Article

2009-02-19 -Lurid Crime Tales-

Stanford May Have Laundered Drug Money for Mexican Cartel

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2009-02-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 When Stanford came along and spent 10s of millions funding a cricket competition to rival the Indian professional competitions, I smelled a very large rat. Not least because it had no obvious revenue stream. Unlike the Indians who are wallowing in cash from TV revenues.

Posted by phil_b 2009-02-19 01:04|| 2009-02-19 01:04|| Front Page Top

#2 As long as he funded the democrats socialist party, he is allright.

heh

Posted by newc">newc 2009-02-19 03:17|| 2009-02-19 03:17|| Front Page Top

#3 From now on additional arch-crook like Stanford with mega donation ties to the Dems is going to be uncovered, caught or on-the-run like this sleazy banker.

Below Nancy Pelosi about to hug & kiss Stanford the big Dem contributor.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2009-02-19 07:19|| 2009-02-19 07:19|| Front Page Top

#4 Stanford, now sought by U.S. Marshals, being hugged by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and praised by former President Bill Clinton

Obviously a man of extremely poor taste.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-02-19 07:25|| 2009-02-19 07:25|| Front Page Top

#5 IIUC he was an equal opportunity briber. Quite a few prominent Repubs received hefty 'campaign contributions'.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-02-19 07:39|| 2009-02-19 07:39|| Front Page Top

#6 I hear that isn't the case, Glenmore; I heard that if you look at opensecrets.whatever the ratio is something like 3:1.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-02-19 08:53|| 2009-02-19 08:53|| Front Page Top

#7 Snowy, is that 3:1 ratio normalized for the potential value of the bribed? Is it the number bribed per party or the amount 'invested' per party? And when were the bribes made - for the last few years a bribed Dem was worth a lot more than a bribed Rep. Bottom line - crookedness in politics is independent of party and dependent on power. (Power corrupts; absolute power corrups absolutely.)

Posted by Glenmore 2009-02-19 09:56|| 2009-02-19 09:56|| Front Page Top

#8 We can only hope and pray Pelosi's hug was genuine affection amongst close friends. Tying her to a scandal this big would really make my day.

Posted by Danielle 2009-02-19 11:21|| 2009-02-19 11:21|| Front Page Top

#9 Seizure of assets used in drug trafficking is also a ray of hope, as opposed to the non-existent profits in the Madoff ponzi scheme. He has six planes for starters.

Posted by Danielle 2009-02-19 11:28|| 2009-02-19 11:28|| Front Page Top

#10 the ratio is something like 3:1.

More like 10:1

Is it the number bribed per party or the amount 'invested' per party?

Amount invested per party. However the money invested in 'GOP' went to individual, high-power pols.

Posted by Pappy 2009-02-19 13:45|| 2009-02-19 13:45|| Front Page Top

#11 I can't imagine that money invested in convention parties would generate as much return as money invested in individual politicians. But then, I am a political naif.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-02-19 14:52|| 2009-02-19 14:52|| Front Page Top

#12 Hugging Nancy Pelosi must be like hugging a popsicle.

Posted by tu3031 2009-02-19 14:53|| 2009-02-19 14:53|| Front Page Top

23:05 Frank G
22:50 Alaska Paul
22:48 Mike N.
22:41 badanov
22:37 Icerigger
22:37 badanov
22:19 Barbara Skolaut
21:46 Woozle Elmeter 2700
21:35 Woozle Elmeter 2700
21:26 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:16 Procopius2k
21:12 Procopius2k
20:45 Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794
20:41 Woozle Elmeter 2700
20:40 Rednek Jim
20:36 Rednek Jim
20:33 Rednek Jim
20:32 Frank G
20:31 Rednek Jim
20:17 JosephMendiola
20:12 JosephMendiola
20:08 JosephMendiola
20:07 Rednek Jim
20:05 JosephMendiola