The Discerning Texan

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
Saturday, September 22, 2007
More Hsu allegations surface; it appears that the mealy-mouthed James Carville and also some Hollywood celebrities might be involved. If you add this to yesterday's blockbuster revelations at Suitably Flip, the crest of this Hsu-nami is getting higher and higher--and it is getting curiouser and curiouser determining who is at the root of all this corruption and larceny. But one fact is undeniable: it stinks to high heaven.

Ace poses some questions; is anyone listening?

Questions For the Media and Prosecutor:

1) What kind of thief/hustler gives away so much of the money he's risked incarceration for? What is his motive for doing that? For "self-promotion"? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to "self-promote" by investing in Hollywood projects and "self-promote" among nubile young actresses? Why "self-promote" among the dreary past-middle-aged pot-belied gray-cheeked Democratic operative set?

2) Greed? How can greed be a motive for giving away so much "defrauded" money?

3) The media, and prosecution teams, are generally loathe to content themselves with the Lone Rogue Operative theory of a crime, especially when the crimes committed largely benefit others and not the Lone Rogue Operative himself. In the Plame case, in Abu Ghraib, the media, in particular, was furiously skeptical that Lone Rogue Operatives had simply acted with apparent criminal purpose for the apparent benefit of higher-ranking political or military figures. They still don't buy the Lone Rogue Operative theory in either case. And yet the media and the prosecutor seem almost eager to dismiss this current case as one of those Lone Rogue Operative cases here, as quickly as humanly possible. Why? Why the sudden onset of credulity that a criminal acts so selflessly to advance the interests of others, without their knowledge or at least connivance? Why has the Lone Rogue Operative theory become so tantalizingly plausible?

4) Why is it that Hsu's preferred candidates track so closely with Fred Hoechner's? Especially given that Hoechner was donating big to Democrats long before Hsu was? Was Hsu simply impressed by the slate of political actors that Fred Hoechner had been donating to? If so, why? Is Norman Hsu desperate to see HillaryCare universal health coverage? Or did he have... more tangible, more mercenary reasons for pushing Hoechner's field of candidates?

And finally:

5) Why is everyone so eager to wrap this case up nice and tidy and pinned on a Lone Rogue Operative/Patsy without asking all those "tough questions" the media claims it's uniquely qualified to ask?

Bonus: JackStraw sends this documentary of Hillary!'s shady fundraiser with the Shady Lone Rouge Operative Peter Paul (see a pattern) with the slugline "bombshell."

It looks to me like the Hochbergs have some 'splaining to do... In case you missed Flip's post (it is a must read):

10/24/05: Fred Hochberg contributes $2,000 to Ted Kennedy.
10/24/05: A Hsu donor in California contributes $2,100 to Ted Kennedy.

6/6/06: Lillian Vernon contributes $25,000 to Eliot Spitzer.
6/7/06: Norman Hsu contributes $25,000 to Eliot Spitzer.

1/26/07: Fred Hochberg contributes $2,300 to Hillary Clinton.
1/26/07: Hsu and various Hsu donors across the country make a total of 8 contributions to Hillary Clinton ranging from $1,900-2,100 each.

3/28/07: Hsu and various Hsu donors make a total of 11 contributions to Clinton, totaling $23,400 (most at the $2,300 maximum).
3/31/07: Lillian Vernon makes 2 contributions to Clinton, totalling $4,600.

5/3/07: Norman Hsu makes 2 contributions to Mark Pryor, totalling $2,500.
5/3/07: Fred Hochberg contributes $2,300 to Mark Pryor.

6/5/07: Norman Hsu contributes $4,950 to Christine Quinn, his first and only direct contribution to Quinn.
6/5/07: Lillian Vernon contributes $110 to Chrinstine Quinn, for the first time in 4 years.

UPDATE: Captain Ed posts a question, directed especially at Left Coast Left Wing politicians:

Gee, I wonder why California didn't seem all that interested in arresting Norman Hsu? It couldn't be because he generated tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to Californians like Attorney General Jerry Brown ($5500), Senator Dianne Feinstein ($22,162), Senator Barbara Boxer ($5,000), Congresswoman Doris Matsui ($16,850), and Assemblywoman Fiona Ma ($27,600), could it? What possible motive would they have in keeping Hsu free? (via Suitably Flip)

With those friends, it doesn't seem all that difficult to understand why California never bothered to chase down their fugitive. That's no small question, either, as investors who lost millions start to ask pointed questions about how Hsu managed to remain at liberty to run ever-larger con schemes. California authorities have a lot of questions to answer.

DiscerningTexan, 9/22/2007 11:42:00 AM |