The article does mention a name. Maybe you liberals should do your reserach before making your ideoligic claims.
A Democratic fundraiser who has raised $1 million for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says he has done nothing wrong and has asked no favors in return, but Norman Hsu didn't mention that he's a wanted man.
A California prosecutor says Hsu pleaded no contest to grand theft, was sentenced to three years in prison and then disappeared, The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.
Click here to read the story in The Los Angeles Times.
"He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview with the newspaper. "Do you know where he is?"
Hsu, an apparel executive who made his first-ever political contribution — to John Kerry — in 2004, is listed as one of the top 20 Democratic fundraisers in the country and is one of Clinton's "HillRaisers" — people who rustle up at least $100,000 for Clinton's campaign, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Hsu, who is described by friends as warm, charming and dapper, told the newspaper this week that his generosity is a byproduct of the enormous success he has had in the U.S.
"I have been blessed by what this country has given me and have tried to give back in many ways," Hsu said in an e-mail to The Wall Street Journal. "One way has been through political contributions to candidates and causes I believe in. I have never asked for anything in return. I've asked friends and colleagues of mine to give money out of their own pockets and sometimes they have agreed."
But Hsu attracted attention recently because some of the people he's asked to contribute don't outwardly appear to be able to afford the donations. Now, his low profile — even some in the Clinton big money cycle have never heard of him — seems to be due to an ulterior motive.
In 1991, Hsu pleaded guilty to grand theft after raising $1 million in investments for a phony business, Smetana said. Bench warrants were issued when he failed to show up to his sentencing hearing.
Hsu's lawyer, Lawrence Barcella, said Hsu doesn't remember ever making a deal with authorities, but he does recall a legal case that was part of a settlement with creditors when he went through bankruptcy.
On top of that, among those who have "bundled" their contributions along with Hsu's is one San Francisco family of seven adults whose home is small and under the airport flight path, jobs are average and $213,000 in donations are closely coordinated with Hsu's.
Hsu's relationship to the Paw family apparently goes back a decade, and Winkle Paw, 35, is an employee of Hsu's New York companies, The Wall Street Journal was first to report. Barcella told The Los Angeles Times the Paws have their own cash, and "Norman never reimbursed anyone for their contribution."
Another New York family of three that runs a plastics packaging plant in Pennsylvania and is tied to Hsu donated more than $200,000 in the last three years, the Times states.
Clinton adviser Howard Wolfsen told The Times that Hsu has been a longtime donor to the party: "During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them."
2007-08-29 09:38:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I for one appreciate you bring this to my attention. A source would have been good but one of the other answerers provided the name Norman Hsu. Seems I remember the Clintons taking money from Communist Chinese.
05/21/98 "The New York Times" reported that former Commerce Department official, and key Clinton fund-raiser, Johnny Chung had admitted to Justice Department investigators, passing on a 100-thousand dollar contribution from a Chinese military aerospace and intelligence officer to the Clinton campaign."
It was pointed out that other, even larger donations, came from Two American firms launching private, communications satellites On Chinese rockets. The president gave permission for those Launches. Later, the firms, Loral space and communications and Hughes electronics, gave the Chinese secret US information to Help with their rocket guidance after one of the Chinese "long March" rockets crashed, destroying the Hughes satellite aboard.
Earlier this year, president Clinton approved that technology transfer also, despite a criminal investigation by the justice Department of Loral for making it.
Within the past few weeks it was revealed that china has repositioned more than a dozen intercontinental ballistic missiles toward US targets, and some congressmen believe the Commercial satellite guidance information aided the Chinese in improving their military missiles.
The problem is these are our elected representatives, people sworn to up hold the constitution. And they sell us out at every turn.
2007-08-29 10:35:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Village Player 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is true and not old news, this was on the news today about her. Caught again already, and she is still not out of trouble in California courts yet because of campaign fund fraud, of course the liberal media keeps this covered up for her too. Does not surprise me, her and Bill are always doing crooked things , this is just a drop in the bucket. All one has to do is research, and they would know for them self.
2007-08-29 20:32:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by lilly4 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, he is a crook. Yes, Hiliary is dirty.
THEY ARE ALL DIRTY!! I'm liberal, but I'm not stupid. Unlike the conservatives I see on here, I feel no need to stand up for the wrongdoings of politicians, no matter what party they are with. Grow up. This bickering about which 'side' is more righteous is so immature. There isn't a politician in Washington that is squeaky clean. I think Hiliary, and her fellow party members, are the lesser of two evils...for the moment. But finding 'dirt' on a Democrat doesn't mean that Republicans are 'clean'.
2007-08-29 09:42:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
and this is supposed to be suprising????? what about Bush's oil ties to the taliban.. infact a direct company with Osama Bin Laden's brother.... Instead of focusing do much energy on liberals think this way, conservatives this... why don't you focus on being a good American, researching the facts and focus on what is really going on... Both Hillary and Giuliani have the SAME corporate sponsers.. get it through your head people they both are the same garbage... Either way you will have David Rockefeller running the country.. Vote smart this election... find a canidate who is not sponsered by the media and corporations but by the people....
2007-08-29 09:54:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Both parties employ convicted felons... both do. I have NEVER heard of anyone "screaming about morals and hypocrisy" on campaign fundraising issues. Both parties do not want campaign reform... a source of liberal people "screaming" about having felons in a campaign would be helpful.
2007-08-29 09:51:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by cattledog 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
This method of fund raising worked well the every time Clinton's have run for office. Why would they change their methods now. The Clinton's are the reasons that all the campaign finance reform was brought to the forefront int he beginning. Same Clinton tactics,, different day.
2007-08-29 09:36:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
What's the big deal? Clinton pardoned a bunch
of felons on his departure from the presidency.
Yet Democrats are up in arms that Bush might
pardon his long-time administration
friend.
2007-08-29 09:37:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
looky here yall. let me, osama bush laden tells yal sumptin. I'm a gonna perdon everyone of my friends. every one of them. count them that barny, dick and poo poo flower
oh ans scater looby. and alberta gonzo, and rummy, and the entire ben lidin family, and he entire saowdi arehbya
and the telibani from aphganistani and all the texans and
shoot just anybody ecept the criminals that ask about me business in uhrack and aphspanistani
2007-08-29 09:44:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
You should have put a link to the article. I haven't heard about it. Is he an illegal alien? Or a leading La Raza member?
2007-08-29 09:38:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Shane 7
·
1⤊
2⤋