Report: $40 Million Borrowed by Dirty Democratic Fundraiser Norman Hsu is Missing
The newspaper reports that a company run by Norman Hsu, who donated nearly $2 million to Democratic candidates since 2004 ” including presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton ” recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Rosenman, one of the creators of the fabled Woodstock rock festival in 1969.
Now, that $40 million is missing, Rosenman reportedly told investors this week.
Rosenman told his investors that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is looking into the case. The Wall Street Journal, however, reported that a spokesman for the district attorney did not respond for comment.
The newspaper reported that its analysis of Hsu’s campaign finance reform records shows he has links to more than $1.8 million in donations to Democrats since 2004.
He also is credited with raising $850,000 for Clinton’s presidential campaign, which announced Monday that it would return all donations linked to Hsu.
September 12, 2007 - 10:28 PM on September 12th, 2007
HILLARY CLINTON AND HER CHAMBER OF SECRETS look out FAWKES THE PHOENIX is getting ready to fly away
September 12, 2007 - 10:48 PM on September 12th, 2007
Now this is very strange…when it came out that Jack Abramoff, an American lobbyist, had donated lots of money to Republicans, it set off a tidal wave of reporting and condemnation (even though he gave almost as much to Democrites).
But this HSU money, donated entirely to Democrites….why not so much as a peep from the MSM…now how do you Libs explain this disparity?
This is yet more PROOF of the Liberal bias of the MSM…
September 13, 2007 - 07:15 AM on September 13th, 2007
Good point Robert. I know of at least one liberal who hadn’t even heard the story yet.
September 13, 2007 - 01:08 PM on September 13th, 2007
It would appear the Democrats have found their Jack Abramoff.
September 13, 2007 - 09:01 PM on September 13th, 2007
Actually, Ted, Democrats also took money from Abramoff. It was just never publicized because we all know that the media is owned by the Dumbocrackpots.
September 14, 2007 - 07:30 AM on September 14th, 2007
“Actually, Ted, Democrats also took money from Abramoff.”
Yes, I know. Nonetheless, the Abramoff scandal was dubbed a Republican one.
September 14, 2007 - 07:32 AM on September 14th, 2007
The silence for the Democrats on this board is deafening.
I never again want to hear about “non-comments from the Republucans” from the Democrat/liberals posters on this board.
It is oure hypocrisy.
September 14, 2007 - 07:34 AM on September 14th, 2007
Yup, sometimes silence does speak louder than words.
September 14, 2007 - 07:46 AM on September 14th, 2007
But….but…but…it’s the REPUBLICAN Culture of Corruption in Washington!!!
I hope during the next election the Republican candidate takes those words from HilLiary and shove it up her you know what…
Damned Democrites. They have their own, very active Culture of Corruption. The difference is somehow they are not held accountable for it.
The best quote I heard the other day was “Republicans take out their trash. The Democrats ignore or protect it”. And that, our middle-of-the-roaders, is one of the fundamental differences between the two parties.
September 14, 2007 - 07:54 AM on September 14th, 2007
sHillary has a real chance to win, especially if the economy collapses.
Matter of fact- I think she’s counting on it. She wants to be the new “new deal” FDR.
September 14, 2007 - 09:14 AM on September 14th, 2007
Ted. I don’t think the economy is going to collapse. YOu have one area (mortgage) where its falling and that was expected. I believe even that will pick up.
September 14, 2007 - 09:32 AM on September 14th, 2007
11.
In all likelihood I agree with you regarding the economy collapsing, however we are walking on thin ice as it is now. There is more than one area (such as the shinking of the dollar- we are almosy on equal ground with the Canadian dollar and gas prices beginning to surge which could spark a recession)to be concerned about.
I think Hillary is betting on it though- if it does she will be the next President.
September 14, 2007 - 10:20 AM on September 14th, 2007
I agree with Ted we are on economic thin ice. And have been since 2001.
It used to be traditionally that the economy was cyclic, but when it was good, it was robust. But this recovery is built on a foundation of sand. Energy prices are a wild card that alone could put us into recession. The continuing Federal defecit, competing for money in markets with businesses. And the way they get more money into the market money is to raise Treasury note rates (even as we seek to lower them to help the mortgage difficulties) is another fundamental problem. The fact that foreigners own huge amounts of our debt, like the Chicoms, just doesn’t feel very good either.
I’m an amateur economist at best, so what do I know? Maybe it’s all just peachy. But it sure doesn’t make me feel very secure.
September 14, 2007 - 12:16 PM on September 14th, 2007
13.
GBood points all- let us not forget the fact that business in America are taxed more here than in any other country. This is a big reason why they go off shore.
September 14, 2007 - 12:25 PM on September 14th, 2007
All interesting points. I’m no economist myself but the numbers do look good in the overall. Even when the market fell it was higher than ever before. Still you give some food for thought.
I’d like to add though that thoughout our history there have been very high high’s and very low lows and we have persevered as a nation and prevailed in spite of it.
What does bother me though is Hillary for president. That would quite possibly be the worst thing for the U.S. Certainly for the military as I believe her statements with regards to Petraeus bear her out. She is not C.I.C. material.
September 14, 2007 - 01:20 PM on September 14th, 2007
15.
The issue with that is that the governement has changed the methods used to measure economic prosperity, like using GDP vs. GNP, etc. It bends the numbers sometime to look better than they are.
September 14, 2007 - 10:52 PM on September 14th, 2007
i hear that hillary wants to build a WOODSTOCK MUSEUM and guess who will be funding this pork project when it comes to the liberal demacrats they will add it on to some important bill like they always do when they want money for wastful pork projects
September 16, 2007 - 02:53 PM on September 16th, 2007
If the Democrats gain control of the White House and gain larger majorities in the House and Senate, expect a major recession. The deficit getting increasingly smaller as a result of the record high revenues resulting from the tax cuts. The more money left in the private sector, the more production that it allows to occur. Money spent to pay taxes does not increase production. Money spent on wages or capital improvements does increase production. As taxes are paid on money earned through production, increased production increases taxes collected. Not only does the company in question pay taxes on the increased production, the employees paid to produce it pay taxes on their wages. That is why INCREASED TAX RATES that retard growth also REDUCE TAX REVENUES collected. Hence the increased tax rates advocated by the liberal Democrats will cause the economy to falter, decrease tax revenues, AND increase the deficit.
Likewise the cure for high commodity prices is increased production, not simply conservation. While I believe that we should try to conserve energy, we must increase production as well. Simply conserving energy will NOT meet our future needs. While alternative energy sources may work eventually to reduce our demands for fossil fuels, nuclear power is the only form of alternative energy that is both safe and efficient enough to be practical. Unfortunately the same people who are screaming for alternative fuels are also demanding that we NOT use the one form that will work. This is the same mentality that lead to our government mandating air quality standards that caused power plants to convert from cheap efficient coal to more expensive oil in the early 70s. While the technology exists to burn coal efficiently, it was cheaper to convert to oil than install the scrubbers necessary to meet the air standards. A decision that has cost US power customers BILLIONS of dollars over the last 30 years. Coal is still plentiful and cheap. Oil is still plentiful if we allow the oil companies to drill for it. While the ecofreaks stop our companies from drilling for oil, countries, who are not necessarily our friends, are drilling for oil in our back yards. Countries using 50 year old technology with little or no regard for the environment.