Captain's Quarters -

Court documents filed by the FBI said the agency was alerted by phone that Hsu was at St. Mary's Hospital. A person familiar with the episode said someone at the hospital who was trying to figure out Hsu's identity called a number left on his cell phone. That person called the California attorney general's office, which alerted the FBI.

Hsu is scheduled for an advisement hearing at 1:30 p.m. today from the Mesa County Jail.

Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger said he plans to ask for at least a $4 million bond when the wealthy businessman appears before a county court judge via a video monitor this afternoon.

“Given that he failed to appear on a $2 million bond, I have to ask the judge to double that, at least,” Hautzinger said.

The issue right now is CO has no paperwork on Hsu.

The FBI has him under a Federal charge and the state has no crime against him.

Hopefully the FBI will persuade the judge to hold without bail based on the FBI warrant until they get the extradition paperwork from CA or Hsu waives extradition.

"Why commit suicide? Why not just run?"

If you intend to commit suicide, why get on a train at all? And why on earth would you Fed-Ex your suicide note to "charitable organizations" as well as "acquaintances" instead of, say, taping it to the fridge?

OTO, being tagged as insane could conceivably be something of a plus at the moment....

Two words: Vince Foster

I agree with kg2v

According to the Wall Street Journal Hsu's life was saved by the unlikely chance that he became sick immediately prior to his suicide attempt.

"He (Hsu) fell ill...Witnesses also saw pills and pill bottles rolling around the floor, indicating that Hsu may have tried an overdose."

I guess if he had been found lying unconscious with noose around his neck, the business end broken, the story would have read

"After slipping from the stool...Witnesses saw a piece of rope matching that around Hsu's neck, tied to the upper berth."

Vince Foster indeed...The Clintoons must really be squirming at this point.

I would run to if the Red Chinese were comming after me for blowing a chance for more state secrets. Just ask Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton

The Clinton saga is playing itself out, first as tragi-comedy, now as farce.

From prior experience (Bill's administration), we already know that the Clintons and their minions are venal. Loral (U.S.) technology exported to China with the permission of Ron Brown's Commerce Department enabled the Red Chinese military to get their missile targeting program on track. A Red Chinese general later informed us that their missiles now are targeting Los Angeles.

So the Red Chinese government, and everyone else, must be forgiven for believing that the Clintons can be bought. And Norman Hsu likely is an agent of influence for the latest purchaser.

A simple con man disappears after the big sting. He doesn't use the proceeds to publicly donate to prominent Democrats-- unless he (1) doesn't believe the people he "stung" will come after him; and (2) has an even bigger sting in mind.

So I have three questions:

(1) Are Rosenman and his investors really victims here, or was this a scheme to get illegal contributions to prominent Democrat (and one Republican) candidates? (So the corollary question is, who were Rosenman's "investors"?)

(2) Was Rosenman's "investor" group Norman Hsu's only source of funds, or are there others?

(3) Democrats say Hsu "never asked for anything". Either he was exposed before he could ask, or the people he was working for HAVE ASKED, threatening to expose Hsu's links to themselves.

Hypothetical case: Red Chinese general to Hillary: "If you don't cooperate when you become President, everyone will learn that Norman Hsu was working for us."

It's sad to say that the Democrat Party is merely a commodity for sale in the "Hsu Store".

And if my hypothetical (Red Chinese general to Hillary: "If you don't cooperate when you become President, everyone will learn that Norman Hsu was working for us) turns out to be true, Hillary Clinton is the "Manchurian Candidate".

Don't most con men start working their next con when they are caught? Hsu knew he was the rabbit and did the sympathy-empathy con to lessen his coming sentence to prison. When he gets out he will probably follow other great charlatons, change cons and maybe become a preacher milking more millions from his "flock."

Hsuicide attempt.

Why commit suicide? Why not just run?

Um, maybe because he was living a lie and stole millions dollars from people?

Why does anyone committ suicide instead of not?

Story seems pretty straight forward, and unless you find evidence of any deeper crimes, captain, it makes you look bad to keep suggesting that there are some.

"“Given that he failed to appear on a $2 million bond, I have to ask the judge to double that, at least,” Hautzinger said."

No, Mr. Hautzinger, given that he failed to appear (ran away) on a $2 million bond, after having skipped out on his sentencing 15 years ago, you have to ask the judge to deny bail.

And Tom Shipley, Hsu has already committed another crime -- to which he pled guilty, and looks to be at least a Ponzi scheme artist and defrauder and campaign finance law breaker, I think there are enough other crimes to raise serious questions about whatever else he does.

But hey, Larry Craig looks for sex in men's bathrooms so that's the more serious issue, right?

Tom Shipley:

Story seems pretty straight forward, and unless you find evidence of any deeper crimes, captain, it makes you look bad to keep suggesting that there are some.

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." -- Henry David Thoreau

Nothing about this case is simple or straightforward. Hsu pretended to be a wealthy businessman. He was not. He pretended to “bundle” money for candidates; instead he use others to launder his own contributions and avoid the campaign limitations laws. He is not a simple con-man but a big-time contributor to Liberal Democrats. This is not a simple suicide; it doesn’t take a chartered jet and ticket on the California Zephyr to kill yourself. The “nothing to see folks, move along” line doesn’t work any longer although the NY Times will spin it in favor of Hillary as the unwitting dupe. There’s a pattern here and the dots are going to be connected.

Moneyrunner,

What evidence is there of any larger crime?

Please remind yourselves of that great Far Side cartoon by Gary Larson, the one where the guy is scolding his dog Ginger and all she hears is blah, blah, blah, Ginger. To think that anything short of an indictable crime being leveled at Mrs. Clinton, or whomever the nominee might be, will somehow influence Democratic leaning voters to not accept them, warts and all, is frankly just a waste of time. This one is for all the marbles and the deflector shields from Swift Boaters and negative campaigns are going to be, or all ready are, at maximum. Trying to convince GOP voters to actually vote against someone instead of a principled stance of staying home due to bad choices, is what needs to be worked on. Blah, blah, blah, Mrs. Clinton, blah, blah, blah......

[Sing]
"This is the dawning of the age of nefarious."

Tom would have stopped the Watergate investigation when the break in was discovered. They already caught the guys who did it, why look further.

I don't think investigation into Hsu, his crimes and his donations should end. Investigate away. If evidence does come to light that this is something more than con-man at work, then you guys can have a field day. I just don't see that right now.

And innuendo like this...

Forty million could get Hsu anywhere in the world, or even a small fraction of it could get him back to Hong Kong quietly enough. Could it be that Hsu feared something even worse than exposure -- even worse than prison?

Is just the lowest form of commentary.

The GOP should take out full page ads showing all the Chinese bagmen, Triad gangsters, gunrunners, pimps and spies Hillary has posed with in photographs. Some are available in the book "The Year of the Rat" by Triplett. Charlie Trie, Mr Wu, Wang Jun, Johnny Chung, John Huang, Ted Sioeng... and now Mr Hsu. This is serious stuff folks.

If you believe the it was a investor scam story.I have soem great property right off Aligator Alley to sell you. NYC investors are not giving 40 million away to anyone in the age of the internet ! Its looks like the usual DNC contribution scam probably involving the Clinton's biggest fan , the Chinese military.Ever notice how those suicide notes seem to just appear out of nowhere when the Clintons are involved .
Watching the DNC operatives at CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and MS"DNC" try to spin and bury this HUGE story has been troubling. These Dems with press passes are heavily invested in getting there Queen crowned in 2008.

In such cases, icebergs rule... that is, we the citizens of this great Republic see only the tip. Anyone who perceives MzBill as honorably intentioned, or her minions as anything but power-hungry Statist creeps, is merely attitudinal, immune to rational discourse.

We have had good Presidents, bad Presidents, but Clinton aka "Big Turnip" was the first one personally corrupt. Absent Ross Perot in '92, the egregious Dole in '96, Binky Scudderbumps would have slunk back to Arkansas' Clown College.

Now comes the WOB, the Wife of Bill. Bleating piteously in the light of dawn, garlanded with green (intended), this lowing heifer approaches the High Altar whereon high priests of her sinister Inner Party will whet their sacrificial blades across her throat.

Coroners called that small, round hole at the base of Ron Brown's skull a hairline fracture. How will The Octopus characterize the sudden accident that befalls MzBill?

A true leftist will never "see" evidence that makes his hero look bad....we all know that hsu wrote checks to democrat donors out of an account for one of his "businesses" that never actually did any business....mind you, these checks were always written AFTER the democrats got the donations, and always for a little more than the amount of the donation....only a true leftist believer could look at this evidence and say they see nothing.

That being said, this will never harm the democrats....hillary knew exposure was a possibility all along, and she had her defense already in place....it was the fault of some subordinate who didn't find anything on a background check....this, of course, ignores that the secret service HAD to know, way back in the 90s, who hsu was, and therefore HAD to be told to ignore the obvious....kind of like leftists, except they don't have to be told....if the information is harmful to hillary, ignorance is a knee-jerk reaction.

Hey guys, it's good to dream, but this "Hilary was in on it" and the "Chinese goverment was behind this" is all speculation based on ZERO evidence.

I haven't seen one shred of evidence to indicate this was more than a con man at work. If someone knows of any (there could be some out there), please post it.

My observation that bumper stickers that say Hillary with a red line drawn through them are more prevalent then ANY GOP candidate's, says it all. Swallow your principles folks and be prepared to hold your nose and vote against her. ABC is back and we know how well that worked last time don't we. Even a Dean Scream moment will not stop this train. Supreme Court nominees will be the prize and a lot of folks on the Democrats side understand this. The question will be which divorced, pro-choice GOP authoritarian will the Social Theocrats accept as their new Dear Leader? Man I can't wait. This is better than any form of entertainment on the planet, other than South Park and Sponge Bob. Gotta run, the tax deduction is off today for the holiday.Enjoy.

Tom -

How many con men have you heard of that steal money to give it away? And his investor is/was a Clinton friend/supporter. Just coincidence?

Well he stole $40 million. As far as I can see, he donated $600,000 of his own money, while help raising a similar amount of money. So that still leaves him with the vast majority of the $40 million.

To say he primarily stole so he could donate to Clinton and dems is a very far stretch. Like many other big money donors in the US, he probably was donating to try and get some sort of influence in government. Or he just liked the Dems (and whoever the republican is he donated to).

It is an election to put money on the Dems.

And his investor is/was a Clinton friend/supporter.

Are you referring to Joel Rosenman? He invested with Hsu to manufacturer goods in China, not back political candidates. And that money was apparently stolen from Rosenman. So I'd call it a stretch too to say Rosenman was Hsu "investor." You make it sound as if he was bankrolling this campaign donation thing, but that's not the case. He was a victim of Hsu.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118956680238724783.html?mod=blog

There is an interesting trial coming in December here in michigan. It involves Jeffrey Fieger 7 law partner making illegal Campaign contributions to Mssr. Edwards in the '04 campaign.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709120395

Tom S.
If Hsu was a run of the mill con man, why be a big donor to politicians at all? Why not just take the entire $40 mil and skip back to Hong Kong? How could he con $40 mil when even the LA Times and a blogger were able to quickly find out his businesses were phonies.

No, I do not believe Hillary was in on his suicide attempt. But a "nothing to see here, move along" attitude isn't right either.

Something ain't right here.

''Or he just liked the Dems (and whoever the republican is he donated to).''

Posted by Tom Shipley | September 13, 2007 9:40 AM

You got a link to this unnamed republican donatee or are you just making ''speculation based on ZERO evidence''... again?

Not ZERO evidence. A big boat load of circumstantial. And the cargo hold continues to fill.

I forget where a I saw it, to be honest. But it cited that he donated to a bunch of dems and in a paranthetical said (and 1 republican).

Here's a list of who Hsu donated to, it's something like 80 dems and 1 republican. It doesn't break them off by party, but you'll probably find 1 republican in there.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pI5QkfhRBwUgAiaAQVTXffw

To disprove the "Manchurian Candidate" scenario, the Clinton campaign must prove that Hillary Clinton is NOT susceptible to blackmail of the sort that I've earlier described.

I don't think they can do that. The evidence of the involvement of the Red Chinese military in prior Clinton fund-raising is undisputed. By his own account, Rosenman and his group were investing in a Hsu-organized scheme to make big profits from imports of luxury goods from China.

Even assuming Rosenman's innocence, he and his investors unknowingly had become embroiled in a scheme to divert some or all of their $40,000,000 from the trading scheme Hsu proposed to them to prominent Democrat candidates.

But who would orchestrate such a scheme? A con man out for himself alone? It's much easier and safer to disappear to Asia with the money, have some plastic surgery done, bribe some local officials, and live out your life in ease and comfort.

To flip the money to prominent Democrat candidates, including the presumptive Democrat nominee, and possibly the future President of the United States, suggests a much bigger, bolder sting. To do it with "other people's (Rosenman's) money" is diabolically brilliant.

Hsu stands exposed. But the pawn becomes a queen if he (or his concealed links to a foreign power, for example) can be used to blackmail prominent Democrats all over America, including President Hillary Clinton.

Only in America, folks.

To disprove the "Manchurian Candidate" scenario, the Clinton campaign must prove...

Only in America, folks.

You mean the America where the burden of proof is on those making the accusation?

the Clinton campaign must prove that Hillary Clinton is NOT susceptible to blackmail of the sort that I've earlier described.

So let me get this straight, the Clinton's must disprove she's NOT susceptible to blackmail to disprove she's a candidate working for an enemy of the state? Are you serious???

All I can do is shake my head sometimes.

I asked for ANY evidence to back these claims up, and I still see NONE. Just conjecture.

And people wonder why many in the "old media" lack a certain respect for blogs. This thread is exhibit A.

What makes the $40 million investment seem suspicious is that they made many deals with Hsu, b ut (if one believes what has been printed) they didn't bother to cash all the checks until now. That's not how investors with that kind of money and (one supposes) experience do business. They give you a bit of money now and wait for you to perform. If you do, you get a bit more money, and so on, and so forth. If Hsu was running a real investment fraud, as opposed to simply laundering money for them, it would have been discovered long before they had invested that much money.

Bob, or they found out he was a con-man and tried to get their money back only to find out it was gone? Isn't that a more logical explanation?

Tom Shipley:

Let's face some facts here... the Clintons have a history of big-money bag men with connections to China.

You've seen the names before in these comments, I won't bother to repeat them.

Are you suggesting that the "smartest woman in America" has been duped?

And now I hear she's going to "give back" $850,000, and then ask the donors TO REDONATE IT TO HER?

Oh - and another aspect of this - we're also supposed to believe that the Paw family donated $200,000 ? The man who is a mail carrier? Living in that little lime-green house? $200,000?

This has me recalling the Buddhist priests and nuns handing AlGore checks for thousands of dollars.... never mind the fact that they take vows of poverty, they have thousands of dollars to contribute - in the temple, mind you - to Algore.

And then to find out that the 'bundler' (Maria Hsia) had her own connections to the People's Army.

Of course, it all goes away with a simple "no controlling legal authority".

So, in this case, should in the investigation end? Hillary's as pure as the driven snow?

It takes two to break the law in this scenario - if the donations being made are illegal, then accepting them (and her benefactor's donations go back several years, at least) is equally illegal.

"And people wonder why many in the "old media" lack a certain respect for blogs. "

...............

And "old media" gets no respect any more not for what they DO report, but more often for what they DON'T report. And this case is Exhibit A. I saw an AP article yesterday that was "covering" the Hsu case, and the name Clinton was notably absent. Only in a separate article (easier to spin) did they talk about Hillary! and implied how she was a VICTIM of Hsu. It's enough to make one sick. She's been taking money from this guy since at least 2004.

Fred Thompson was right - Hillary has learned nothing from Charlie Trie.

BC14,

Again, all you have is speculation and conjecture. If you look at the facts of this case as they stand now, it looks like just a con-man at work.

Maybe some other stuff will come out. But as of now, there's nothing of substance to suggest anything more nefarious.

Of course you can write CLINTON? CHINA? FRAUD? SUICIDE? all you want. But there's no there there.

As far as your last point, I believe they said they would accept donations again from those people if they chose to donate again. I think this is reasonable considering these people intended to donate to Clinton in the first place. It just so happened that they did it through Hsu.

Gosh, Tom, from your indignant tone, you'd think I was accusing Hillary Clinton of a crime here, a crime in which the burden of proof would be on the prosecutor in a criminal court. That's a sound legal presumption, but arguing legalisms in a political context is vintage Clinton. What, exactly, is the meaning of "is", Tom?

I'm asking questions neither of us can answer right now. It's as arrogant and presumptuous of you to presume to answer them here (since you really can't know the answers) as it is for you to demand that the legal standards applicable in a criminal court of law apply here.

Here's the ultimate hypothetical question: After
Hillary Clinton is elected President, she receives a call from a "supporter" who says, "President Clinton, it's so nice to make your acquaintance. We have a mutual friend, Norman, whom my government employed to help out your Presidential campaign. Further, we have many other mutual friends (more than 121 in fact) who helped out you and your husband in your respective political campaigns back in the 1990s, and then departed from the U.S. rather than face subpoenas from Senator Thompson's committee.

Now, if you cooperate with my government, those witnesses will have disappeared forever, and Norman Hsu will remain silent. If you refuse to cooperate, those witnesses will begin surfacing and telling their stories to representatives of the international media at inauspicious times for your Administration. In fact, their reappearance will mean paralysis of your Administration and disgrace for your husband, if not for you.

So can we expect your cooperation, Madam President?"

Well, if Hsu had donated to Fred Thompson, I'm sure Tom would find something to speculate about. And the Old Media might get off it's collective butts to fabricate... uh, excuse me, CBS... "investigate" the evidence. I will suggest that Tom consider the Clinton's sure have associated with a vast amount of people who have 1. been indicted and convicted, 2. have died of unnatural causes, or 3. have committed suicides. Hmmmmmm... circumstantial? Grow up: circumstantial evidence; 'evidence of the circumstance', is BETTER evidence than witness testimony. FINGERPRINTS are circumstantial evidence... DNA residue is circumstantial evidence.

The James Carvilles are already popping out of the woodwork to give us the "Move along, nothing to see here" treatment. Afterall, isn't that how Moveon.org actually got it's name? Tom Shipley, are you a Moveon.org member or just a practicing amatuer?

How can you say this just looks like a simple con man when there have been so many cases of chinese bag men with proven connections to the Chicom govt before? This reminds me of watching cops when they pick up a know crackhead and he says I quit two months ago, and the cops search him and find pockets full of crack. Duh! Would you be the cop who says, "He says he quit Hank, we don't need to search him because there is no evidence that he has any crack!"???

Don't you get it that we actually lost nuclear weapons technology the last time these arkansas boobs were in office and they were getting campaign funds from the Chicom military. That is not in dispute! Yet, when we have another Chinese bagman with question sources of funds, all of a sudden, a long time Clinton supporter and friend comes out and says, "Oh, that was my money he stole!" I'm curious as to why Mr. Roseman chose this moment to complain that he's been ripped off. Did he just find out that his 40 Mil is missing? Are we to believe that he just handed 40 Mil over to a guy you could google up in five seconds and find out he was a con man?

You keep saying there is no evidence, people usually say that right up until the evidence is found. What there is Mr. Shipley, is an abundance of facts and reasons to launch a thorough investigation into this whole slimy mess. This is the presidency of the United States at stake here. What really galls me is how democrats will overlook anything like this if it keeps the party in power.

What's really creepy about all this is the Hsuicide note is in Vince Foster's handwriting on Janet Reno's stationery and appears to have been faxed from a Kinko's in Lubbock, Texas to Vernon Jordan's office.

TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE!

First off, Joel Rosenman gets "ripped off" by Hsu in a business scam..and the money ends up with democratic candidates including Hilary Clinton, who THEN goes and introduces legislation that would benefit Joel Rosenman!

It seems to me that Hsu's "scamming" might be nothing more than a back-channel way for rich tycoons to buy favors from high ranking democrats while writing the whole thing off as a business loss! (Coincidentally, this degree of separation also happens to stop any ethics flags from being raised)

This needs to be investigated! If Hsu laundered his money through the Paw family, there is no reason to suspect that he was an earlier stage in the laundering!

Tom Shipley:

"I asked for ANY evidence to back these claims up, and I still see NONE. Just conjecture."

What claims? I see mostly questions, and yes, conjecture. The idea that this is just a simple fraud is conjecture based on lack of evidence too. It's certainly clear that the evidence is not yet remotely complete, so your own case for assuming a (politically) best case scenario is just as weak as the case for assuming the worst. Your assumptions look weaker still, given the history and circumstances we do know about. What investigation doesn't begin with "suspects" and conjecture?

Mrs. Clinton is still legally innocent till proven guilty, which is largely irrelevant here. The operative concept is the judicious need to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Candidates for high political office, do, in fact, regularly have to prove the negatives -- not to stay out of jail, but to be elected. While our standards in that regard seem pretty low when it comes to Congress, it's still important in presidential runs.

JM Haynes,

I'm working off the facts of the case. And it's not conjecture to say the facts point to this story being about a con-man who conned a lot of people.

That's what the evidence shows. The conjecture comes when you bring in conspiracy talk about Hillary being a Manchurian Candidate, about Rosenman knowingly giving money to Hsu to donate to Hillary Clinton to that she can pass legislation favorable to him, etc...

I'm am not treading in conjecture. Look at the facts of the case. They point to this being a case of a guy who has conned a lot people in his life, conning some more, then trying to kill himself. there's no evidence to show anything beyond that happened.

Tom: Let's assume that Hillary Clinton is an innocent dupe in this affair, and that Rosenman also is an innocent dupe.

Given that assumption, why is it any more conjectural to say that President Hillary Clinton can be blackmailed if Hsu's scheme to dupe her was masterminded by a foreign government than to say that Hsu may have masterminded the scheme himself?

If Hsu's scheme was masterminded by a foreign government, Hillary Clinton is, at a minimum, an innocent dupe susceptible to blackmail regardless of what she knew. If Rosenman also is an innocent dupe of a foreign plot to divert Rosenman's money to prominent Democrat candidates, including Hillary, the foreign government didn't even have to go out of pocket for the tainted cash!

Assuming involvement by a foreign government in directing Hsu, Hillary remains a Manchurian Candidate subject to blackmail, even if she's an innocent dupe in this affair.

For President Hillary Clinton, it could get even worse: what if an agent of a foreign government contacts her to falsely claim that Norman Hsu was working for them, and then makes a blackmail threat which includes surfacing the missing Asian witnesses from the 1990s to lie about her and her husband.

How does President Clinton know whether the foreign government is bluffing (since she never knew of the foreign government's involvement in the first place)? And how does she respond to a blackmail threat that might be credible?

Um, because there's no evidence that a foreign government has anything to do with this.

There's no evidence that Hsu was working for a foreign government.

There's plenty of evidence that Hsu is a con man.

All,

A must read about Hsu and Harry Reid.

Caught in the Searchlight: Hsu, Reid, and the Searchlight Leadership Fund

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896042/posts

Has anybody checked on John Peavoy lately? Someone go knock on his door and make sure he’s okay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/us/politics/29letter.html?ex=1189828800&en=7e0707f4ed9a49f1&ei=5070

I am worried that Norman Hsu may be murdered to prevent him from telling what he knows about the "inner circle" of HillRaisers; and what Hillary Clinton and other Democratic politicians have promised to do for him in return for him organizing large contributions to their campaigns. He should be questioned about his conversations with candidates and asked if they knew of his criminal record before he is returned to California. The politicians may be providing protection for organized crime in exchange for funds. He should be questioned by the FBI in Colorado, since he may be part of planned election fraud with the knowledge of those he contributed to - a national felony indictment of all those committing election crimes and obstructing justice.

Tom Shipley,

You don’t really think we’re dumb, do you? I mean, the folks on this board are really quite savvy and usually form a pretty strong argument to support their opinion.

I’ve been around the block enough times to know when I see a group of facts that just don’t make sense.

In this case, we have a person who is running for President and has used poor judgement in accepting money from the wrong people. That in itself is a very serious infraction and it’s not being corrected properly. But in this case, it seems that a relationship may have existed. That makes the situation worse. Furthermore, the candidates’ husband has been accused of selling technology to a foreign government in the past, and while not found to be innocent; this may be new evidence. Additionally, the political family involved has lost close associates to suicide before and under foggy circumstances. Those foggy circumstances were similar in nature to the circumstances of today. And additionally, this new figure, Hsu, had also prepared suicide documents and sent them to unlikely people as well as close friends with generic greetings, via FedEx.

Now Tom, can you please forgive my paranoia over this matter? Something makes me wonder just what the heck is going on.

Tom Shipley
So let me get this straight, the Clinton's must disprove she's NOT susceptible to blackmail to disprove she's a candidate working for an enemy of the state? Are you serious???
All I can do is shake my head sometimes.
I asked for ANY evidence to back these claims up, and I still see NONE. Just conjecture.
And people wonder why many in the "old media" lack a certain respect for blogs. This thread is exhibit A.

Eric:
In a sense, you’re right. But nobody’s talking about putting anyone on trial at this point. We’re talking about our feelings associated with a candidate and weather or not we trust her.

We are not required to have evidence to form this opinion.

Eric:

For the amount of virtual ink this site is giving to slamming truthers lately (deservedly so), just ironic that a thread like this is occurring. this is EXACTLY the kind of conspiracy talk that "truthers" take part in. They look at circumstantial evidence, theorize and run with it.

Soon, it doesn't matter that the storyline doesn't have any basis in fact. People buy into and don't let go of it.

I wonder what this thread would be like if I weren't here to inject some reality. Would you be admitting it was just how people were "feeling?"

It's one thing to not have a high opinion of Mrs. Clinton. it's another to start -- in all seriousness -- speculating that she's a Manchurian candidate with zero evidence to back it up.

Tom,

Good point on the truther issue, however, keep in mind that the race for President is the ultimate test of immaculate resume. Like it or not, in this country, reputation is very important.

I’m sure lots of people have suffered before because of false rumors concerning their reputation, but in this country, we have always held Presidential candidates to the very highest standard in this regard. What happened in Vegas counts during the election of President.

At the end of the day, all a politician really has is a reputation. Hillary certainly has a reputation.

I'm not saying this doesn't hurt her reputation associating with this guy. But, in the end, unless something else comes out, it probably won't hurt her that much.

I think that's part of the reason there's all this speculation. People WANT this to be a big deal. But the facts as they lay, really don't show it is.

No doubt Hsu is a con man, at least as to the old "Ponzi scheme" charges to which he copped a plea. But he's a con man with that extra little "je ne sais pas", such as his "Robin Hood" propensity to give away his ill-gotten gains to prominent Democrat candidates. Steal from the rich, and give to the richer!

Must be his selfless patriotism and love of country. A nice man, who worked hard as a "Hillraiser", and never asked anyone for anything. He's the "con man" equivalent of the "whore with the heart of gold". Except, of course, that prostitution is a victimless crime. And if Hillary and Rosenman are to be believed, Hsu had victims.

If Clinton and Rosenman weren't conned, then they're complicit. Who, other than Hsu (and his masters?), knows for sure? There's a trail out there somewhere for diligent investigators.

Tom Shipley:

"I'm working off the facts of the case. And it's not conjecture to say the facts point to this story being about a con-man who conned a lot of people."

Sure it is. For all you know, Hsu could be working for the Chinese against his will because he's got family members at risk back home. Nor do you know, by virtue of actual evidence, whether the various characters in this story were conned or colluding.

At this point, the facts, per se, point all sorts of possible directions; Hsu's uniquely high profile, his phoenix-like reappearances, and his remarkable role in campaign financing point to this story being considerably more complex than your typical con-man conning a lot of people. In light of all the unusual aspects of Hsu's case and the Clintons' questionable fund raising history, pretending that it's unreasonable to assume otherwise is more disingenuous than judicious.

You're not injecting reality here, you're just refusing to ask questions and assuming a nominally best case scenario on the basis of the same incomplete set of facts that everyone else is using. Folks are certainly speculating, but we're hardly in truther territory yet. Indeed, such speculation -- in the absence, not defiance, of facts -- can be critically important, whether the subject is a criminal investigation or academic research, in terms of what you actually think to look for or follow up on, or in terms of recognizing leads that present themselves. Anyone routinely involved in brainstorming-dependent endeavors can tell you that implausible scenarios often spark the very ideas which ultimately open up useful avenues of exploration.

You're, JM. I'm sorry. Carry on with you're little wet dream of Clintons being nefarious criminals who kill to cover up their association with Communist China.

Wake me up when you've built your case.

Someone has forgotten Clintoon was disbarred for suborning perjury of a witness, misleading a federal judge and lying to a grand jury. Dozens of their closest business and bureaucratic cronies ended up conveniently dead.

Someone must have slept through those facts too. Try not to be quite so sleepy because at least half the world is wide awake while you're lost in dreams of dancing and cuddling with Hillary (on camera, coincidentally) on a beach in France.

Truther alert!!!

I'm guessing either Hsu himself wrote the notes to possibly throw off the hunt and never intended to off himself, or a different party wrote the notes for whatever reason(s) they may have had; i.e., make a simple murder look like a suicide.

For Hillary Clinton's campaign, the second worse case scenario is the Manchurian candidate scenario-- that's she, and possibly Rosenman, are the dupes of a foreign power, thanks to Hsu.

The worse case scenario is the "uber" Manchurian candidate scenario-- in which evidence emerges that Bill Clinton already has been bought off or blackmailed by the Red Chinese military or another foreign government, that Rosenman was complicit in a scheme to get foreign money into Hillary's campaign, and that Hsu is the middleman for all this. The American people will forgive their favorite politicians a great deal, but betrayal of his country to a foreign power earns an American a unique legacy in our history books.

The middle range scenario is there's no foreign money or influence involved, but that Rosenman and his investors concocted a scheme to get dirty money into the Democrat Party, using Hsu as the intermediary.

The best case scenario for Hillary Clinton is that Hsu is a crazy con man who, without any prompting from anyone, decided to steal $40,000,000 of money from a Hillary supporter and give it to prominent Democrat candidates, including Hillary. As a con man, Hsu would have to be crazy not to take the money from his sting and run. Unless there was a much bigger sting in the works. Which takes us back to the two worst case scenarios.

Hey, Shipley: Unfortunately, the Clintons have a history of dealings with the Red Chinese military in their fund-raising and elsewhere. That takes my speculation out of "truther" country and into "plausible but unproven" country.

Had any good Manchurian food lately?

Hsu would have to be crazy not to take the money from his sting and run.

Normal people don't steal millions from people and basically live a lie. And people who try and kill themselves usually aren't in a "sane" state of mind.

Exhibit A (see, here's something called evidence, you guys should take note and try to provide some it at some point...)

Alberto Dee, 21, who boarded the train in Truckee, said Hsu "freaked out" when Amtrak personnel approached, and was roaming a train car "without shoes and no shirt. ... I thought he had a suitcase full of crack or meth."

Another passenger disembarking in Chicago, who declined to give his name, said Hsu appeared disoriented and was having trouble opening a door on the train. Several other passengers said they were told Hsu was behaving oddly but did not witness it themselves.

Hsu's attorney, Jim Brosnahan, said Friday, "a great many friends of Norman Hsu have expressed concern about his mental health and physical well-being" since he disappeared.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/08/MN9IS19EH.DTL

The insanity defense! From day one, Hsu was crazy, roaming the halls of Clinton campaign headquarters without shoes and no shirt, and a suitcase full of crack or meth, and no one in the Clinton campaign noticed?

Or maybe that got him dates with Clinton staffers?

Tom Shipley:

"Carry on with you're little wet dream of Clintons being nefarious criminals who kill to cover up their association with Communist China."

In the context of your own remarks, that's a particularly amusing, and revealing, comment since I was defending someone else's speculation on the Chinese connection, not mine. I have a far more mundane "theory of the crime" myself. So much for evidence based assumptions, eh?