‘But, Rush! But, Rush! He just got indicted by the feds.’
Yes, for his Ponzi scheme, but I don’t know that the FBI is investigating his campaign contributions, per se. They are investigating where he got the money to charge him with a Ponzi scheme. But let’s go back, shall we? Right now Ted Stevens, a Republican Senator from Alaska, has the FBI prowling around his home in Alaska from some fraud involving, what, remodeling a bathroom in his house with some constituent or some such thing. I don’t know the details, but the FBI is on the case — and then we had a little con person from down here who was writing these funny little e-mails to these pages, and they had the FBI in on that. They were reading these e-mails, and they’re examining IP addresses and DNS’s and servers and everything else trying to find out what really went on. E-mails, folks, e-mails! We had ABC News on the case. What else have we got? Harry Reid! Dingy Harry, made hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable land deals involving federal lands. The LA Times has done countless stories on the intricate details and the workings of Dingy Harry and his sons, who are lawyers and lobbyists. Where’s the FBI investigating that? Duh, I don’t know that they are. They might be, but we haven’t heard anything about it. We certainly hear when the FBI is investigating Republicans, for e-mails or some kind of fraud, remodeling a bathroom.
Where is the FBI examining Democrats? Do you realize how many fraudulent donors in this cycle there are to the Democrat Party? Not just Hillary, but Ubama, all of these people, Edwards. They all are giving the money back, they say. They’ll give it to charity and so forth. I want to see the canceled checks on those donations to charity. But where’s the FBI investigating the funny-money campaign contributions to the Democrat Party? Now, we do know that the FBI was heavily involved investigating Jack Abramoff. Why, any Republican that ever came in contact with Jack Abramoff, why, they were going to fry along with Abramoff. But now we got Norman Hsu and a whole bunch of them here. In fact, from NBC’s The Note today — and, by the way, here’s this word again, connected to Hillary: ‘Fishy Donors Haunt Hillary’s Run.’ Who was it the other day said Hillary was not a ‘cold fish’? Oh, it was Madeleine Albright. She’s not a ‘cold fish,’ which means, ladies and gentlemen, that Madeleine Albright knows Hillary’s temperature. So now here’s a ‘fishy’ donor’s ‘questionable cash haunts Clinton and her rivals in race for ’08 — The Wall Street Journal’s Brody Mullins and Ianthe Jeanne Dugan today find another suspicious ‘bundler’ who’s helping Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.: William Danielczyk, founder of a Washington-area private-equity firm.
‘They quote a donor, Pamela Layton, as saying she was reimbursed by Danielczyk — her husband’s boss — for the donations — which is quite illegal: ‘I don’t even like Hillary. I’m a Republican,’ Layton said. The Clinton campaign says it’s sending back the $9,200 donated by the Laytons, and will review all of the contributions brought in by Danielczyk (strarting to sound familiar?) This, of course, comes on top of the Norman Hsu debacle (and there’s more on an old alleged Hsu-devised Ponzi scheme in today’s Los Angeles Times). Another Hsu could drop today,’ and, of course, the other shoe has dropped on Hsu. — Well, it has! — That’s his federal indictment on this Ponzi scheme. ‘In addition, Clinton is still refusing to say whether she’ll return money from Oscar Wyatt, who is on trial for fraud, conspiracy, and other charges related to Saddam Hussein’s abuse of the UN’s oil-for-food program…. the Washington Post’s John Solomon and Matthew Mosk examine Clinton’s top fund-raisers and find ‘several figures who were involved in the 1990s Democratic Party fundraising scandal that tarnished her husband’s record.’ … So far, this is more of an issue for Clinton than any other candidate … but… One of former senator John Edwards’ top money folks — trial lawyer William S. Lerach — is now headed to prison for at least 12 months under a plea agreement on a conspiracy charge.’ So where’s the FBI here, folks? This is a pattern. It is a pattern here in the Democrat Party, and it’s being swept under the rug — and they keep saying ‘disgraced Democrat fundraiser.’ There’s something up. I haven’t figured out what yet, but there’s a reason the Drive-Bys are doing that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The fundraising scandals and so forth, Norman Hsu, the other shoe dropped on Hsu, by the way, the big $60 million indictment out there, but you know how the Clintons explain this? The Drive-Bys, even though they characterize him as a disgraced Democrat fundraiser, even though the Clintons run out there and say, (paraphrasing) ‘This isn’t a pattern of corruption. We heard what Limbaugh said about this. This is not a pattern of corruption. This is simply widespread coincidence.’ With the Lippo group, and the Riadys, and that bunch in the late eighties in Arkansas all the way up to the nineties, now this is a widespread coincidence. Here’s what we ought to do, folks. Any of you practical jokers out there — nah, don’t do it. Just something I’d love to see. Just get some of that yellow crime tape and just drape it around Clinton campaign headquarters. We know what goes on in there. Just make it a crime scene and be done with it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So I’m watching MSNBC during break, and they’re doing a story on Acccccch-madinejad not being allowed to go down to Ground Zero and place a wreath because it would be a security risk. Hell, yes! The guy could come armed with a nuke! Who knows? Bottom line is this: They’re running graphics on MSNBC: ‘Axis of Evil Leader Denied Permission…’ I burst out laughing. ‘Axis of evil leader’? When’s the last time you ever heard Ahmadinejad referred to as ‘axis of evil leader’? I’m thinking, ‘What’s going on here?’ First the Drive-Bys are referring to Norman Hsu as ‘disgraced Democratic fundraiser…’ Actually, what it ought to be — and I think I’ve figured out why they’re doing this — if they wanted to characterize Hsu correctly, it would be ‘disgraced Clinton fundraiser.’ So they’re using the word ‘Democrat’ to, at least, you know, be accurate and get there and not hide it, but they’re hiding the fact that much of his largesse went to the Clintons. As I say, folks, put some crime tape around her headquarters, because it’s a crime scene. Everybody knows what goes on in there. Now we have ‘Axis of Evil Leader Denied…’ What are they doing? Are they jabbing Bush with that? Now, I mentioned Norman Hsu earlier, and I said that the excuse that they’re offering is that he got on the wrong train. He actually thought he was getting on BART. I’ve had some e-mails from people questioning me on this.
Look, folks, ‘His spokesman, Jason Booth, says Hsu intended to appear for his September 5th court date in California and may have thought he was boarding a Bay Area Rapid Transit train when he instead caught an Amtrak train heading out of the state. Jason Booth, who was in Colorado on Tuesday on the eve of a court hearing at which Hsu was expected to waive extradition, said, ‘That’s what appears to be how it happened. He was disoriented at the time. We believe he suffered a psychological, mental, or physical breakdown. How that was caused, I don’t know. I’m not a doctor.” Well, folks, I don’t know about you. I’ve been to San Francisco. I’ve been to the Bay Area. I’ve seen the BART trains. There is no way. If you are suffering from derangement, if you have been poisoned, there is still no way (laughing) that you will mistake the Bay Area Rapid Transit for the California Zephyr! Because when you get on BART there aren’t any sleeper compartments, for one thing. Of course, there was Hsu’s apology. He apologized to all the people he donated to. This stinks to high heaven, folks, I’m telling you. Let’s go back to earlier this year. I’m talking about January, maybe even a little prior, maybe go back to 2006, certainly this year, January, February, March.
Do you remember all the stories about all the money Mrs. Clinton was amassing in her campaign war chest? Accompanying those stories was the analysis, and the analysis was, ‘Well, she’s just vacuuming up all the money. There is not going to be any money for anybody else to get. She’s getting it all so early,’ and then the mysterious arrival of Barack Ubama, and all of a sudden he starts reporting more money raised than Mrs. Clinton. Now all of a sudden, Mrs. Clinton is starting to give back, and give back, and give back. So we wonder: Where did all that money come from? I think, frankly, they don’t care. I don’t think they care. If they get caught, they’ll send some back and say, ‘Ah, it’s a coincidence, a widespread coincidence. Ah, we didn’t know about this. How can we be possibly expected to know the details of all of our bundlers and donors? Why too many people love the Clintons out there, so they can’t possibly find out every detail about everybody.’ That’s the story that we’ve gotten here. Ubama is saying the same thing. You wonder how much she really got and how much of it was legit, because it appears… This is going to dog her. This is going to I think have a life longer than she wants it to have, anyway.