaign – once through a state Dem. senator and another time through Cassidy himself, and the LA Times can search two “commonly used databases” and find out that Norman Hsu had a criminal case – and the Clinton campaign, which I’m sure has research resources at its disposal that most regular folks don’t have, couldn’t find anything on Hsu?
I’m not buying the assertion made by the Clinton staffer that the campaign conducted a “review” of Hsu’s public records. There is simply no way in you-know-where that they wouldn’t have been able to find any information on a man who was a fugitive from the law for some 15 years. Most of your top tier candidates have people on their staff who know how to search for information on people whose records they want to dig into – like their opponents.
Brian at Liberty Pundit sums it up:
And let’s face it, it didn’t take a lot of detective work for the press or bloggers to find out that this guy was a fugitive and who he donated to or how much he gave, so how hard could it have been for Democrats to find out the same thing, too? Plus you’re going to sit there and tell me that after all these years of him throwing money at the Democrats, nobody thought once to look into his past or his criminal history? That’s just too far-fetched, in my opinion.
It’s quite clear what went on here: they liked his money and they didn’t care where it was coming from or whether any laws were being broken. They didn’t care who he was, whether he was a fugitive from justice, or even if he was connected to a foreign government (and there’s some stuff that says he very well might be). It was all about the money.
Not only that, but since the media is notoriously soft on covering money scandals related to Democrat campaign donations, they probably figured they’d get a pass on this one, too. I’m glad to see that at least two outlets – the LAT, which doesn’t even lean remotely to the right, and the Wall Street Journal, whose news pages are not conservative like their editorial board is – are doing the digging that the New York Times (which continues covering for Hillary here) and the rest of the liberal media would do only if this involved any allegations of Republican wrongdoing.
Prior:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
13 Responses to “Clinton campaign dismissed alarm bells raised by California businessman about Hsu”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
Props to the LA Times for the coverage…….
I just keep asking myself .. what was it about the Clintons that America was so weary about that Al Gore didn’t even want them to campaign for him back in 2000 ?
Now I remember .. it was everything.
Liberty Pundit has it. As long as the money, and its source, wasn’t reported by the MSM it was fine and dandy.
Clinton remains a shady character herself.
Of course they dismissed anything that might suggest maybe they shouldn’t accept the wheelbarrows full of cash he was bringing them! What Hsu is upset about is that this didn’t come to light while a Clinton was in the White House, because he would have been pardoned faster than Slick Willie could pull down his zipper.
Well, there’s your problem. ST, and everyone else, including the LA Times, has it all wrong. Those are the routine backgrounds check procedures for other campaigns. But we’re talking about the Clintons.
Standard background check procedures for the Clintons are different, and generally include:
* stealing the FBI file of the donor and checking it to see if it matches anyone on their enemies list,
* checking with Bill to see if the donor (if female, otherwise their wife) or other close distaff relative has (a) been under the desk with him in the Oval Office or (b) has been assaulted by him in the past,
* inquiring whether the donor or any close relative needs a pardon (size of the donation is inversely proportional to the time they will wait for the pardon),
* assigning one of the notorious Clinton ‘secret police’ detectives to shadow the person to make sure they’re not doing anything shady such as donating to a Republican or talking to a prosecutor. People can get positive points at this stage if they’re associated with Palestinian terror groups or communist China.
I will give you money if this statement from Samantha Wolf isn’t a direct quote from Hillary. Any good spokesperson would have brought this directly to her boss, and made sure that they knew about this sort of information. For Hillary to feign ignorance is an insult to anybody with a brain. The Clintons amaze me, how they keep getting elected, why anyone would vote for these criminals is dumbfounding. Bill and Hill are suppose to be some of the smartest people in the world, but yet they are constantly being lied too, or duped or…. pick the ignorant excuse you desire. It is seriously time for grassroots Dems to oust these two criminals, sadly the Dem party is just filled with poor deceived individuals whom, most likely, will never understand the deals they are making with the devil. – Lorica
Ah yes – how could I have forgotten that, GWR?
So, back to the question that’s puzzling a lot of people: just where did Hsu get all that money from?
Wednesday’s WSJ has a partial answer: FRAUD.
So to cut to the chase here, Hsu found a pigeon – an aging hippie – and took him for a cool forty million by promising him a 40% return. Sort of explains why Bill and Hill were so attracted to him….he made their Whitewater scam look penny-ante.
Here’s an understatement:
Remember how Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) described Bill Clinton once? “An exceptionally good liar”.
Birds of a feather, eh??
GWR, Norman Tsu scammed this same now President Bob Kerrey of the New School of Social Research into admitting him on the Board of Trustees, for a hefty donation, but still a fugitive from justice. Tsu didn’t kill himself and is in jail awaiting extradition back to Cal. His contacts with Democrats are amazing; he apparently contributed to every campaign that changed the Congressional majority.
Dick Morris predicted in an interview (at least a couple of years back) that any Hillary administration would set new records for corruption. I’ve suggested more than once that the people Hillary surrounds herself with (and would presume to play key roles in her administration) tell you all you need to know. Seems to me that Norman Hsu is a fine example of this…
I bet if you look in Bill’s Cayman Island Account, you will find that 40 Million, as right after Mr. Hsu was “shot”, he gave up his numbered Swiss account to Bill’s henchmen. – Lorica