The Other Hsu Drops

A boatload of news is coming out about Norman Hsu, Hillary Clinton's big-time fundraiser (and, coincidentally, convicted felon). The Examiner runs a story with charges from Fred Thompson's campaign that this mess is extremely reminiscent of the numerous campaign finance scandals of Bill Clinton in the 1990s:

"You have to look at this with a great deal of skepticism that - having been through this sort of thing in '96 - that nobody thought to say, 'Hey, you know, we better take another look at this before we take all this money,' " he said. "And the fact that nobody did - or if they did, they decided to just put their finger in front of their lips and say shhh and try to sneak off into the distance - tells you a great deal about the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign is the Bill Clinton campaign redux."

The Clinton campaign, of course, is saying they had no idea about Hsu's background. Here's the problem with that, though, as pointed out by Rush Limbaugh: if she's not telling the truth, she's guilty of a vast array of campaign finance violations (felonies), lies, and deception, and should be prosecuted. On the other hand, if she is telling the truth, are we supposed to feel good about letting a woman who can't find a felony background in one of her best fundraisers becoming President? It's a joke.

Michelle Malkin posts some extremely damning information on the Hsu-Clinton scandal from various sources this morning:

The campaign is refunding $850,000 to [Hsu’s bundled] donors, viewing the money as tainted. Yet the campaign is also risking another public relations mess by saying that it would take back the money if it clearly came from the donor’s bank account, not from Mr. Hsu or another source. The risk is that Mrs. Clinton will appear to want more cash no matter whether it was once colored by a disgraced donor.

And...

If the worry is that Hsu was using at least some of these people as fronts so that he could exceed the federal limits on how much he could donate to Hillary, then how will the money be any less tainted if they re-gift it to her? I.e., if Hsu cuts John Doe a check for $100,000 and asks him to spread it around among Democrats A-Z, then giving that money back to John so that he can give it right back to you doesn’t “cleanse” it. It’s Hsu’s money; John never should have had it in the first place.

And...

As you probably are already aware, it is well known that usually the Secret Service asks for, at a minimum, full legal name, DOB and SSN of those who get anywhere near/attend events with, SS protectees, so they can run a record check. (FYI the Secret Service record check is, ‘unofficially’, considered one of the most extensive that can be done by US law enforcement.)

So if the Secret Service knew for years that Hsu was a wanted FUGITIVE why did they:

1. Not do anything?
2. Allow him anywhere near any important (high value) targets like either of the Clintons?

Alternatively, if the SS did not do its basic ‘due diligence’ check then the questions are even more pointed:

1. Why not? Who ordered them not to do it, and why? (What did the Clinton’s know and when did they know it?)
2. Was the Clinton (and by extension the Democrat fundraising machine) so focused on money that they would violate basic security protocol?

And...

Hillary Clinton’s campaign couldn’t explain yesterday why it blew off warnings about felon-turned-fund-raiser Norman Hsu - and the Daily News learned FBI agents are collecting e-mail evidence in the widening scandal.

Yesterday, the campaign insisted it did all it should to vet Hsu after California businessman Jack Cassidy warned in June that Hsu’s investment operation was fishy. Cassidy e-mailed his tips to the California Democratic Party, which forwarded them to the Clinton campaign.

The heat is being turned up, as the Wall Street Journal, Judicial Watch, and other organizations (and the blogosphere) are closing in on the true origins of this dirty money, which may be linked to one of the creators of Woodstock in the 1960s.

Stay tuned, this one could get fun! Do we see another blog swarm (i.e. 'Rathergate' and 'swift-boating' John Kerry) developing, with Hillary Clinton in its crosshairs? We can only hope...

There's my two cents.