|
Edited on Sat Feb-21-09 09:35 PM by originalpckelly
There's the high level access scandal. The fact that he's on tape hugging Nancy Pelosi, on tape being endorsed by Bill Clinton, and the fact that he was at the DNC in 2008.
Then, there's the fact that he's allegedly involved with laundering funds for drug cartels, and may have been lobbying Congress to loosen rules pertaining to that.
Then, there's a possible scandal about him wooing law makers to keep his corrupt enterprise from being investigated.
Then, there's a possible scandal that he and other Virgin Island business types wooed Congress to protect the tax breaks for companies there, effectively reducing a 35% tax to 5%, specifically members of the Ways and Means Committee.
And of course, then there's the scandal that seems to be central, his $9.2 billion fraud that SEC is going after him for.
So you can see, there are lots of scandals here. It looks bigger, in some ways, with the number of tentacles it has, when compared to Madoff's scandal.
And here's the real kicker. There is a basic discrepancy: was it all a fraud? On Stanford's website, they claim the company had $50 billion under management. That's a significant difference from $9.2 billion. Is that simply an overstatement? It wouldn't be out of character for a fraudster to lie, but isn't $9.2 billion a gigantic firm all by itself, why lie and say it is $50 billion?
If he was doing business with drug cartels, do you think he'd still be alive if he ripped them off? Wouldn't you expect the type of people who run drug cartels to have a bullshit detection meter that's fairly good? Something doesn't make sense about that.
Just some commentary.
|