Feds Indict Norman Hsu in New York

On November 27, 2007, embattled fundraiser Norman Hsu was indicted by the feds in New York on fraud charges arising from an alleged $60 million Ponzi scheme.

The 15-count indictment, unsealed today in New York, charges Hsu with wire fraud, mail fraud and violating election laws, alleging he lined up investors by promising high returns on short-term investments and used money from new victims to pay earlier recruits. He also pressured investors to contribute to political candidates he favored, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said in a statement.

The indictment was unsealed today. I've posted a copy here.

< Sen. Specter Introduces FISA Bill on Substitution | Another Sensitive Guantanamo Document Leaked >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Is it a racist smear? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    or an attempt to undermine Hillary?

    Can it be both racist and sexist? BTD? (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    I was funnin' (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 01:40:20 PM EST
     with Jeralyn who called the original articles exposing Hsu attempts to smear clinton's Asian fundraisers.

      To those considering arguing this indictment has no relation to the Clinton campaign, look at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the indictment before opening mouth and inserting foot.

    my own bad self...

    People considering Clinton need to know she will have even more "baggage" before making the final decision to support her as nominee. I should have also said look at counts 13-15 to get an idea that this case is going to shine a bright light on fundraising and the best you can hope for is the stench only damages her by implication and not directly.

    I must ask the obvious (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    with all the "roasting" of Rudy lately why no critical comment on Hillary and her connections to Hsu?

    hehehe (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 08:31:03 PM EST
    Look up rhetorical question.

    I'll roast..... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:29:45 AM EST
    She's as crooked as a scoliosis stricken spine.

    I couldn't will myself to vote for her if my life depended on it.


    Out of curiosity which Republican do you prefer (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    to HRC?

    And why?


    Remember (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:31:23 PM EST
     there is always: staying home; voting but leaving Prez blank; or casting a protest vote for a 3rd party.

     don't kid yourself into believing that nominating a candidate whom so manyy peole find singularly unappealing has no consequence. support her I you prefer her but do it with your eyes open. don't presume all who dislike Republicans even more will hold their noses and vote for her. Also don't ignore the possibility that in a close election that could matter a lot.



    first off I am an Edwards supporter (none / 0) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    And I have made that statement here more than once.


    there is always: staying home; voting but leaving Prez blank; or casting a protest vote for a 3rd party.

    is all true and has the following consequence- increases the possibility of a Republican victory. And as John Edwards said, they are all Bush on steroids. Rudy is authoritarian as any and more than most. Huck isn't ready for prime time. Romny is a used car salesmen.

    There are real consequences to this election. HRC isn't my first choice or my second. But I will vote for her if she is the nominee, because I couldn't vote for any of the current GOP crop.


    Ron Paul.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:33:28 PM EST
    is the only one I'd vote for over Hillary.  He's against the occupation and the drug war, 2 of my biggest issues.

    Other than him, I'd vote for whatever third party is available, write in Mickey Mouse, or stay home.


    Ron Paul has 2 good positions & that's it (none / 0) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    He is a gold standard nut.

    He is anti-choice. Anti- Social Security. Anti- NHC.

    He would turn the clock back to the Guided age of the 19th century. He is absolutely wrong for the 21st century.

    Protest vote? See above.


    He is a little nuts.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 02:27:15 PM EST
    but so am I.  Libertarianism has been turning me on more and more....the thought of no public schools and no social security used to scare the crap outta me, these days I'm not so sure.  My niece's elementary school sucks, 3rd grade and they haven't even mentioned Thomas Jefferson, too worried about state tests.  History is a home school subject now with Uncle kdog.  Social Security...I have no faith in Uncle Sam to pay me back in 40 years, I consider it a plain old income tax to keep from going totally mad.  

    A more libertarian society just might deliver a more free and more peaceful society...never now until we try.  

    Again, I'm not sure of much, but I am sure Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Rudy, Romney, Thompson and McCain all promise the same crooked business as usual.  Occupying Iraq and wanting me arrested.  I'll take a chance on a nut, any nut.....be it Paul, Kucinich, or Kubby.  

    Anything but the same old same old...ignoring the real problems; arguing about abortion, immigration, and gay marriage until our ears bleed; and taking care of the cronies.


    I don't think voting for fringe candidates (none / 0) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:37:38 PM EST
    will solve problems, only exacerbate them.

    SSDI is not in a crises.

    As for your niece's public school, why does it suck?  Could it have something to do with cutting taxes which reduces funds, which does effect quality? Have you considered running for the school board?

    A libertarian society will deliver us to large corporate interests- it will not be a utopia. We had a "more libertarian society" 130 years ago. It was called the Guilded age. I doubt you would have liked it.


    I think Kdog (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 04:51:06 PM EST
     is more of a social issue libertarian and not desirious of a new GILDED Age. One thing for sure,  he's not a corporate lapdog.

       As for protest votes, they are  are not intended to solve problems directly  but to record dissatisfaction. I'm not sure how they exacerbate problems in that they essentially are the practical equivalent of not voting but the idea is to let the major parties know basically you both suck so bad I refuse to vote for either of you but the protest vote aspect lets them know it's not just apathy.



    I wouldn't have accused Kdog of being a corporate (none / 0) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:53:34 PM EST
    lackey. Which is why I think a protest vote right now exacerbates things. You are basically voting Republican. Like HRC or not, I suspect she would be competent at governance and not an authoritarian.

    It will take a Democratic President, and a stronger Democratic majority before we get any real change. Any dilution will simply leave the deadlock. Which is great, if you favor what the GOP has done over the last 25 years. I don't.

    I don't know if you have read John Dean's book, Broken Government or not. I recommend it.  Keep in mind, it was written by a former Goldwater Republican.

    (thanks for the spelling tip. Don't know how I got it in my head to spell it with a U).


    We are already.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 08:37:15 AM EST
    in the midst of the new gilded age....thanks to the Democratic and Republican parties governing for the corporations and lobbies, and not for the people.  Hillary will be no different....or have you forgotten her husband's administration already.  NAFTA comes to mind.  

    The mega-corporations of today almost rival the power and influenece of the robber barons.  From my view Molly, we've already been delievered to corporate interests.  Electing a fringe candidate, if nothing else, will throw a wrench in the works....and slow down the sell-out of America.  I view a Dem as a finger in the dyke....I just think it may be better to let the dyke collapse and build a better, stronger one.  If we do nothing, and electing Hillary/Edwards/Obama is doing nothing, we are on a road nowhere.


    Peep this presidential platform..... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:32:00 AM EST
    Steve Kubby

    Don't sound like the gilded age to me....sounds like the dawn of the new freedom age.


    This part of the platform is a disaster. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 07:05:15 AM EST
    Taxes & Spending

    Veto any and all tax increases, new taxes, and unbalanced budgets -- period.
    Work to cut spending, splitting resulting surpluses between tax cuts and debt service.
    Work to eliminate the federal income tax.
    Until the income tax is eliminated, seek annual across-the-board tax cuts through increases to the personal exemption.

    Forget NHC. Forget Social Security. Forget doing something about energy. Forget about running the government for the people and look for Corporations to run everything.


    There is a difference between voting for (none / 0) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 07:02:57 AM EST
     & electing a fringe candidate. By definition, fringe candidates rarely, if ever get elected.

    There are still 2 wings of he Democratic party- a moderate to conservative and a progressive wing.  We don't know what a Democratic president coupled with a stronger democratic majority in 2008 will do. Historically the Democratic  party in that situation to to gravitate towards more progressive policies. We haven't seen that since LBJ an FDR.

    I submit to you, the situation can and will get worse if a Republican is elected. Even with a stronger Democratic majority. A vote for a fringe candidate is in effect a vote for a Republican. See Nader, 2000 or Wallace 1968. It came extremely close in 1948 and arguably crippled Truman's 2nd term.


    The thing that utterly baffles me (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:38:42 AM EST
      is the tolerance for the corruption. I am not oblivious to the pragmatic argument that we are not going to find a "pure" candidate and so it makes sense to support a corrupt one (within one's subjective  level of tolerance) because he or she is competing against other corrupt candidates and is closest to one's policy positions on, uh, on important issues such as, uh, you know, uh, like, uh, well, uh, let me get back to you on that.

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:44:25 AM EST
    is the tolerance for the corruption.

    Yes, we each can argue that both sides do it, but Slado makes a valid point that no one around here, except for Kdog and maybe Edwards/Dodd/Obama et al supporters will say it. And when she is finally nominated they will quit saying it.