Differing accounts of Jim Norman’s windfall

I am a long time subscriber to both the Tampa Bay Times and the Tampa Tribune; appreciating their sometimes differing editorial opinions.

However, when it comes to reporting facts, I expect both to be in total agreement.

Today, the Tribune reported that Florida State Senator Jim Norman’s ethics case centered around a $500,000 “loan” from Ralph Hughes, while the Times reported it as a “gift”.

Please, if in fact this was a loan, answer why this has not been repaid to the Hughes estate, widow and orphans?

Contrariwise, if this was a gift, have the Normans reported it as income to the IRS?

Why are both newspapers pussyfooting around as to how the Normans seemingly continue to profit from this dirty business?

<IMHO> Fred Jacobsen

One Response to “Differing accounts of Jim Norman’s windfall”

  1. Let’s also not forget that in both gift vs. loan, Norman lied under oath during a deposition and again during the election law court case.

    I have been told that it was not Norman’s responsibility to report it as a gift but rather the gift giver’s responsibility. This was from an IRS investigator.

    What is for certain, it was NOT a paperwork snafu as his attorney stated. If it was a paperwork snafu then apparently he knew all along but stated he knew nothing about it.

    Lie, lies, lies. Sadly, in this case it seems to have paid off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: