Here they go again....

[Embar Angylwrath]

Hsu has skipped his court appearance, and forfeited the bail money. Ask yourself this.. how rich do you have ot be to walk away from 2 million dollars, or.. how much trouble would you have to be in to walk away from 2 million dollars?

Face it. Hsu had an outstanding warrant for years, and Dems' collective reaction was ... "he did?" Give me a break. Democrat politcal operatives may be misguided, but they aren't THAT stupid. They knew this guy was trouble, but were addicted to the benjamins. Everyone on this board with an ounce of intelligence knows that anyone coming to the table with millions of dollars worth of donations, bundled or not, is a target for the other side, and the vetting is done in earnest. A simple background check on this guy.. a VERY simple background check... would have uncovered the warrant.

I'm hoping there's a track record of someone doing that, and not informing the authorities. Aiding and abetting anyone?

[Trollbait]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1189010 ... lenews_wsj

Mr. Hsu appears to have left the U.S. shortly after missing his 1992 hearing in connection with the theft case. Hong Kong government records indicate he joined a company in that city a few months afterward, according to a Wall Street Journal review of the documents.

<snip>

They said they didn't consider the arrangement risky, given how much money Mr. Hsu had to pony up. "It was an extremely high bail, which is a large incentive for an offender to appear," said Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general's office.

<snip>

Mr. Hsu was to be sentenced in 1992. He vanished before his sentencing. Officials have said they assumed he returned to Hong Kong. Government records show the opening of a company called Newton Enterprises Ltd. there in September 1992, with an unspecified business. The following March, Mr. Hsu became a director in the company, subsequent paperwork shows. The company was dissolved in 1998.

Mr. Hsu's whereabouts over the next few years remain a mystery, but in 2003, according to Democratic fund-raisers, he began showing up at events in New York and became a major host, donating thousands of dollars and helping to raise much more.

<snip>

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Hsu's campaign contributions tracked closely with donations made by the residents of a modest house in Daly City, Calif. Since 2004, six members of the Paw family have donated $290,000 to Democratic candidates, according to campaign-finance records. That makes the family one of the top sources of campaign cash in the country, even though they show no public sign of the wealth usually associated with such heavy political giving.

<snip>

Data show that Mr. Hsu often made donations to the same candidates on the same dates as did several occupants of a home in Dix Hills, N.Y., just outside of New York City. Paul Su, the head of the household, says he is the president of Dilini Management Group LLC, according to campaign finance reports. Mr. Hsu once said he was president of that company. Mr. Hsu also once listed Mr. Su's house as his address. Mr. Su couldn't be reached for comment.

So, Lurker, if Norman Hsu ends up being linked to Chinese Intelligence like Johnny Chung and John Huang from the original "Chinagate" scandal will you think it is all a big coincidence that the Clintons seem to always be the biggest benefactors of Chinese attempts to influence our government?

How about you retract your inference that this issue is about race and admit that it really has everything to do with shady characters of (at best) dubious national allegiances trying to purchase influence in our government...hmmm?

[Partha]

If the Republican Party can take money from terrorism sponsors, Clinton should be able to take money from Chinese folks.

[Embar Angylwrath]

If the Republican Party can take money from terrorism sponsors, Clinton should be able to take money from Chinese folks.

Thats the spirit Partha! Model yourself after the winning team!

[Finglefinn]

If the Republican Party can take money from terrorism sponsors, Clinton should be able to take money from Chinese folks.

OK. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen written.

Let's say my boss takes a spiff from a customer to the tune of $50,000 (not unheard of in my industry and very illegal). So I go to one of my customers and say, "hey, I'll do this for you and I want $40,000 to do it." They agree. My superiors find out about it, I get canned, but in my defense, I expose my boss' behavior. By your logic, Partha, I should expect to get my hand slapped and return to work because my boss did it, therefore I'm entitled to do the same.

Sorry to burst your entitlement bubble, but my ass would get fired and most likely under arrest.

[Klast Brell]

If the Republican Party can take money from terrorism sponsors, Clinton should be able to take money from Chinese folks.

OK. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen written.

Let's say my boss takes a spiff from a customer to the tune of $50,000 (not unheard of in my industry and very illegal). So I go to one of my customers and say, "hey, I'll do this for you and I want $40,000 to do it." They agree. My superiors find out about it, I get canned, but in my defense, I expose my boss' behavior. By your logic, Partha, I should expect to get my hand slapped and return to work because my boss did it, therefore I'm entitled to do the same.

Sorry to burst your entitlement bubble, but my ass would get fired and most likely under arrest.

Are you implying you would be treated differently from your boss?

[Finglefinn]

Not remotely. Partha's logic doesn't make sense. And I'm not implying that the Republicans, if they are guilty of taking funds from a foreign source, shouldn't be punished. I'm trying to point out that nobody should be allowed do something just because somebody else got away with doing it. It's backwards thinking.

[Lurker]

Partha's logic doesn't make sense.

That's because you misunderstood his point. His point was you can't blame Hillary if one of her contributors turns out to be a crook any more than you can blame Republicans that one of their contributors turned out to be a supporter of terrorism.

[Trollbait]

That's because you misunderstood his point. His point was you can't blame Hillary if one of her contributors turns out to be a crook any more than you can blame Republicans that one of their contributors turned out to be a supporter of terrorism.

You made 2 mistakes in that statement.

1) It assumes Partha actually has a point. That is absurd.

2) You are assuming that Mrs. Clinton did not know Hsu was a crook. If Hillary knew the contributor was a crook and still took the money you damn sure can blame her.

[Partha]

If the Republican Party can take money from terrorism sponsors, Clinton should be able to take money from Chinese folks.

OK. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen written.

Let's say my boss takes a spiff from a customer to the tune of $50,000 (not unheard of in my industry and very illegal). So I go to one of my customers and say, "hey, I'll do this for you and I want $40,000 to do it." They agree. My superiors find out about it, I get canned, but in my defense, I expose my boss' behavior. By your logic, Partha, I should expect to get my hand slapped and return to work because my boss did it, therefore I'm entitled to do the same.

Sorry to burst your entitlement bubble, but my ass would get fired and most likely under arrest.

Well, of course it would! The problem is you are trying to make a clearly illegal situation match a situation that may not be illegal.

I'm willing to give a pass on this because, quite frankly, it's not impossible for campaigns to miss something like this. A large national campaign will typically get between 300 to 500 THOUSAND individual donors, and might have as many as 500 'bundlers' that it would have to do the kind of deep background check we're thinking of - to catch a 15 year old warrant that no one was pushing. (That's fairly obvious given that he wasn't hard to find) I hold no love for Hillary, but then again, I'm not going on and on droning about one of Bush's Pioneers, either.

Bottom line? Dumb thing, happens occasionally. Unless someone can prove she knew, more likely a stupid mistake rather than a deliberate and malicious act. She's given the money back, and the negative publicity and future scrutiny aren't worth a couple hundred grand for ANY campaign.

[Finglefinn]

Clinton "sending back" $850,000:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_ ... fundraiser

The FBI is investigating whether Hsu paid so-called straw donors to send campaign contributions to Clinton and other candidates, a law enforcement official said Monday.

Wolfson said the Clinton campaign also will vigorously review its fundraisers, including thorough criminal background checks, in the future. "In any instances where a source of a bundler's income is in question, the campaign will take affirmative steps to verify its origin," he said.

So, they are still hiding behind the "we had no idea" story. We'll see how this shakes out.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Hillary sniffed the air and got the scent of blow-back. She (more likely, one of her walking sacrifices, otherwise known as staffers) knew the guy was dirty. But its hard to walk away from over 850K. So the staffer, who will be slaughtered on the altar of plausible deniability, will be handed his/her walking papers, and possibly face charges.

There is no way.. NO WAY.. that a staffer didn't do a routine background check on the guy. Hell, as someone who got in close contact with the FORMER FIRST LADY, who has a SECRET SERVICE DETAIL, that guy had his first grade report card reviewed by some drudge in the background check department.

Having said that, Hillary will walk away from this (as will all the other recipients) relatively clean. Would be cool though to see how much the left would howl EXECUTIVE PRIVELEDGE!!!!!! if she was investigated and someone wanted to compel testimony from the Secret Service.

[Lurker]

By all means, investigate. If she's cleared of wrongdoing by an investigation I'm sure you will be satisfied. You'll never mention this again. I mean, it's not like you still bring up stuff from the 90's where DoJ, FBI, and Republican Congressional investigations proved the allegations false or that Clinton and Gore were not involved .

I would like to know what her campaigns vetting process was and how he became so trusted. Hopefully more on that will come out in the months ahead.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Lurker -

Let me ask you a very simple question. Do you think the Secret Service does simple background checks on anyone who plans to meet, or get near, a person in their protective detail?

[Finglefinn]

The Secret Service has advance teams (and lots of them) running all over the US. Hillary is the former first lady and is granted LIFETIME Secret Service protection. If you believe that the Secret Service is doing their job, then they and several people in Hillary's camp knew about Hsu's past but could not say no to his money. Hsu brought a lot of high profile people to these fundraisers and to shun those people would have been difficult for Hillary to dodge.

Oh yeah, no it wouldn't have. Instead of taking the money, her camp could have easily said "no, we don't want anything to do with this guy." But they simply chose to take the money and bury their heads in the sand because someone knew they could play damage control if anything ever came out.

[Klast Brell]

according to a news report i heard this morning driving in to work the Clinton campaign did it's vetting by doing a Lexis search. The Lexis search turned up nothing.

[Trollbait]

according to a news report i heard this morning driving in to work the Clinton campaign did it's vetting by doing a Lexis search. The Lexis search turned up nothing.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


And these are the types of people that you would have running our country!!?? That shit makes Bush look like a frickin' genius.

[Klast Brell]

Does that mean you believe them?

[Lurker]

Not that it matters but Norman Hsu isn't mentioned in Lexis, not in newspapers or court cases, going back to the 80's.
=====

Do you think the Secret Service does simple background checks on anyone who plans to meet, or get near, a person in their protective detail?

I don't know, and neither do you. Any answer you give would just be a guess. I know that the SS sends advanced teams to work with local law enforcement to secure locations, and I know they run background checks for people suspected to be a threat (angry letters and the such), but I don't know if they run background checks for high profile fund raisers. I'm guessing your theory is that they absolutely run a check on everyone and that they were told to stand down by the one person with authority to do that... Hillary.

[Trollbait]

In Hillary's defense she actually does not have the power to tell the Secret Service to stand down. If they perceive a threat they will take action and they will not ask Mrs. Clinton's advice.