September 11, 2007

Hillary Hears A Hsu

After days of tortured explanations of why her campaign would hold onto bundled donations from Norman Hsu even after donating his direct contributions to charity, Hillary Clinton finally announced that her campaign would return Hsu's funneled money to their donors. Her campaign also announced how much money that would involve, and it turned out to be many times more than first thought:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign announced tonight that it would return approximately $850,000 to about 260 donors who had been recruited or tapped by Norman Hsu, the disgraced Clinton campaign fundraiser who recently fled arrest and is now under investigation for his fundraising practices.

The Clinton campaign also disclosed tonight that it had decided to begin running criminal background checks on its bundlers — the dozens of individuals who raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors on behalf of a candidate, as Mr. Hsu had done for Mrs. Clinton. A Clinton adviser said that “vigorous additional vetting” of the bundlers, including the criminal checks, would begin this week, and that the campaign was hiring additional staff for that purpose. ....

At the end of June, Mrs. Clinton had about $45 million on hand for her presidential campaign; the loss of $850,000 amounts to less than 2 percent of that sum, but, her advisers say, it is a relatively sizable amount that would have been welcomed for the expensive television advertising purchases ahead.

One cheer for Hillary for doing the right thing, even if she did it days too late to undo much of the damage Hsu inflicted on her campaign. In one fell swoop, Hsu revived memories of the 1996 campaign and the fundraising scandal involving Chinese influence. The last thing Hillary needed was a reminder of the scandals that surrounded her husband, especially one that involved foreign governments potentially corrupting an American presidential election.

Now, though, we know why Hillary and her team showed so much reluctance to return the money. Hsu's fundraising for Hillary had earlier been estimated at around $150K, but the near-million figure gives a much better indication of the scale Hsu's efforts reached. It puts a dent in Hillary's liquidity at a time when she'll want to start ramping up advertising efforts. However, her money advantage will remain quite secure even with the 2% loss.

It makes it even more important to find the source of Hsu's funds. Who wanted to put that kind of money into Hillary's campaign, and why? Someone expected to profit from this scheme, and it apparently wasn't the com man who ran it.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (39)

Posted by John Wilson | September 11, 2007 6:02 AM

Of course, if you believe everything printed about Satan, you would believe that every contribution is legal except for the one from Hsu. How can her campaign return the $45,000 to the postal worker in the bay area that started it all? It wasnt his money. And if Hsu was funneling money from abroad, how will those people be identified? Are the feds looking into this I hope?

Posted by Roger | September 11, 2007 6:25 AM

I am curious, has anyone ever verified that the politicians actually give their tainted campaign money back?

Posted by Lightwave | September 11, 2007 6:35 AM

It makes it even more important to find the source of Hsu's funds. Who wanted to put that kind of money into Hillary's campaign, and why? Someone expected to profit from this scheme, and it apparently wasn't the com man who ran it.

It was the same now as it was for Bubba then: the ChiComs.

As I keep saying, doesn't anyone else find the suddenly unprecedented fundraising power of the Dems the least bit suspicious? How for the first time ever they are out-raising the GOP with all these "bundles of small donations" and doing so at a 2 to 1 ratio? Nobody else finds this the least bit puzzling that the fundraising apparatus of the most competitive GOP primary in a generation suddenly pales to the likes of Hillary and the Haircut?

This rabbit hole goes much deeper than just Norman Hsu and Hillary. It goes tens of millions of dollars deeper. This is the story of the year, and yet outside of one man who fled prosecution, it goes unreported.

Posted by hermie | September 11, 2007 7:02 AM

I too would like to know if anybody in the MSM ever bothered to check to see what 'charity' she is 'donating' the illegal contributions to. Is it really a charity, or just another Clinton/Dem party front group. Are these 'donations' being put into one pocket, but then are transferred to another pocket where they will eventually be sent back to, or used on behalf of Hillary?

Posted by Redhand | September 11, 2007 7:03 AM

In one fell swoop, Hsu revived memories of the 1996 campaign and the fundraising scandal involving Chinese influence. The last thing Hillary needed was a reminder of the scandals that surrounded her husband, especially one that involved foreign governments potentially corrupting an American presidential election.
Of all the things Bubba did as President, this form of Asian money prostitution was the worst. THIS is what he should have been impeached for. It's the most compelling reason out there, too, why this sickening dynastic trend in US politics--Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?--is dangerous for our democracy.

Posted by Cybrludite | September 11, 2007 7:08 AM

Shouldn't that have been "in one fell Hsuoop"? ;-)

Posted by Keemo | September 11, 2007 7:45 AM

Yes Lightwave, your point is well taken. Here is the "head of the beast" that owns the Dems...

by The Washington DC Examiner

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - It appears that lurking in the political shadows with billionaire philanthropist and Democratic financier George Soros is a tar pit of old-fashioned sleaze. It’s hard to conclude otherwise in view of two recent election fraud verdicts against political activist groups heavily financed by Soros.

In the first verdict, the Federal Election Commission handed Americans Coming Together the third-largest fine ever levied by the agency. The $775,000 fine against ACT followed an FEC investigation that found the group, which was organized for the 2004 campaign with substantial funding and active encouragement from Soros, spent $70 million of its $137 million budget on “clearly identified federal candidates in a manner that could only be paid for with federal funds.” ACT claimed it spent the money on voter registration drives. The FEC concluded ACT illegally spent the $70 million to support Democratic candidates. A $775,000 fine for a $70 million crime seems a mere pittance, but that’s an issue for another day.

In the second verdict, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — better known as ACORN — agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to settle vote fraud charges brought by Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed. ACORN employees were supposed to help eligible voters fill out their registration cards, but instead were submitting cards with false names like that of former boxing champion Leon Spinks. Reed called ACORN’s actions “the largest case of voter registration fraud in the state’s history.” Again, the fine seems paltry given the seriousness of the crime, but at least ACORN, which has received much funding from Soros, was caught and made to pay something.

The significance of these cases is at least two-fold. Odds are good that many readers here are finding out about them for the first time because the mainstream media devoted only perfunctory coverage to the ACT fine and almost none to the ACORN case. Does anyone doubt that coverage would have been far heavier had the offender been the American Conservative Union instead of ACT? Second, author David Horowitz puts Soros at the center of what is described as a “shadow party” of moneymen, ideological schemers and political machine operators working mainly in the background to enact a far-left agenda. Reporters covering campaign 2008 who expect to be taken seriously should start shining light in those shadows.

Posted by Jim,MtnViewCA,USA | September 11, 2007 8:08 AM

Yes, suspicion currently falls on the PRC (due to the personal history of the Clinton family and their past political campaigns), but a possibility worth exploring is that Geo Soros is the source of Mr Hsu's funds.

Posted by Jazz | September 11, 2007 8:19 AM

Damage? Sadly, I'm afraid that Hillary's connections to Hsu (whether knowing or not, which doesn't seem to have been established, regardless of insinuations on many starboard side blogs) won't be able to derail her from getting the Dem. nomination. No more than our best efforts stopped her from being crowned (as opposed to elected or selected) as the Senate candidate here in New York. It just won't make any difference.

And while I'm still too opposed to current GOP goals to cast my vote for a Republican president in '08, with her as the candidate, I'm afraid this is one more center/independent vote that will be wasted on a 3rd party candidate.


Posted by j | September 11, 2007 8:25 AM

Two points:
1 - the billionaires are Democrats for the most part and each billionaire = 1000 millionaires who are mostly Republicans. The Dems have the money, the media and the means to spread their hatred.

2 - Jazz - it took me too long to learn that voting is rarely for someone with whom I agree 100%; I'll take a majority of the candidate's opinions and go from there. Even Reagan said we'd be lucky to agree with him 70% of the time. Even if your vote is for the "lesser of two weak ones", a Dem in the WH for four years is far more damaging than a vote for a Rep. with whom you disagree on things, even a major item. Please reconsider,

Posted by Jazz | September 11, 2007 8:35 AM

I suppose I didn't phrase that well, J. There are actually a couple of GOP candidates I would at least *consider* giving my vote in 08, but there's no way in hell they are getting the nomination.

Posted by LarryD | September 11, 2007 8:37 AM

Jazz, if you don't like the kinds of candidates the Republicans nominate, either

a) join the party and influence the selection.

b) start your own party.

Keep in mind that the probability of having a candidate with whom you agree 100% is pretty small, and your total positions just might constitute a tiny minority position. Sometime life just hands you a choice between poor and worse. Learn to deal with it.

Posted by Jazz | September 11, 2007 8:51 AM

Larry, I was a registered, card carrying, frequently cash donating member of the Republican party from 1977 until Jan. 2005. I left the party for good reasons, and there's been no indication that those reasons are any less valid today. Joining back up isn't going to change the national trend. I tried for too long and it's like shouting at the ocean. I refuse to sign on with the Dems, so that leaves me only my current option. If I had the resources to start a viable third party, believe me, I'd do it in a heartbeat, but the available choices all seem too fringe to me.

Posted by eaglewings | September 11, 2007 9:20 AM

I think the most laughable comment by Billary was that Hsu 'was alleged' to have bilked investors out of approximately $1,000,000 dollars. I guess a guilty plea by an admitted felon who passes more than $800,000 dollars, is only an allegation, whereas a guilty plea by a republican member of the Senate to a misdemeanor is conclusive evidece not only of guilty but of such depravity that he is not fit for the company of other Senators including those who committed manslaughter and those who committed treason.
I love those high democrat standards and their integrity that have made the culture of corruption a distant memory.

Posted by Jim in Texas | September 11, 2007 9:26 AM

I do hope the IRS will keep track of all the returned funds. It seems the Paw family, among many others apparently, just got rich.

Posted by richard mcenroe | September 11, 2007 9:27 AM

"...the com man who ran it.

Talk about your Freudian typos. Well done!

Posted by richard mcenroe | September 11, 2007 9:30 AM

Jazz -- then you deserve what you get. Don't whine to us.

For me, it's enough to know that every Democratic candidate for President comes out of that same Congress we watched soil its diapers yesterday.

Voting against trash like that is the REAL affirmative action...

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 11, 2007 9:37 AM

John Wilson,

It's not clear it wasn't Paws' money; the IRS indicated earlier this week that it was investigating.

So, if the Paws actually owned the money, they can just send it (or some portion) back to Hillary unbundled if they want to. If they didn't own the money, they are in for a world of pain. Hell hath no fury like the IRS.

If what you said about $45K is true, we have (45/4.6)=9.78 Paws worth of money, and only seven Paws around to account for it. That indicates near certain breakage of campaign finance laws.

Posted by John Wilson | September 11, 2007 9:43 AM

Correct. And I'm wondering what's in the background that would spook Hillary to give up this much. There has to be more to unfold. The girl only tells as much truth as she has to at the time.

Posted by danforth | September 11, 2007 10:03 AM

they are returning the money to the straw donors who will contribute it back at a later date. since it wasn't their money to begin with they will put it where they are told to and when. this is better than giving it to "charities."

Posted by runawayyyy | September 11, 2007 10:05 AM

At the risk of instigating libel charges against myself, let me state as fact what is going on here....

As mentioned earlier in the comments, the Paws just got a windfall. The money wasn't theirs to begin with, it was given to them (plus 10%) and then written back out of their checking account, effectively laundering the money. The 10% was a fee paid to the bundler's paw(n)s.

Due to this windfall they just received, the paw(n)s will now keep their mouths shut. Note later how little of this money is returned to hillary. She has written it off as a cost of doing business.

hillary has been doing this kind of business for a very long time, long before 1996 and long before 1992. She's a lawyer, she knows the election laws, and she knows how to subvert them. More to the point, as also stated earlier in the comments, she will suffer no damage as a result of this. Need evidence? just look at 1996.

Posted by don | September 11, 2007 10:33 AM

What I find unbelievable is that anyone believes that the Clinton's did not know about this. Hsu had little money and gave at this point at least 850000 this year only because he was a nice guy. I believe this was all cooordinated and to believe otherwise is naive. There is a history here not just with the Clinton's but the Denocratic party like Soros..

Posted by LuckyBogey | September 11, 2007 10:53 AM

So where is the 260 names on the donor list? This will be bigger than the Abramoff scandal just in time for the 08 elections. I want Hsu's background investigated for Red Army connections and funding! Suitably Flip has a great chart. Appoint a special prosecutor Now! Investigate Now! Each state should also appoint a Special Prosecutor and send these crooked Democrats to jail.

The American people will not allow the Chinese Military to bribe and steal our military secrets? The Democrats pimped out the White House 1996 and are back at stuffing their own pockets. Why are the Chinese only paying off Democrats? What are the Democrats offering to Communist China this time around?

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | September 11, 2007 11:00 AM

As usual, Clinton was forced to do something to correct the negligence for appearance reasons.

Who knows how much capital is really involved, and what other unethical efforts are involved.

A sad day for this Country, knowing the corrupt are trying to get back to the White House.

Posted by don | September 11, 2007 11:17 AM

I find out now that 260 people bundled the 850000. How does one know so quickly know who bundled this money if you didn't know what was going on. How do you identify these people?

Posted by Carol Herman | September 11, 2007 1:10 PM

In a way, this illegal cash, raised in China (where Bill then exported military secrets); will be "unbundled," if you believe the bitch; and get sent back to the 260 people who ONLY LENT THEIR NAMES!

Phony story.

The press is doing their best to make it go away.

But ya know what? People saw it. Even those who might have voted for Hillary for reasons of spite; might think twice?

It's been awhile since I discovered that people who bother to vote, tend to want to vote for a winnah. Not their "favorite" necessarily.

How do I know? From an old TV clip I actually watched, when I tuned in to see how Schwartzenegger was doing; when he was running to toss Gray Davis out'da office. Which he did!

In that special election, Schwartzenegger ran in AFTER the ballot measure (which he didn't pay for), passed.

And, then? This ordinary guy is being interviewed with the "so tell us whom did you vote for," question.

He said he much preferred the conservative candidate, BUT HE WANTED TO VOTE FOR THE WINNAH. That was enough for him to drop his ballot IN for Schwartzenegger.

I guess they don't call these things "horse races," for nothing?

So, the Bonkeys (who are probably privately worried), are dressing Hillary up in pastels, so she can be their flying pig?

I just hope enough rational people are gearing up to vote. The same way they've been beating paths to Internet sites. Laughing when they hear about Olbermann. Or some other turkey on TV. You can listen to anything, as long as your pocketbook's closed.

Posted by RD | September 11, 2007 1:30 PM

Some of the MSM news are tying themselves in contortions trying to put a smiley face on this story for Hillary (I'm thinking of NPR right at the moment) but be sure to read "The Trail" at the Washington Post blog today (both the story and the comments) I also intend to read the Solomon story in the Post as soon as I can get to it. I wonder if she is going to return the money to the Pew(Peu) family and if she does what they will do with it? Maybe, they should just think of it as an unexpected bonus and buy a nicer house.

Posted by jethro | September 11, 2007 2:50 PM

Contributions are on a public record. How will anyone know funds have been returned and to whom?

Posted by Hillary is a crook | September 11, 2007 4:14 PM

Seriously, why is this lady getting nominated. Is America really just who you know these day and not what they stand for?

Posted by revolution | September 11, 2007 4:52 PM

One cheer for Hillary, heh silly cluck? And you call yourself a blogger. Hil turned the money in because she knows personally that he is knee deep in it and may tlak if he is looking at serious prison time. People who are looking at prison time and have something on the Clintons usually are MURDERED.

Hil gave back the filthy Chinese murder money when he was found on a train: alive.

We can't keep her out of the office if we are silly about the head clucky.

Posted by fouse, gary c | September 11, 2007 6:06 PM

The Clinton Donors

As of this writing, Norman Hsu, the latest in a long line of suspicious Clinton benefactors, awaits extradition to California, where he is wanted on bail jumping charges based on a 15 year old arrest warrant for charges of criminal financial dealings. Seems Mr Hsu has been a fugitive from justice for that long, apparently hiding in plain sight as a Democratic cash donor, most notably to Hillary Clinton. The Senator meanwhile, has announced that she is returning $850,000 to Hsu "in light of his legal problems". Since Hsu allegedly donated funds to Hillary and other Democrats using "straw donors", the money will officially have to be returned to numerous persons.

How could a major presidential candidate be receiving such large sums of money from a man who was a long-standing fugitive from justice? Well, being a fugitive never got in the way of people wishing to lay money on the Clintons. Just ask Marc Rich, the fugitive financier, whose ex-wife, the glamorous Denise Rich, dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Clinton Library into Bill's lap (along with who knows what else). As a reward, Clinton pardoned Rich in his last days in office even though he was a fugitive from the FBI and prosecutors never gave their assent to the pardon. In the old days, we used to call that bribery.

But I digress. The Hsu story brings back memories of other shady characters, mostly with connections in Asia, that generously handed big bucks off to Bill when he was president and running for re-election in 1996.

Remember Charlie Trie? He went from running a Chinese restaurant in Little Rock to being a big cash donor to Clinton, first for his re-election, then for his legal defense fund. According to a Washington Post editorial dated August 3, 1997, Trie once delivered $460,000 to fund officials broken into $1,000 separate contributions, some of which appeared on consecutively numbered money orders-under different names but in the same handwriting. That same article reported that, according to FBI testimony, from 1994-96, Trie received wire transfers in the sum of more than $900,000 from a certain Macau businessman by the name of Ng Lap Seng. Further, that these transfers appeared to correlate with similar transfers by Mr Trie to the DNC. Later, according to the article, the Clinton Adminstration acknowledged that Mr Ng had visited the White House 12 times during the relevant period.

Mr Trie also allegedly acted as a go-between for the Clintons and an agricultural outfit in Thailand. According to the Post article, two representatives of that company were scheduled to attend a White House coffee with the president two weeks subsequent, an event arranged by major Clinton contributor, Pauline Kanchanalak and DNC fund raiser, John Huang. The article further reported that some, if not all of Kanchanalak's contributions to the DNC had to be returned due to questions about their source.

John Huang, originally from China and Taiwan, was at one time chairman of the Lippo Bank of Indonesia. After coming to the US, and working for the Worthen Bank in Little Rock, he made the acquaintance of Bill Clinton. With Clinton in the White House, Huang acted as a conduit between the president and the Lippo Group along with Indonesian financier, Moctar Riady and his son, James Riady. According to an article by Charles Smith in Worldnet Daily dated April 26, 2000, subsequent testimony before Senator Fred Thompson's committee in 1998 revealed that Riady and the Lippo Group were joint ventures with China Resources, a trading and holding company owned by the Chinese government and used as an espionage front.

According to Smith's article, Huang met Clinton on ten occasions at the White House between the dates of June 21 and June 27, 1994. Shortly after this, the Lippo group allegedly sent $100,000 to Clinton crony (and top Justice Department offical), Webster Hubbell, who himself was about to be indicted for financial crimes. Riady continued to funnel money to Clinton, once sending his gardener, Arief Wiriadinata, direct to Clinton in the White House with a gift of $400,000, according to Smith's article).

Most troubling of all, Huang then received an appointment as Asst Secretary of Commerce along with a security clearance. In that position, Huang was able to obtain secret information on trade transactions with Indonesia, Japan, China, and South Korea. As a result of the Clinton-Huang-Riady traingle, the Chinese government had a hook into the White House. Remember the scandals during the Clinton Adminstration involving missile technology going to China while laundered Chinese money was coming into the Clinton campaign coffers?

Want another example of what Riady et al got in return for their financial support to Clinton? How about the US-backed Paitan coal-fired electrical power plant in East Java, Indonesia? The Paitan Plant, which is owned by the corrupt Suharto family (as in corrupt President Suharto), also connected to Riady, obtained a financial windfall in 1996 when Clinton issued an order that declared a 1.7 million acre region of Utah off-limits to coal mining, thus removing one of the only major low sulphur deposits in the world from competing with Paitan.

Then there was Johnny Chung, Clinton buddy and Democratic fund-raiser, who made almost
50 visits to the Clinton White House, and on one occasion, gave Hillary's Chief of Staff, Maggie Williams a check for the DNC in the amount of $50,000. The check was actually given in the White House (in violation of the law). Two days later, Chung dragged in a group of Chinese businessmen, who were present when President Clinton gave a radio address from the Oval Office. (See article by Pierre Thomas, CNN in All Politics dated March 5, 1998. According to Thomas, the DNC eventually returned $300,000 raised by Chung due to questions about their source.)

In March of 1998, Chung pled guilty to election law violations in connection with illegal fund-raising in the 1996 elections. In December 1998, he was sentenced to probation and community service in return for his plea. He also testified before Congress in May 1999 that the head of Chinese military intelligence, Gen. Ji Shengde had told him that he wanted to send a gift of $300,000 to Clinton through Chung, a charge denied by the Chinese Government.

Personal note: At the time of Chung's plea deal, it struck me (as a DEA Agent who had been involved in countless plea deals in coordination with prosecutors) as odd why the Justice Department (under Janet Reno) did not include in the deal information and testimony from Chung that would have been damning against the very person (s) getting the money, namely the president and the DNC. Normal plea procedure for such a light sentence would normally include full cooperation by the defendant against his/her higher-ups in the conspiracy. Whatever statements Chung made failed to implicate those who got the money-possibly bribes.

So the recent news about Mr Hsu is not surprising. It is just the latest in a string of scandals that go back to the Clinton Adminstration. In spite of all the above dirt, the Reno Justice Department investigation never took it to the top nor tried to. It seems that the investigations focused on the middlemen who were funneling money to the president and not on the person (s) who were receiving the money in violation of the law. Nor did the investigations focus on what the donors were getting back in return. Was there a loud protest from the mainstream news media, coupled with demands to get to the bottom of it all? Hardly. Now that Mr Hsu has surfaced, let's see how much the mainstream news media digs into this story. Will this story have the legs that the Abramoff scandal had? (Most of Abramoffs payees were Republicans). Or will the Hsu affair just quietly disappear? Since the media has a vested interest in Hillary's election, no matter how corrupt she may be, I'm betting on the latter.

gary fouse

Posted by RD | September 11, 2007 8:21 PM

Excellent comments and good research fousesquawk. What do you want to bet that somewhere along the line that the origins of this money was counterfeit? Questions that should be able to be answered by the authorities without much investigation:1) what and who was the source of the million dollar (cash) bail...2)who chartered and how was it paid the private charter airplane that took Hsu to Oakland...3)who bought and when (was a private compartment part of the deal) the ticket to Denver...4)what was the source of his illness...5)what and who were waiting in Denver for his arrival...6)how much cash did he have on his person and 7) what were his plans after he got to Denver.

Posted by NoDonkey | September 11, 2007 9:45 PM

This unqualified, unaccomplished, corrupt dingbat has absolutely no business running for President of the United States.

Anyone who is even slightly thinking of casting a vote for this pantsuited jackass, is a drooling cretin.

Better that you drink a fifth of vodka at 6 am and then go careening through school zones, than cast a vote for this blight on humanity.

Posted by David S. Levine | September 11, 2007 9:56 PM

There is another issue involved here--tax compliance. If, as the Associated Press has reported, many of the listed donors were "straw donors," i.e. reimbursed for their "donations" by Hsu, that means there is what is called by the IRS, a "taxable event," and perhaps two. If an individual receives money for an illegal purpose that money is immediately taxable to the recipient, even if he or she passes it on. This is how former New York City Police Officer Anthony Ulasewicz of Watergate fame was convicted of tax evasion--he handled illegal monies from the Nixon Committee to pass on the the Watergate burglers to by their silence. If Hillary "returns" the monies to donors who were originally reimbursed by Hsu this constitutes a "windfall" which is again taxable and there must be withholding of income tax BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION at the highest rate as required by, for example, a tax exempt organization which gives out prizes at fund raising events where the fair market value of the prize is greater than $1,000. It is interesting that the media has not raised this tax issue since it is comprised of people who say they believe in high taxation of the American people. Oh, I suppose they exempt their fellow Democrats from that requirement.

Posted by Richard | September 11, 2007 10:22 PM

Both of the Clinton have their own mafia, and both are traitors...

Posted by dariusz | September 11, 2007 10:52 PM

we should find out who was behind hsu and how much clinton knew about the source of money. there should be careful fbi and congress investigation

Posted by Andrew P | September 11, 2007 11:15 PM

Oh, there will be a few more shoes to drop. Clinton is real tight with the "fat cats", especially those in Red China. Won't stop her from getting elected though, if she gets the nomination. The environment in 2008 is likely to be so toxic for the GOP, that no-one with an (R) after his name has any chance of being elected, even with the Hildebeast as his opponent. Obama is the only real threat to "she who must be obeyed".

Posted by Andrew P | September 11, 2007 11:45 PM

Oh, I'll bet Mr Hsu will be found hanging from a chain in his jail cell with his hands tied behind his back, especially if he tries to cop a plea. Suicide is very common among those who cross the Clintons.

Posted by Mikhail Alterman | September 12, 2007 11:53 PM

Great research! This story will stick around until Hilary loses.

Post a comment