One cannot look at the growing Norman Hsu scandal and not compare it with the Abramoff scandal. The differences between “lobbyist” and “fundraiser” blured as they are, you have to wondered within the MSM and lefty blogsphere if Hsu had been giving to Republicans.

Nevertheless the MSM appears at least willing to cover the story albeit in a tenuous way. Today Washington Post recaps what we know so far with a light on the “wide net” of Hsu’s dealings. The Sutability Flip blog has been on the story from the beginning and the proprieters aren’t your average run of the mill bloggers. In otherwords heafty credentials and they’re digging up stuff left and right.

But what begs incredibility how involved democrats - specifically Hillary Clinton - could actually claim innocence in not knowing. Yet we even get this incredible response from donors themselves as per the Wapo article.

“Some donors among the nearly 100 identified this week said they never met Hsu and did not know that their donations had been credited to his fundraising. Others had trouble explaining why they gave the funds to Clinton or could not recall the circumstances in which they met Hsu.

“He called me and asked me if I’d give $1,000. . . . I don’t know how you’d say we struck up a relationship. I just knew him,” said Henry Rosenberg, a New York City lawyer. Asked if he wanted Clinton, New York’s junior senator, to be the next president, Rosenberg said: “I don’t know. He just asked me to do it, and I did.”

Really? No relationship, “hardly knew the guy” but wrote up a $1000 bucks in a flash!

It’s alway a matter of incedibility and semantics when democrats get their hands caught in the cookie jar - “It depends on what you mean by ’sex’”.