Hsu Linked to Past Clinton Scandal Donor

(CNSNews.com) - Norman Hsu's donations to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign have brought comparisons but no direct connections to the 1990s "Chinagate" scandal.

But before Hsu made headlines as a fugitive fundraiser late last month (he's now in custody in California for a 1991 grand theft conviction), he served on a board with another key figure in the earlier fundraising scandal.

For more than a year, Hsu was a member of the board for the New School University in New York, where he worked with Bernard L. Schwartz. The latter, a major Clinton donor, was chief executive officer of a major defense contractor involved in technology transfers to the People's Republic of China, according to a congressional report released in 1999.

Hsu was named to the New School's board of governors in May 2006, New School spokesman Brian Krapf told Cybercast News Service. He was named to the board of trustees in July 2007.

Schwartz has served on the board of trustees since October 2004, according to a press release from the New School.

Schwartz, former chief of Loral Space and Communications, was very close to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, spent his 71st birthday with them in the White House in 1997, and is credited with giving $1.5 million to Democrats during the Clinton years, according to news reports. He reportedly has given $256,000 to the Democratic Party since 2004.

According to the congressional report, Loral and Hughes Electronics, another defense firm, provided Chinese space engineers with technical rocketry data that could assist the communist country's weapons programs. The firms allegedly pushed to get export licensing authority transferred from the U.S. State Department to the U.S. Department of Commerce, thus making it easier to transfer U.S. missile and satellite technology to the Chinese.

The congressional report also said Chinese Col. Liu Chaoying helped to funnel $300,000 to Johnny Chung, a key figure in the 1996 Clinton fundraising scandal. "Col. Liu's payment to Johnny Chung was an attempt to better position her in the United States to acquire computer, missile and satellite technologies," according to the report.

"Schwartz did business with communist China, so any connection Hsu has with him is intriguing," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Cybercast News Service. "The Chinese government obtained many benefits from their access to U.S. technology."

In a 1998 news release after the scandal made headlines, Loral officials stated, "No sensitive information -- no significant technology -- was conveyed to the Chinese. No 'secret' or 'classified' information was ever discussed with the Chinese."

The statement further said that Bernard Schwartz "was not personally involved in any aspect of this matter. No political favors or benefits of any kind were requested or extended."

By 2003, both Loral and Hughes agreed to pay a combined fine of $32 million to the federal government for passing missile technology to the Chinese.

Schwartz retired as CEO of Loral in 2006, and now heads his own investment firm, BLS Investments.

Would it be too early to assert that the reasons for setting up and using the names of these “companies” and those similar to them were not to do a legitimate business, but to hold himself up in political circles as a successful businessman, and establish business bank accounts to be ready as potential channels for laundering money to campaigns through “investments” and “loans” to these businesses?

Setting up business names with very little activity is not proof of illegal intent. He may have intended to do legal business but failed to generate any business activity. If you however combine the other relevant facts: Claiming he had a business called 'Components Ltd' before he actually filed 'Next Components, Inc' in New York demonstrates criminal intent; Incorrect Spelling (Componets Ltd) and Claiming Business Names that never existed (Because) on a Political Donation demonstrates intent to deceive; etc. etc. What we have evidence of is intent to deceive. It will be up to the feds to determine criminality. Obviously using post dated checks as part of a negotiated business exchange which later turned out to bad due to insufficient funds is a crime. Is he was fronting a lot of unregistered company names he would have had problems setting up a lot of bank accounts. He probably had a corporate account for the Next Components Ltd. May have done some DBA names for the fake or front companies. He would have had some problems though. My guess is he either worked with a lot of cash or he had a colluding bank or bank insider that helped him cash checks made out to fake names.

Intent to deceive, yes.
Criminality, to be determined by feds and banks.
Democrats being surprised by all this, either they are easily fooled, they are lieing or they are easily fooled liars.

I think it is a safe bet to state what you want to state. To state what is obvious and what history has taught us about the Crintons.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


	MONEY HONEY
HSU'S GOT