Hsu v. Abramoff: Scoundrels Compared

Jack Abramoff, besides being a bit more equal opportunity than Norman Hsu, is the leader in the two-man race for most nefarious political fundraiser, as shown in this graphic from Suitably Flip, a repository of Hsu contribution data.

What's really interesting about Hsu is that he was, at his heart, a Hillary guy. Everything else was pretty much window dressing. His total Hil giving was $877,600 according to Suitably Flip, with second-place Andrew Cuomo at $138,200. The closest Dem Prez candidate to Hil is Obama at $78,000 -- less than a tenth of Hil's take.

Abramoff's gift-giving was obvious. He was buying influence for his lobbying clients, and he therefore spread the dough around.

Hsu remains, as we probably can't say of Asians anymore, inscrutable. But one thing is painfully clear from the data: Hsu expected her to be the next president, and he expected his giving to provide access.

Obviously, a conning clothes peddler doesn't need that kind of access. Nor would an aging and ripped off Woodstock investor.

The finger points still towards China, the Clintons' old friend, and the military industrialists there who have an ongoing hankering for U.S. military know-how. That's a bottom I hope we get to in this investigation -- but don't count on that happening if it's Prez Hill.

Hat-tip: memeorandum

It Gets Better: Hil Hustles Hsu Donors

So Hillary's returned all that dirty, stolen money she got from Norman Hsu. No sooner has the saliva dried on the envelopes holding those checks than we get this:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose campaign is returning $850,000 in contributions linked to disgraced fundraiser Norman Hsu, indicated Wednesday that donors who contributed that money could donate to her presidential campaign once again.

"We're not asking that that be done," she said in a teleconference with reporters. "But I believe that the vast majority of those 200- plus donors are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about what they will or won't do going forward."

This is rich. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't have her nose up the butts of contributors that Norman Hsu donors were basically two people: Norman and Hsu. Folks one step up from a tar paper shack just don't have a couple extra thou laying around to give to anyone, even someone as deserving as Hil.

Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton's better half doesn't have the bejangles to be president better think again. Does she have the morality? That's another question.

Hsu Stiffed Woodstock Founder

The Wall Street Journal has the answer to a question a lot of embarrassed Dems (and, hopefully, federal investigators) are asking:

Where did Norman Hsu get his money?

The answer is fascinating. By the time he got to Woodstock, Hsu was $40 million strong.

That has been one of the big questions hanging over the prominent Democratic fund-raiser, as reports have surfaced about hundreds of thousands of dollars he made in political donations, plus lavish parties, fancy apartments and a $2 million bond he posted to get out of jail earlier this month.

New documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal may help point to an answer: A company controlled by Mr. Hsu recently received $40 million from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock rock festival in 1969. That money, Mr. Rosenman told investors this week, is missing.

Rosenman, who was a venture capitalist when he funded Woodstock and remains a venture capitalist today, got suckered by Hsu, who promised him a 40 percent return on clothing manufactured in China for Gucci and others. Rosenman fell for it, and WSJ spells out the consequences:

Mrs. Clinton's campaign said on Monday it would refund all of the donations made or raised by Mr. Hsu. More Democrats announced yesterday that they would dispose of funds that Mr. Hsu gave or raised, including Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York ($25,000), Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts ($35,000), Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu ($11,700), Montana Sen. Jon Tester ($4,750), Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill ($20,700) and Pennsylvania Rep. Joseph Sestak ($2,500). Others have given their money to charity, including Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, whose campaign received $2,000 in March from Mr. Hsu.

More Democrats are expected to follow. A Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign finance reform records has linked Mr. Hsu with at least $1.8 million in donations to Democrats since 2004.

I've felt that Hsu was brokering political influence for China, but if this is the bottom of the story, then may be just a loathsome guy who squandered another guy's money in true con man fashion. This would appear to be bad news for anyone wanting to see a Dem meltdown because getting hustled by a very capable con man is very different that selling out to the very ruthless Communist Chinese.

But it's not the end of the story, because Hsu is more than a con man; he's also a bundler. In this case, he appears to have "given" pieces of Rosenman's investment funds to others to give back to him in a bundling scheme. Campaigns are supposed to be wary and watchful of bundlers, but the Dems obviously weren't -- and not only did they accept bogus bundles, they accepted stolen property of considerable value, which last time I checked was a felony.

And that raises a new question, which the Capt. phrased quite nicely:

And if that was the point, why would Hsu bring all of this attention to himself by engaging in high-profile political fundraising? If theft was the point, it makes no sense. If influence and money-laundering was the point, who intended to benefit from it? Rosenman has his own connections to the Clintons and others. Who fronted Hsu?

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House focused on this line from the WSJ report:

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.

"But," says Moran, "the question the Justice Department is going to want answered is who in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign knew about the Cassidy warning and then failed to adequately vet Hsu’s shady dealings? Or, more troubling, discovered Hsu’s history and still took the money anyway."

hat-tip: memeorandum

Hsu Corralled In Colorado

Norman Hsu is not, as some have speculated, dead. But he did turn up in a hospital.

Democratic fund-raiser Norman Hsu was arrested in Colorado late Thursday after a judge issued an arrest warrant when he failed to show up for a court appearance related to a felony theft conviction.

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents took Mr. Hsu into custody at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction, Colo., FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler said. (WSJ)

There's not much to add to that yet. The Denver Post writes more but fills in few details:

FBI agents took Hsu into custody about 7 p.m. MDT at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction on charges of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler said in a statement. The circumstances surrounding Hsu's arrest were not immediately clear.

Mesa County sheriff's spokeswoman Heather Benjamin said the Sheriff's Office and the Grand Junction Police Department assisted in the arrest, but she declined to give any details.

She referred media calls to the FBI in San Francisco.

The stupidest (most corrupt?) judge in America, San Mateo CA Superior Court Judge Robert D. Foiles, who let Hsu walk on bail, passport in hand, must today be the most relieved judge in America.

Judge, two words of advice: No bail.

One Stupid, Corrupt Judge

My nomination for stupidest judge ... no, make that my nomination for judge most likely to be in the pocket of Hillary Clinton ... goes to San Mateo CA Superior Court Judge Robert D. Foiles, the man who let Norman Hsu out on $2 million bail and didn't even ask Hsu to surrender his passport.

Hsu obviously had connections to bushels-full of cash from contributors who did not wish to be named. Hsu was soon to become seriously tempted to name them. Judge Foiles, do you understand the concept of one plus one?

Faced with judicial unpleasantness previously, Hsu simply disappeared for a decade and a half. Judge Foiles, has it ever occurred to you that when pressed, people exhibit their true character?

Apparently not:

REDWOOD CITY (LA Times) — The event unfolded like the judicial equivalent of a bride left at the altar.

The mysterious political donor and fundraiser Norman Hsu was scheduled to appear in San Mateo County Superior Court on Wednesday to begin dealing with the fact that 15 years ago, he pleaded no contest to felony fraud charges and agreed to spend as long as three years in prison and then disappeared.

But on Wednesday, instead of appearing in court and beginning to shed light on his affairs, Hsu again vanished, standing up Superior Court Judge Robert D. Foiles, Deputy Atty. Gen. Ralph Sivilla, San Francisco defense attorney James J. Brosnahan and two crisis-management executives -- not to mention leaving behind $2 million in cash bail.

His failure to appear, echoing the events of 1992, was a shock not just to the court, but reverberated in the upper levels of Democratic politics, especially the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

When this matter first blew up, the Clinton campaign, in true Clintonian fashion, agreed to give the $23,000 it got directly from Hsu to charity, but it refuses to let the amount he bundled for the campaign -- at least $77,000 -- out of their greedy, gripping hands. They also refuse to release the names of the bundled donors.

If you can understand and justify those actions, congratulations! You know what the definition of "is" is.

This is not rocket science, nor is it new. Hsu was funneling Chinese money into Democratic campaigns to buy influence. Again. The Chinese are chomping at the bit to get the sympathetic Clintons back in the White House and Hsu was one of their chosen agents -- and probably not the only one.

The only ones professing to be shocked by this are the Democrats and their stooges in the San Mateo judicial system. The rest of us see it for what it is: Turning the other way while a bad problem slips away.