Democrats donating Hsu’s dirty money to charity instead of his victims
posted at 7:30 pm on October 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Why do that? Because a $2,000 donation to Habitat for Humanity looks a lot better on a campaign’s tax return than an escrow account filled with boatloads of cash bilked out of innocent people by one of your most trusted bundlers. Understand how odious this is: the Democrats helped make Norman Hsu by accepting the mountains of dough he pushed at them and then studiously avoiding any background check diligent enough to reveal that he’d been a fugitive for more than a decade. They took his money; they posed for pictures with him; in one extreme case, that of Bob Kerrey, they even made him a trustee of the university they oversee. They legitimized him and made it easier for him to move in the circles he moved in. Any investor who had qualms about the suspiciously high returns he promised them could always be shown that photo of him standing side by side with Hillary and her shinola-eating grin. Does that look like a man running a massive Ponzi scheme? (Well, yeah, actually, but only to Republicans.)
So now, having indirectly aided and abetted this turd, they’re going to dump the cash like a hot potato and leave those busted investors to twist. The compassion party:
A lawyer for the biggest victim of Hsu’s alleged Ponzi scheme asked Democratic campaigns to hold Hsu’s contributions in escrow for his client, he told Politico.
“Most of them are either ignoring us or telling us they gave the money back or gave it to charity,” said Ronald Minkoff, a lawyer for Source Financing Investors. Source invested $40 million with Hsu in what its backers believed to be an apparel industry venture…
Minkoff said it was “particularly problematic” to give to a charity money that was stolen, in part, from his client.
He thinks his client “theoretically” has legal grounds to recover the money from campaigns or charities, he said, but the litigation may be too expensive to pursue.
Sue the campaigns. Sue fast, sue long, sue as hard as you can. There’s got to be a tort that’ll cover it. Then ask for punitive damages so they’ll do these background checks the way they’re supposed to, not by weighing the guy’s wallet first.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
This may just mean the end to poverty forever.
TheSitRep on October 23, 2007 at 7:32 PM
This is disgraceful, plain and simple. I’m sure some Republicans operate like this too, and it’s just as disgraceful when they do it.
Does politics turn decent people crappy or attract crappy people?
BadgerHawk on October 23, 2007 at 7:38 PM
I wonder IF campaigns can get away with that. because It woud be like a bank robber gets away with his loot and puts it in a friends account. Then can the friend say “I gave the money to chairity so I am not libel for having it ” ?
William Amos on October 23, 2007 at 7:41 PM
No surprise here. I’m mildly shocked they didn’t just keep the money and flip the bird.
JammieWearingFool on October 23, 2007 at 7:47 PM
I am surprised that no one has yet filed something like an intent to sue to recover the money. I am surprised they haven’t asked for a court order to prevent their dispersal of it, that would at least slow it down. We’re are the unscupulous class action lawyers???
Dusty on October 23, 2007 at 7:51 PM
The other question is how much of this money will find its way back into their coffers.There is also the problem of suing and finding yourself in front of a presiding Clinton appointee.
bbz123 on October 23, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Yeah well, Rush limbaugh would have matched it!
TheSitRep on October 23, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Mr. Minkoff can always do it the Washington way. Lobby for an earmark. I’m sure the Democrats would have no trouble using the taxpayers money to reimburse fleeced investors of a guy that financed Democrat coffers.
gabriel sutherland on October 23, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Now we know what happened to the swamp the Democrats were going to drain.
tarpon on October 23, 2007 at 8:08 PM
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the headline. Where are the sharks? It would be rather interesting to see any candidate who took money from Hsu be added to any suit.
Could you imagine if a Republican who took donations from Enron or Abrahmoff gave the money to charity what hell would break loose?
Is it possible they did this to make the whole issue go away as fast as possible? After all, depending on the charity, would anyone who sued then be blamed for not caring about Cause X?
Would this investment group or other company defrauded be accountable to any type of shareholder? If so, what would the SEC say if they decide not to sue to recover money lost?
$40 million might be chump change to the Queen of Cattle Futures, but it’s some pretty good ching for many others. I cannot see all of those defrauded just walking away.
91Veteran on October 23, 2007 at 8:31 PM
The GOP ought to sponsor the Source Financing Investors lawsuit.
T J Green on October 23, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Well, like the fairness doctrine, this would get the Dems on board with tort reform in a hurry.
I hope the sue also….
liquidflorian on October 23, 2007 at 8:48 PM
And the bigger question…
Where in the heck is the Federal Elections people in all of this?
Not to mention the various Attorney Generals of the various Federal districts…
Romeo13 on October 23, 2007 at 8:49 PM
How many of those ‘charities’ are controlled by democrats and or are simply fronts for democratic causes? Would Code Pink be considered a ‘charity’? Moveon.org? The Tides Foundation? Greenpeace? Sierra Club?
Would like to see the list of charities which got the money – I think it might be very interesting indeed….
CrazyFool on October 23, 2007 at 9:11 PM
I have been wondering the same thing. What is it going to take to get the Fed’s involved?
DCA on October 23, 2007 at 9:11 PM
OK folks how about some reality check
1 Hsu direct donations have gone to charity, also some cases of Hsu donor linked money has gone to charity , but most of that was returned to the donors.
2 Hillary is not returning money to her Senate campaign or HillPac
3 We are only getting together now the list of all the Hsu bundled donors and are looking at all the other places he bundled to besides Hillary. Looking at Gov Rendell for example
4 Hillary has not returned all the donations by Hsu bundled donors….shes short by a couple of hundred thousand
5 the Peter Paul issue is slowly working it’s way through the courts
6 Hillary now has all sorts of Chinatown issues and they are being developed by even some of the MSM and I can personally guarantee that the Army of Davids is on the case
7 Next up in the batter box we have the emerging crisis of ethics of the Dems taking money from current or ex members of the Milberg-Weiss law firm that is going to be a major scandal as it emerges. Twenty Two dem campaigns are still taking their money.
CommentGuy on October 23, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Why save the money for the victims , after all they are the hateful dirty filthy rich
NeoConsDemocratsCommentGuy on October 23, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Yes.
The Monster on October 23, 2007 at 10:21 PM
OK, think this through. At its core, this is essentially a money-laundering scheme. People were (one way or another) paid $3,000.00 so that they would then ‘donate’ $2,000.00 to the Democrats. Whether that kickback was in the form of an (apparently) sweet investment deal, or just good old-fashioned payola, is beside the point; it’s been paid and can’t legally be taken back.
Money laundering is never an easy crime to catch; so it’s very safe to say that there are lots of other bundlers out there who haven’t been caught yet.
So if it gets out that all these minimum-wage bagmen have to do is blow the whistle and they’ll get that $2,000 to KEEP — Hsu will turn out to be the tip of the iceberg.
logis on October 23, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Where the hell is the media on this, I sure am not seeing much of anything on the subject except on this site.
Never mind, I already know the answer………..
conservnut on October 23, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Have you seen this at Daily Kos? It is about donors to Hillary, the Tan family. They are powerful, and from Fujian province. Could be a link to the cook and her friends.
MayBee on October 24, 2007 at 1:58 AM
The culture of…. nah, couldn’t be.
Seixon on October 24, 2007 at 3:56 AM
Exactly! I’ve said all along since this story began that somebody (how about the FBI) should investigate this matter to see where the money goes. Don’t forget the phony charity organizations Bill Clinton has set up. Don’t forget that library out in Arkansas he built. I’m sure that place is called a ‘non-profit’ and would be more than happy to accept some of this tainted money.
Nobody should forget that these Clinton scumbags don’t take a breath or do anything unless it helps them politically or financially.
How about ALL the conservative blogs keep the pressure on and demand to know what happens to ALL of these tainted campaign contributions. It is extremely important that the public gets this information before any votes are cast in the 2008 presidential election – both the primaries and the general election. This info will not come from the MSM. You will not see NBC, CNN, CBS or ABC reporting on this story.
I want to know – don’t you?
OBX Pete on October 24, 2007 at 4:32 AM
Sue the campaigns. Sue fast, sue long, sue as hard as you can. There’s got to be a tort that’ll cover it. Then ask for punitive damages so they’ll do these background checks the way they’re supposed to, not by weighing the guy’s wallet first.
Exactly!
Make the candidates and the party dig DEEP to pay the damages AND the punitive. Their lawyers will negotiate a contingency fee (typically 30-35%) and get paid out of the total award, including the punitive. A win-win-win here. Win for the people fleeced by the Democrats Ponzi scheme, a win for the lawyers who sue the Democrats and the charities, and a win for “honesty in government.”
To bad for the “charities” (those that are legitimate and not fronts for something else, like Tides, which fronts for eco-terrorists), but hey, next time they won’t accept any money from Democrats as it will most likely be very dirty and in need of a laundry and will thus serve them right.
georgej on October 24, 2007 at 7:15 AM
can you give money back to dead people?
tomas on October 24, 2007 at 7:18 AM
No matter what charity it is, they’re being hypocrites by giving to it.
Aren’t the Democrats always telling us that the best use of our “extra” money is to pay it in taxes? So why don’t they just give the money to the federal government?
…because they know full well that wouldn’t increase their public image. People would just see them as saps.
logis on October 24, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Hillary and her gang of thieves live in the same slime pit as Hsu but he got caught, so now they must evict him. Don’t fret, another equally slimy occupant will soon move in.
rplat on November 12, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Comment pages: