Michelle Malkin is reporting:

Patrick Kennedy is keeping Hsu’s money.

Breeding shows!

Mike: Your consistent use of juvenile personal attack and namecalling, along with your consistent mischaracterization of what I write identifies you as a bigot.
You can’t stand my opinions(another indication of bigotry), and ask me for “proof”. I regard appeal to authority as unmanly, but you are free to offer anything indicating the benefits to society which would result from allowing so-called “gay marriage”. I have asked you for anything on this subject, from facts to logical argument, and you remain silent. Instead you resort to personal attacks and namecalling. Not very impressive.

Her lips look very interesting!

Heh, no one takes a worse picture than Hillary, Puzzle:
<img src=http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2007-03/hillary-freaky.jpg>

Zsa Zsa, you have your work cut out for you.

I must say though, this is a very good photo of Hillary:

<img src=http://www.willisms.com/archives/hillaryhsu.jpg>

Of course, the fact that she is standing next to one of her scumbucket friends kinda ruins it.

LOL, which pic are you meaning Zsa Zsa?

Rather than speculate further on Hillary's capacity to instill fright (a given), I'd like to know where Mr Hsu got all the money he has collected and donated to Democrats, including Hillary.

By all accounts his donation total is over $1 million, and the businesses he was purported to have owned appear to have all been bogus. So where DID all that money come from? Certainly not from Hsu himself. Despite what his lawyers say, he has yet to pay off the various liens and judgments from the early 1990's, never mind the investors in his bogus latex glove venture.

Hillary makes much of her experience during her husband's administration. But even an Alpha Democrat like Hillary can't seriously think she can trumpet her experience during Clinton presidency while ignoring the scandals and corruption that made her husband's presidency the most disreputable in our country's history.

The tsunami of overseas Chinese money that flooded Clinton/Gore '96 was a far more serious scandal than Watergate. If they could buy one Clinton why wouldn't they try to buy another?

Ken,

Aside from this, the second attempt to subvert the American electoral process by the communist Chinese government, I can think of two more interesting questions that ought to be examined:

1. What did the Chinese hope to gain in return for their illegal generosity?

2. Who actually blew the whistle on this? I have a difficult time imagining that a couple WSJ reporters came up with this story all on their own, and the unusually quick responses of both NYT and LAT suggests that they too had been working on the story for a while when the Journal first broke their story. To me, this suggests that someone, somewhere had leaked this on deep background. Who? And that may prove to be the most intriguing question of all.

Ken,

I noticed too, that several of the Dems, Hillary included, first announced that they would donate the money to charity. That struck me as odd. After all, giving it away rather than returning it carries an implicit acceptance of the original illicit donation. What sort of liberal moron would even think that a donation to charity would make all okay?

None of the other Democrat candidates is burdened with the chinese Albatross of Clinton/Gore '96. But if you prefer a Democrat source for the leak, my money would be on AlGore, who has the money, the organization, and the animus toward Hillary.

On the other hand, staunch Democrats might want to check the visitors log at the FEC for Karl Rove's recent signature.

…wouldn't these disclosures help the Republicans more, say, next August or September?

Ken,

Actually, that's one more reason to look to the most likely Democrat as the culprit. A Republican would have enough sense to sit on this. But a rival for the Democrats' nomination, or in Gore's case, a petulant wannabe… The release of this at the start of the campaign for the nomination fairly screams "Democrat"!!!

And, of course, Mr. "No controlling legal authority" would certainly know all about illicitly funneled Chinese campaign contributions to begin with.