The New York Times has its reporters wearing out some old-fashioned shoe leather in attempting to trace down the source of Norman Hsu's prodigious amounts of money, used to float $1.6 million in personal and bundled contributions to Democratic candidates and organizations. The result? The Times discovered that the companies Hsu listed appear to have only one produce -- salaries for Democratic contributors:
At the center of the ever-deepening mystery of Norman Hsu, the fugitive fund-raiser who was captured after a brief flight from the law last week, is the question of how he evolved from a bankrupt swindler in 1992 to a wealthy donor to many Democratic candidates, and a bundler of campaign contributions to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2007.
A review of financial records for one of Mr. Hsus companies begins to shed light on some of his recent activities, including his dealings with a circle of campaign contributors that has fallen under suspicion since news of Mr. Hsus criminal past, murky business interests and unexplained riches rocked the Democratic Party.
The records show that Components Ltd., a company controlled by Mr. Hsu that has no obvious business purpose and appears to exist only on paper, has paid a total of more than $100,000 to at least nine people who made campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton and others through Mr. Hsu. The payments occurred in the spring of 2003, several months before Mr. Hsu emerged as a contributor to Democrats and more than a year before he started bundling checks from those same people for various campaigns. In all, he has raised more than $1 million for Democrats.
The records make clear that the group was more than just a loose collection of friends, family and co-workers that bundlers typically rely on when raising money for a candidate. Rather, each person had a direct financial relationship with Mr. Hsu, either receiving money from his company or paying into it, even though many of them appear to have other jobs or businesses independent of him. The purpose of the payments, and whether they related to business costs, fees or expenses, is unclear.
The system described by Mike McIntyre is one that resembles a pyramid scheme, except the only payoff participant were Democratic candidates and organizations. The companies existed to take money from various people and push it through others to get the money to Hsu's political clients. It allowed the money to come through cleanly and to keep it from raising the attention of the FEC.
For instance, Components Ltd took $600,000 in receipts one month. These did not come from sales of product, but rather cash transfer from people associated with Hsu's bundled contributions, especially from two specific associates. Components Ltd them sent out $660,000 in the same month to other people connected to Hsu's bundling, although almost $100,000 of those checks bounced.
McIntyre closed the gap a little on Hsu's missing years abroad while fleeing the US and a three-year stretch for fraud. He did return to Hong Kong and opened new businesses, but by 1998 he had to declare bankruptcy there as well. The Hong Kong court system does not release the name of the creditor, but they did report that Hsu only emerged from bankruptcy there in 2006 -- two years after he reappeared as a major Democratic fundraiser.
Clearly, the feds will find interesting material in this information. The family whose massive contributions led the Wall Street Journal to report on Hsu has been up to their eyeballs in Hsu's shell game. The Paws have wired five-figure funds transfers, despite their modest income. Hsu also wired the Paws significant amounts of money. All of this occurred in May 2003, which predates most of the attention-getting contributions Hsu engineered.
Can you say "wire fraud"? I know the FBI can. That carries about a six-year sentence, and once they start interrogating the Paws, the Lees, and the other channels for Hsu's bundling, this case will start to assemble in a hurry.
And at that point, perhaps we will get the answer to the big question: where did all of this money really originate? And how did all of these Democrats, including three current or former state Attorneys General, manage to miss all of this illegal activity from one of their biggest rainmakers?
#2
We have gotten so used to the Clintons being able to perform any act and get away with it.
However, I'm struck by the fact that this Hsu situation seems to be blowing up in a way that they are unable to control. In past scandals, they were in power and it was Bill's political career at stake. Now Hillary's control is limited and she doesn't even have the support of all of the well funded fringe groups.
#5
In light of how China benefited so much from the previous Clinton administration, it is nearly impossible to believe that Hsu is not a conduit for politburo money seeking to influence our national elections. Watch carefully to see if Hillary actually rejects any of this loot. Should she be so incredibly unwise as to retain these tainted contributions, the republicans had better make some real hay out of this development.
There had better be some extremely dire consequences in store if we uncover direct proof of China meddling in our presidential elections. Any failure to do should be a death knell for the careers of any politicians who fail to act.
#3
Joe, are you arguing for the 'right of return'?
The Belgian Revolution was a conflict in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands that began with a riot in Brussels in August 1830 and eventually led to the establishment of an independent, Roman Catholic and neutral Belgium (William I, king of the Netherlands, would refuse to recognize a Belgian state until 1839, when he had to yield under pressure by the Treaty of London).
Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."
Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do...
MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'
MoveOn.org has helped frame the core choice: Whom do we trust to run this war--MoveOn.org and its allies in Congress, or Gen. David Petraeus and his colleagues?
Pete Hegseth is executive director of Vets for Freedom and an Iraq War veteran.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
This is the most vile, vain, and adolecent site I have found.
#3
"'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'
#4
I hope this backfires, it's just so idiotic that some people absorb it unless someone counters it with lots of denoucing of MoveOn and some facts about their members.
Posted by: Boss Craising2882 ||
09/10/2007 1:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."
More fact-based, unemotional logic brought to you by the deep thinkers at moveon and aimed at the clear-headed liberal thinkers. All of whom agree that cooking the books is a bad thing.
#9
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others oneâs own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
#10
Problem is that you can't prove MoveOn is not correct, since any such proof would have to come through Petraeus' office and thus would also be a 'lie' - unless it was actually a lie and thus 'proved' MO's 'truth'. I confuse myself.
With its full-page General Betray Us? ad in the New York Times, MoveOn.org has once again put itself at the forefront of the antiwar movement. And if past patterns are any guide, a number of Democrats are embarrassed, and even angered, by MoveOns actions but are afraid to reveal the true extent of their feelings. MoveOn simply has too much fundraising clout and a fear-inducing inclination to attack Democrats who stray from the MoveOn line for many in the party to take it on. . . .
Now, with the General Betray Us campaign, those Democrats again face the question: Do they dare to cross MoveOn? Not long after the 2004 elections, Pariser famously said of Democrats, Now its our party. We bought it, we own it, and were going to take it back. The next few days could be crucial in determining whether he was right or not.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/10/2007 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#14
That kettle is really black.
Posted by: The Pot ||
09/10/2007 8:55 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I would argue that most of MoveOn.org needs to be put on trial for treason and sedition. And most would be found guilty.
#16
"MoveOn simply has too much fundraising clout and a fear-inducing inclination to attack Democrats who stray from the MoveOn line for many in the party to take it on...."
I call it "Wrong Base Syndrome".
The Democratic Party needs to find a new base, one that won't lead it off a cliff by turning them into domestic enemies.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/10/2007 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
Is anyone shocked by this? Disgusted, yes, but not shocked.
MoveOn simply has too much fundraising clout and a fear-inducing inclination to attack Democrats who stray from the MoveOn line for many in the party to take it on. . . .
This represents a fundamental moral and ethical bankruptcy of the democratic party. There currently exists for liberals a pre-condition of displacing thought with "feelings" and reason with intuition. A few hundred years ago this amounted to physical suicide. The contributions of intelligent and productive people have made survival far too easy for certain portions of this world's population.
This from bash.org (collects funny and interesting logs from IRC chat - warning, 'adolescent' humour most of the time, but it is *really* funny sometimes)
This one http://bash.org/?4753 is pretty neat; The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
09/10/2007 16:50 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Somewhere in the Eastern part of our country MoveOn.orc volunteers are furiously folding tin foil hats for the brave legions about to go into battle.
White House spokesman Tony Snow called it "a boorish, childish, unworthy attack" and called on members of Congress to condemn the ad. By the end of the day, 30 Republican senators and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., had written to the Democratic Senate Leader, asking him to "join us in making it clear that you do not share the views of Moveon.org, and that you will not join Moveon.org in attacking the character of this fine officer" and House Republicans had introduced a resolution condemning the ad. The GOP presidential candidates added their voices to the chorus as well.
But Democrats said doing so would be falling into a GOP trap and criticized Republicans for trying to change the subject from the substance of Petraeus's testimony.
In what appears to be a part of Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf's post-Lal Masjid survival strategy rather than any actual change of heart, a "clampdown" on jehadi groups operating in India has been detected in recent weeks. Apart from a greater monitoring of jehadi groups in PoK, terrorists in the Kashmir Valley are finding it more difficult to ex-filtrate.
The pressure being exerted on terror tanzims after the bloody storming of the pro-Taliban Lal Masjid in Islamabad in the early hours of July 7 by Pakistan army has been linked to the "war" that jehadi groups have declared on the Musharraf regime for its pro-US policies.
With these groups regarding Musharraf nothing short of a heretic and a turncoat, Pakistan army and ISI have no choice but to act against their one-time allies. The break in the accord between jehadis and the Musharraf establishment is quite complete as the September 4 suicide bombings in Rawalpindi and the rocket attack on Musharraf's plane on July 6 have shown.
With his estranged partners delivering a deadly "you are not safe even in your fort" message, the Pakistani leader has had to act against groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. An earlier roadside bomb attack on Musharraf, again in the Rawalpindi area, was seen to be a Jaish plot.
Well-placed sources said that the "chatter" being picked up in Kashmir and Pakistan showed that the jehadi outfits were facing some heat. There were also indications that Hizb-ul-Mujahideen elements were being discouraged from ex-filtrating across the border into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. This is being seen as part of measures to keep a check on Islamic militants and a bid to ensure that there are no additions to their already considerable numbers in Pakistan.
Periodic action against jehadis in Pakistan has been no indicator of the Pakistan army or ISI changing its jehadi mindset or being a sign of confidence building measures between New Delhi and Islamabad and the peace process making progress. These actions are rooted in immediate exigencies that the Pakistani establishment has to deal with, such as pressure from US or differences with some terror groups. Such action is also not foolproof and is no guarantee against jehadi groups attacking targets in India.
As is his wont, Musharraf is seen to be quite adept in turning the terror tap on or off in accordance to his tactical needs. The intercepts being picked up by security agencies are indicating that though there is considerable dissatisfaction in the jehadi ranks, it is not entirely clear whether action has been taken against the training camps in PoK. There could be a certain slowdown in jehadi activities, but as long as the camps are in place, the infrastructure to revive terrorism remains. There also seem to be clear indications that units of the Pakistan army involved in action against Taliban-Al Qaida in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Waziristan are not too keen on the operations.
There seems to be resistance to taking action against the terrorist groups as the operations are being seen as risky and some sections of the Pakistan army are not comfortable with carrying out the "US agenda".
Also, the Pashtun elements of the Pakistan army are not pleased with having to take on their fellow tribesmen.The situation has been serious enough for some army units being moved from the eastern border with India to the counter-terrorism operations. These developments have occurred even as there seems to be some decrease in the enthusiasm for stoking insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian embassy in Islamabad receiving hundreds of applications from Kashmiris who crossed over seeking to return to India.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
There seems to be resistance to taking action against the terrorist groups as the operations are being seen as risky and some sections of the Pakistan army are not comfortable with carrying out the "US agenda".
I can only wonder what it will take for Pakistan and other Iskamic nations to comprehend that defeating terrorism is not an exclusively American "agenda". The entire modern world's security and progress hinge completely upon wiping out Islam. That Muslims choose to blithely ignore this simple fact reveals a fatal degree of hubris and over-confidence.
#2
Zen, You are assuming Pakiland is heading into the future, I assume they head into the past. And there's much ground to make up loose, so they must move swiftly.
#3
Fear not, if there is one country whose continued existence is most in doubt, it is Pakistan. Iran is a close runner-up but Pakistan is the source of so much global misery that there is no way they will be around 20 years from now.
Osamas back! Or maybe not; this site says the tape freezes in a most peculiar way whenever current events are addressed. Like many, I found the speech a tiresome rote recitation of the usual droning points, and was amused by the Oliver-Stone vision of Western history. It's like listening to a college freshman who considered shoplifting the Howard Zinn book because he didn't want to use his Visa and get on any Enemies List. (In the end he asked Dad for a twenty, and paid cash.) The video would have been more impressive if Osama had shot it at an outdoor cafe in a thriving, beautiful city whose economic, military, and artistic prowess shames the world, but as usual he's probably coming to you from some hole where people have to crap in a bucket. It's like Darth Vader saying "Join me, Luke" from some Tatooine outhouse - after Luke had lopped off his hand.
I can understand how some people who find themselves cohabiting a portion of a Venn diagram with Osama would bristle at the notion that they are on his side, or like him in any way; if he said the sun rose in the East, that doesnt mean that people who accept celestial mechanics are terrorists. Just because he said that Kennedy was killed by the military-industrial complex and the Iraq war is about oil doesnt mean its not so. Just because he cites Chomsky doesnt mean Chomskys wrong. Just because he chides the Democrats for not pulling out of Iraq doesnt mean they shouldnt. Just because he hates Rumsfeld and blames him for everything from Vietnam to the Shah to the unsatisfying Sopranos conclusion doesnt mean that many of us in the West didnt think that episode lacked closure. Just because he says the right things and hates the right people doesnt mean hes left er, right. Er, good. Hes irrelevant, because there is no terrorist threat, except for the one we created, which we can solve by leaving, but hes also extremely relevant inasmuch as we havent found him yet, which proves the Administration is incompetent at protecting us from the threat of terrorism - which is a manufactured bogeyman designed to take away our civil liberties. Is it any coincidence that the tape surfaced just as a court struck down that law about that uh, that thing they were doing? I dont think so. As I keep saying every time a court strikes down a provision of the Administrations post 9/11 practices, or a newspaper reveals another element of our secret strategies: we are a hairs breadth away from a fascist state.
The speech began with a remark that went unnoted, and its something I wouldnt have noticed if it hadnt been for a comment by Dennis Prager. Said the man in the Grecian Formula facial hair: "All praise is due to Allah, who built the ehavens and earth in justice, and created man as a favor and grace from Him. And from His ways is that the days rotate between the people, and from His Law is retaliation in kind: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and the killer is killed.
As Prager said: its not about retaliation. Its not an injunction to do unto others for the sake of vengeance. The message is proportionality. An eye for an eye, not two. A tooth for a tooth, not a mouthful.
When its defined as retaliation, the concept of a tooth becomes rather elastic.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/10/2007 06:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
The more I read of Lileks the more I like him. He is definately capable of giving PJ O'Rouke a run for his money.
#2
I agree Lileks is brilliant but a lot of his stuff lacks focus, shifting to Gnat or other topics between pargraphs. He'd be better off with a different post/article on each subject than blurring them. Of course I'm talking about the bleats, his other stuff may be more focused.
#1
"The Shaykh can burn the books in Britain, but he cannot prevent the recovery of the copyright by the authors nor their search for a U. S. publisher to reprint a new edition of Alms for Jihad for those who have been seeking a copy in the global market place."
#2
If a copy happens to find its way into my possession the text might miraculously appear as accessible on several P2P file sharing programs such as Limewire...
As long as there is an internet all the Saudi money in the world can not stop the free flow of truth.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
by Pete Hegseth 
