“Yeah, leftists really do care about justice. Just like pedophiles care about children”

March 8, 2007

When asked to define pornography, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart relied, ‘I know it when I see it.’

In reading and listening to the leftists shouting on the blogosphere like Glenn Greenwald, the brilliantly below average minds at Firedog Puddle and the assorted leftist apparatchiks at the Huffington Post and elsewhere, one would imagine that the possible pardon of Lewis Libby were tantamount to the legalization of porn and subsequent introduction into the nations kindergartens.

For the left, Libby is the tip of an (imaginary) iceberg of crimes and corruption so great that only prosecutions and convictions at the highest levels of government will rid the nation of evil.

In the same way that Bill Clinton pointing his finger at the camera means he is lying, the maniacal and frenzied outrage by many on the left when it comes to moral issues means the same thing. Their phony outrage is self serving hypocrisy and no more.

The Left doesn’t care about injured soldiers returning from the battlefield or Walter Reed Hospital any more than it cares patients or about dilapidated and run down County hospitals in far worse condition, serving a far greater population, all over this country. The leftists don’t care about VA facilities any more than they care about run down and failing schools that have produced generations and legions of poorly educated and illiterate students, notwithstanding the heightened ‘self esteem’ programs imposed on teachers by the leftist ‘agendistas.

The Leftists are attempting to define pornography- as the beliefs of anyone who disagrees with their agenda. Like the pedophiles that piously go to church, the leftists insist that they have a kind of moral authority that is unique to them.

Of course, that is poppycock. The leftists are uniquely unqualified to opine on political morality because they and they alone have promulgated the deviancy of corruption and deceit for decades.

The leftists were strangely silent as the pornographic images of real political corruption, deceit and hypocrisy played out.

Under the Clinton administration, Chinese ‘businessmen‘ acquired access to sensitive satellite technology. Once the transactions were completed, China refused to allow the US to follow up on just how that technology would be used.

(If the leftists were really concerned about justice, they would pursue the matter of Johnny Chung, who made 50 visits to the White House at times with Chinese ‘businessmen’ in tow. (Turns out Mr Chung gave over $300,000 to the DNC from questionable sources. The DNC reluctantly returned the funds.)

Unlike the Bush administration, it was the Clinton administration that set the standard for deceit and hypocrisy (which explains a lot of the attraction for the left). The following are some , but by no means all, of the benchmarks set by the Clinton administration:

  • Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*

  • Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

  • Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

  • Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

  • First president sued for sexual harassment.

  • First president accused of rape.

  • First first lady to come under criminal investigation.

  • Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case.

  • First president to establish a legal defense fund.

  • First president to be held in contempt of court

  • Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

  • Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

  • First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

So let’s recap:

  • The number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47

  • The number of these convictions during Mr Clinton’s presidency: 33

  • The number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61

  • The number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

If the left were really concerned about justice, they would be concerned about Hillary Clinton’s Rose law firm billing records, ‘lost’ for two years after they were subpoenaed by special prosecutors. They were found in the book room of the personal residence at the White House. Clinton say she has no idea how they got there.

Clinton also had no idea how over 900 FBI private files of Clinton ‘enemies’ found their way into her private office in the White House. For some reason, the left wasn’t concerned either, though they do have a great deal of trouble with the Patriot Act and the monitoring of calls between known Al Qaeda agents and US citizens.

If the left were really concerned about justice, they would consider Hillary Clinton’s performance during the Watergate Investigation.

Jerry Zeifman was the Democrats’ general counsel chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation. In a WSJ piece, reviewed and summarized Hilary Clinton’s performance as a staff member:

Hillary Clinton violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.

More than a few of the legal procedures she recommended were ethically flawed.

In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel.

Ms Clinton proposed that the committee should neither 1) hold any hearings with or take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon. Instead, the committee should rely on prior investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.

Ms Clinton also advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses.

Jerry Zeifman decided that he could not recommend her for any position of public or private trust.

If the leftists were really concerned about justice, fairness and the little guy, they would question why Hillary Clinton sat on the Walmart Board of Directors.

Yeah, those leftists really do care about justice. Just like pedophiles care about children.

About these ads

53 Responses to ““Yeah, leftists really do care about justice. Just like pedophiles care about children””

  1. Gayle Miller Says:

    I want to know who dipped the Clintons in Teflon – that’s what I want to know!

  2. gregdn Says:

    The man’s been out of office for six years. Give it a rest.

  3. SC&A Says:

    Greg, I would not care if it weren’t for the fact that too many people are making ‘ethical government’ an a defining issue.

    If you wanna play, you gotta pay.

  4. Gayle Miller Says:

    And the Horror-in-a-Pink-Pantsuit wants to reoccupy the White House and, from her own attitude and behavior, she apparently thinks she will become President by divine right!

    For either President or Senator Clinton to attempt to claim high moral ground is beyond ludicrous. They have been gone for 6 years, yes, but would 9/11 have happened had President Clinton actually DONE something about the various attacks that occurred on HIS watch? The evil that men do lives after them. That’s just the way things work.

  5. Scott Jones Says:

    Well, if the United States voters want another seriously divisive 4 years(at least)after Bush, who else would be the choice to fill the vacancy but Hillary? We really need a President who can bind us together enough to successfully deal with the reality of the terrorist threat. Nothing else can supercede this right now. They will be coming – and when they do, and if they hit us as hard as they want to, all of this talk about warrantless wire taps and the treatment of the inturnees at Guantanamo will be entirely irrelevant to almost everyone. Very very few will care at all. All people will want is to be protected – and they won’t really care much how it is accomplished. And this will mean that we, and the rest of the civilized world, will then be living in a very foreign place.

  6. terrence Says:

    But, but, but, Hillary MEANS well; her intentions are noble and pure. She is only trying to make the world a better place. And, yes, Hillary has a divine right to be President. If she is denied her inalienable right to the throne, oops, presidency, it will simply mean that the vast right wing conspiracy still rules the USA.

  7. kim Says:

    The hundred k precisement and the “I didn’t inhale” tell you all you need to know about this couple. C’mon, it’s kindergarten stuff.

  8. [...] Saturday: Take that, you commie pinkoes. [...]

  9. [...] seems less than distinguished . Clarice Feldman, the sharp tack. at American Thinker, links to  Sigmund, Carl and Alfred: Jerry Zeifman was the Democrats’ general counsel chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee [...]

  10. elmo76544 Says:

    No one dipped the Clintons in teflon, they just have people like Sandy Berger to cover-up mistakes. Oh yeah and of course their tool called murder.

  11. Ed Darrell Says:

    Is there any fact you can’t screw up?

    The Clinton administration had the FEWEST people accused of crimes, investigated, or convicted, of any administration since Carter, and probably since Eisenhower. ONE appointed official was convicted, but for misdeeds done prior to coming to office (Web Hubbell). No others. None.

    That contrasts with more than two dozen officials convicted of misdeeds during the Reagan administration, including the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

    I believe that each and every one of your claims against Clinton is exactly wrong. It’s fascinating that you offer no citations to check. The old joke is that 86.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot. You’ve pushed that to an amazing 99.9% in this one incident.

    Sigmund, Carl and Alfred need to have a serious chat with your mother.

  12. SC&A Says:

    Feel free to produce the evidence to your assertions, that Clinton administration had the fewest people accused of crimes. That should be promulgated if true, because documentary evidence says otherwise.

    Start here.


    The ball is in your court- and you’ve got an uphill battle.

  13. Ed Darrell Says:

    Prorev is hardly authoritative. It’s a right wing wacko bunch.

    Take this one: 47 businesses or individuals were convicted of crimes during the Clinton administration.

    Businesses? This may be news to you (I hope not), but businesses don’t serve jobs in government. Smell a rat yet?

    Can you name any of those supposedly convicted of crimes in the Clinton administration? Web Hubbell and . . . come on, surely you can name five or ten others, if there are 40 of ‘em.

    You asserted, you have no evidence. I’ll be pleased to call the bluff, but you don’t get to say you’re right until you’re proven wrong. Prorev is simply in error. You shouldn’t be snookered in by people who play fast and loose with the facts like that. Businesses as government officials? Are you serious?

  14. Ed Darrell Says:

    Oh, and while we’re at it, contempt citations by courts against administrations are not as uncommon as those guys think they should be. Were you even alive in the Nixon administration?

  15. Ed Darrell Says:

    “Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.”

    That’s an old internet hoax. I’m surprised anyone would be suckered in by that in this decade. Here, go see what Snopes.com has to say about it: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

    Their conclusions? The claim is “false.”

    Did you even bother to check?

  16. SC&A Says:

    Sure, we can exclude that.

    Now as for your other allegations, cite your evidence.

    “Prorev is hardly authoritative. It’s a right wing wacko bunch,” is another assertion, no more, no less.

    If they are in factual error, provide the evidence.

  17. SC&A Says:

    If you can, which now seems less likely by the minute.

  18. Ed Darrell Says:

    Oh, I see — the little “*”

    Most number of “friends and associates convicted?”

    Not government officials. Not corruption that involved the Clintons. Here’s the explanation from Wikipedia:

    The Clintons were purportedly cleared of all wrongdoing in two reports prepared by the San Francisco law firm of Pillsbury Madison and Sutro for the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was overseeing the liquidation of Madison Guaranty.

    On January 26, 1996, Hillary Clinton testified before a grand jury concerning her investments in Whitewater. She noted they “never borrowed any money from the bank, nor had they caused anyone to borrow money on their behalf.” Over the course of the investigation, fifteen individuals — including Clinton friends Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, White House counsel Webster Hubbell and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker — were convicted of federal charges unrelated to Whitewater.

    any of that stuff?

  19. Ed Darrell Says:

    Odd. The stuff that got cut noted that the “friends and associates” were convicted of stuff other than Whitewater, other than anything involving the Clintons, and other than governmental service.

    If that’s corruption close to Clinton, I noted, then Bush should be doing time for Ken Lay’s crimes at Enron.

    Did you check any of that stuff?

  20. Ed Darrell Says:

    Okay, we’ve already seen that Prorev gave you the old internet hoax.

    So far nothing they’ve said has checked out as 100% factual. Can you verify ANYTHING in that rant? Again, you’re the side offering the assertion that Clinton was crooked. The facts shouldn’t be hard to verify, if true. Nothing I’ve checked in the first checks turned out to be as Prorev said. Do you have any indication that this trend to gross error is not throughout their stuff? I mean, I don’t have all night to chase down total fictions.

  21. Ed Darrell Says:

    Oh, and does Prorev talk about the indictments the courts tossed out, and the convictions vacated? For example, the Washington Post timeline of Whitewater notes this:

    April 30, 1998
    A federal judge dismisses the tax and fraud charges against Hubbell and criticizes Starr for going on “the quintessential fishing expedition.”


    Prorev failed to mention that Starr had a bizarre vendetta going, didn’t they?

  22. Ed Darrell Says:

    Have you guys been able to verify anything yet?

  23. Ed Darrell Says:

    So, it seems that nearly all of the “convictions” were of people only tangentially related to the Clintons, other investors in Whitewater, or people who were in Arkansas at the same time.

    By that standard, what would we say about Neil Bush’s savings and loan stuff? What about George W. Bush’s investigation by the SEC for insider trading?

    I mean, for a hack job, Prorev hasn’t even considered how wide open Bush would be to a similiar degree of scurrilously false claims.

    Still waiting — have you been able to verify anything Prorev says?

  24. SC&A Says:

    “So far nothing they’ve said has checked out as 100% factual.”

    Really? I’ll give you the chance to take that back, before embarrassing yourself.

    Now, as for Web Hubble, one set of charges dismissed barely scratches the surface.

    Would you care to discuss Hillary Clinton’s oversight of the ‘massacre of 93,’? Or the Travel Office? Henry Cisneros?

    In any event, evidence is what is called for- not some deliberately mindless WAPO story that you HOPE will food some people into believing he was a innocent ‘victim.’ In fact, that was not the case.


    We can also discuss Filegate and the Clinton’s documented use of PI’s to threaten and intimidate witnesses, overseen by Hillary Clinton, according to Dick Morris.

    Your remarks re Bush are irrelevant to this particular conversation. You made assertions that you have yet to substantiate.

  25. Ed Darrell Says:

    Remember that even Ken Starr exonerated the Clintons for “filegate.” (See the Washington Post timeline, and note Starr’s actions at the end.)

    Again I note that you’ve been absolutely and completely unable to verify a single charge.

    My remarks irrelevant? You’ve posted a grand hoax. I posted the link to the hoax, you ignore it. I’ve challenged you to put up any fact to support any charge you’ve made — meanwhile, pointing to several sources, including a hostile-to-Clinton source, that deny the charges you’ve posted.

    Your entire post should be retracted.

  26. Ed Darrell Says:

    Henry Cisneros? That had absolutely nothing to do with the Clintons. The only crime was that he failed to tell the FBI about his arrangement with a former mistress in a background investigation, at best a technical crime, but a crime covering up a LACK of corruption.

    Conservatives have no moral sense, and that’s clearly on display here.

  27. SC&A Says:

    See Judicial Watch:


    Simply not being charged is hardly the best kind of character witness.

    How do you suppose those 900 plus FBI files of Clinton ‘enemies’ made their way into the White House?

    Further, the hypocrisy is stunning.

    No one has charged Karl Rove with anything, yet leftists are in a state of arousal over his ‘guilt’ re the Plame matter.

    No one has charged Dick Cheney with anything, yet leftists have passed ‘judgment.’

    Bill Clinton went on Fox News and lied- and the leftist can’t be bothered with that (which might lead one to ask about a well documented pattern of lying).

    The list is endless.

    We can also talk about Smatlz, Espy, Brown, Johnny Chung, James Riady, John Huang, and Charlie Trie, Lippo Bank, Madison Guaranty and Jim Macdougal for a while. Maybe we ought to discuss Chinese foreign campaign contributions (Al Gore has a chapter on that, too) as well as sensitive technology sent to the Chinese by Clinton supporters.

    Now, on to more substantive matters.

    Henry Cisneros was found to have lied to the FBI during the course of an investigation into his background to determine his fitness as a cabinet member. Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice. These checks are important because no one wants members of an administration to be subject to blackmail.

    “On January 19, 2006, the New York Times reported that the independent counsel is finally closing his investigation with a report accusing the Clinton administration of thwarting the inquiry into Cisneros.”

    “The office of the independent counsel issued a press release along with the final report stating:

    An accurate title for the Report could be, “WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED FROM INVESTIGATING.” After a thorough reading of the Report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a coverup at high levels of our government and, it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered. Unlike some other coverups, this one succeeded. [4]

    The Independent Counsel’s report has been a source of partisan bickering because it was heavily redacted with an estimated 120 pages removed by court order.”

    You said, “The Clinton administration had the FEWEST people accused of crimes, investigated, or convicted, of any administration since Carter, and probably since Eisenhower. ONE appointed official was convicted, but for misdeeds done prior to coming to office (Web Hubbell). No others. None.”

    Back that up. Last chance, unless you are determined to be really embarrass yourself.

  28. Ed Darrell Says:

    How do you suppose those 900 plus FBI files of Clinton ‘enemies’ made their way into the White House?

    I checked — they didn’t.

    The FBI mistakenly forwarded a bunch of files when they should have forwarded a few. In fact, because it was the FBI’s error, and there was ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY WRONGDOING, even Ken Starr gave a pass on saying anything about the event.

    Is there anything you’ve got right?

  29. Ed Darrell Says:

    Yeah, talk about Espy. He was acquitted. Talk about him.

    Just get the facts right this time, all of them.

  30. Ed Darrell Says:

    Again I challenge you, name those officials accused and convicted of anything involving the Clintons. Only one — Hubbell. And the “involvement” of the Clintons was that they knew him at the time he committed the crimes.

    Your behavior in this case, accusing people of doing things they did not do, is quite scurrilous.

  31. Ed Darrell Says:

    So, this is, what, my seventh or eighth “last chance?”

    Can you guys document anything?

  32. SC&A Says:

    “I checked — they didn’t.”

    Evidence? Or just your word?

  33. SC&A Says:

    Also, you now say, “Again I challenge you, name those officials accused and convicted of anything involving the Clintons. Only one — Hubbell. And the “involvement” of the Clintons was that they knew him at the time he committed the crimes.”

    You previously said, “The Clinton administration had the FEWEST people accused of crimes, investigated, or convicted, of any administration since Carter, and probably since Eisenhower. ONE appointed official was convicted, but for misdeeds done prior to coming to office (Web Hubbell). No others. None,” the remarks that began this exchange.

    Nowhere were did I mention anything involving the Clinton’s themselves- we were talking about administrations.

  34. SC&A Says:

    Here’s another hint- Sandy Berger.

  35. SC&A Says:

    Tyson foods plead guilty to bribing Mike Espy.

  36. SC&A Says:

    ABC News reported that Ron Brown was set to accept a $700,000 cash payoff from Vietnam in return for pushing normalized trade relations with the communist country.

    (There is a John Kerry connection there- think you can find that?)

  37. SC&A Says:

    Independent Counsel Smaltz s investigation of Agriculture Secretary Espy, has resulted in 14 indictments yielding 2 convictions, 3 guilty pleas, 4 acquittals and 3 companies paying enormous fines.

  38. SC&A Says:

    While not directly related to the Clinton administration, the following is intersting:

    Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was indicted on three felony charges of making false statements and conspiracy to defraud the United States in the Whitewater venture. Later, 11 new counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, making false statements and misapplying funds are added. When Clinton loyalist Judge Henry Woods dismisses the original three-count indictment against Gov. Tucker, independent counsel Kenneth Starr files an immediate appeal. Tucker is eventually found guilty of fraud in connection with the failed savings and loan institution and faces 10 years in prison and $500,000 in fines. After Tucker’s resignation as Governor, Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee replaced him.

  39. SC&A Says:

    On Feb. 6, 1996, President Bill Clinton is subpoenaed in the bank fraud and conspiracy trial of James and Susan McDougal, his partners in the failed Whitewater development project and on Mar. 26th, the White House agrees to have Clinton videotape his testimony.

    The White House releases on Feb 20, more than 100 pages of “mistakenly overlooked” Whitewater records subpoenaed in 1994.

    On May 16, 1996, the Senate Whitewater committee votes to subpoena FBI reports showing that Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints were found on hundreds of pages of Rose law Firm documents found in the White House residence quarters in January. The records, subpoenaed in 1994, and had been missing. In a two-page affidavit to Senate Whitewater investigators on June 17th, Hillary Clinton states that she “does not know” how her Rose Law Firm billing records ended up in the White House.

    Like the FBI records, Hillary Clinton has no idea how the records ended up in the WH.

    There seems to a pattern, no?

  40. SC&A Says:

    Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman resigned on Aug. 17, 1994 amid charges of lying to Congress in his testimony concerning Whitewater/Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) investigation.

    Treasury Counsel Jean Hanson resigns on Aug. 18, 1994 amid charges that she briefed the White House on Whitewater/RTC investigation.

  41. SC&A Says:

    Former White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler lied to Congress and attempted to withhold vital information from Congress. He obtained a confidential Treasury report and showed it to witnesses before they testified before Congress in the Whitewater hearings. He again lied to Congress when he denied having shown testimony to witnesses. Lloyd Cutler has resigned.

  42. SC&A Says:

    Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) repeatedly violated existing campaign finance laws and degraded the White House by using access to the president and the office of the presidency as a fund-raising device for a political campaign.

    According to a document released in December 1996, (dated 3/6/96 from the DNC’s Office of Asian Pacific Affairs), the White House was aware of and a major participant in the DNC fund-raising effort. The memo read: “Administration of campaign activities will require the coordination of the White House, DNC, Clinton/Gore, Clinton administration appointees, community groups and thousands of individuals.” (USA Today; Los Angeles Times, 12/30/96)

    In documents released by the White House on Jan. 24, 1997 both Bill Clinton and Al Gore were clearly shown at the very heart of a massive fund-raising scheme which raked in nearly $100 million in soft money donations.

    The New York Times reported that drug trafficker Jorge Cabrera was solicited for a donation by a DNC fundraiser in a Cuban hotel in November of 1995. Lawmakers investigating the matter say that the fundraiser promised Mr. Cabrera an invitation to a Miami event hosted by Vice President Gore in exchange for the contribution.

    Jorge Cabrera, a convicted felon from Florida, gave the DNC $20,000 and then attended a political reception in Miami at which Cabrera got his picture taken with Al Gore. Cabrera was soon invited to a December 1995 pre-Christmas event at the White House and was photographed with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The next month in January 1996, undercover agents arrested Cabrera with three tons of Colombian cocaine. Prior to Cabrera’s January arrest, he had been arrested twice on drug charges, and pleaded guilty to non-drug-related charges in both cases. Cabrera is serving a 19-year prison sentence. (The Detroit News, 2/16/97; Miami Herald, 1/19/97; The Washington Post, 10/20/96)

    The DNC had already returned $1.6 million in illegal or questionable contributions and in Feb. 1997, DNC General Chairman Governor Roy Romer announced the DNC will return an additional $1.5 million in illegal, questionable or improper campaign donations owed to felons, individuals under indictment and companies with criminal backgrounds.

    How’s that for a new legal defense? “I’m not guilty because I’ve returned what I obtained illegally.”

  43. SC&A Says:

    President Clinton did not deny that he solicited contributions at the White House — a practice that is against the law. (18 U.S.C., Section 607) When asked at a press conference whether he had personally made fund-raising calls from the White House, Clinton said, “I simply can’t say that I’ve never done it.”

    Not only did Clinton himself initiate the selling of overnight stays at the White House, he approved rewards for top donors including meals, golf outings and morning jogs. Clinton’s own handwritten notes indicate that he personally approved using the White House to solicit money and initiated overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom. The White House released documents on Feb. 25, 1997 indicating that Clinton personally approved aggressive use of the White House for fund-raising and initiated over-night stays for $50,000 and $100,000 contributors. According to the documents, Clinton personally approved a plan to reward fat-cat campaign donors by selling overnight stays at the White House, scribbling a note in a January 1995 memorandum, saying: “Yes, pursue all 3 and promptly. And get other names at 100,000 or more, 50,000 or more.” (The New York Times; The Washington Times, 2/26/97)

    A total of 938 guests stayed overnight in the Lincoln and Queen’s bedrooms with more than one-third of these guests being donors to the DNC or Clinton-Gore `96 who gave more than $10 million to the Democrats in the 1996 cycle.

  44. SC&A Says:

    You wanna tell me again how ‘honorable’ the Clinton administration was?

    Let’s see what else we can talk about:

    Former federal judge Abner Mikva circulated a memo in 1995 while White House counsel that said: “Campaign activities of any kind are prohibited in or from government buildings. … also no fund-raising phone calls or mail may emanate from the White House.” Furthermore, back in October 1993 while signing the Hatch Act Reform Amendments, Clinton claimed that, “The Federal workplace, where the business of our Nation is done will still be strictly off limits to partisan political activity.” (Associated Press, 3/2/97; ABC’s “This Week,” 3/2/97; Bill Clinton, Public Papers of the Presidents, 10/6/93)

    Vice-President Al Gore acknowledged making direct telephone solicitations from the White House – a violation of the federal Hatch Act. He admited to soliciting money for the DNC in the White House using a DNC credit card and claims he did nothing illegal. Gore acknowledged making the fund-raising calls, but claimed seven times in a press conference that there was “no controlling legal authority” covering his actions.

    “My counsel advised me that there is no controlling legal authority or case that says that there was any violation of law whatsoever in the manner in which I asked people to contribute to our reelection campaign.” Furthermore, Gore confessed that, “On a few occasions, I made some telephone calls, from my office in the White House, using a DNC credit card. I was advised there was nothing wrong with that practice. The Hatch Act has a specific provision saying that, while federal employees are prohibited from requesting campaign contributions, the president and the vice president are not covered by that act because, obviously, we are candidates.” (Al Gore White House press conference, 3/3/97; The Washington Times, 3/4/97)

  45. SC&A Says:

    Vice President Al Gore attended an illegal Democratic National Committee (DNC) John Huang-organized fund-raiser on April 29, 1996 at the Hsi Lai Buddhist monastery in California which raised $140,000.

    Four days before details emerge on Al Gore’s participation in the illegal fund-raiser at the Hsi Lai Buddhist monastery, Gore claims, “Number one, we have strictly abided by all of the campaign finance laws, strictly. There’ve been no violations.” Three days before the monastery visit, the DNC sent Gore’s office a confidential memorandum making clear the event was a fund-raiser, including instructions for Gore to “inspire political and fund-raising efforts among the Asian Pacific American Community.” Minutes before the event, Gore press aide Peggy Wilhide described it as “a fund-raiser” to a Boston Globe reporter who was traveling with Gore. Gore’s spokeswoman, Lorraine Voles, reiterated in January 1997, that Gore did not realize the monastery visit was a fund-raiser because he had never been informed by his staff.

    Non-profit organizations, like the monastery, are barred under federal tax law from hosting political events. (Boston Sunday Globe, 1/12/97)
    On Oct. 18th, the DNC announces that it will reimburse the Hsi Lai Buddhist monastery $15,000 to cover the illegal fund-raiser attended by Gore. On Jan. 14, 1997, Al Gore admits in a television interview that he knew the fund-raiser at the Buddhist monastery was a “finance-related event.” On Jan. 24, Al Gore changes his story for the fifth time about the fund-raiser at the California Buddhist monastery saying, “I did not know that it was a fund-raiser.” Ultimately, Maria Hsia took the fall for the Vice President and was indicted for alleged election fundraising violations.

    Yeah, Gore didn’t know. Of course, Huang’s entire relationship with the adminstratuion was based on money, but hey, how was Al Gore to know that?

  46. SC&A Says:

    The investigation into Democrat fund-raising violations revealed that the Clinton-Gore White House placed Clinton’s “longtime friend” John Huang in a sensitive, high-level government post as a political payback, even though former Under Secretary of Commerce Jeffrey Garten described Huang as “totally unqualified” to handle policy matters at the Commerce Department and said he recommended that Huang be “walled off” from any issues regarding China.

    Huang was placed at the Commerce Department after the White House received a letter of recommendation touting Huang as “the political power that advises the Riady family on issues and where to make contributions.” (Letter to the Office of Presidential Personnel by California State Senate President Pro-Tem David Roberti, Feb. 17, 1993) The Riady family and their Indonesia- based conglomerate, the Lippo Group, contributed $800,000 to the Democrat National Committee and state Democrat Party state committees in support of Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

    Even though Under Secretary Garten had advised that Huang be “walled off” from issues relating to China, Huang was shown hundreds of classified intelligence reports on China, according to CIA officer John H. Dickerson’ testimony. During the same time period, Huang made hundreds of calls to his former employer, the Lippo Group, which has extensive business investments in China, and frequently visited the Chinese embassy. (Senate Government Affairs Committee hearings, July 15-16, 1997) Huang’s extensive access to top secret government intelligence on China, coupled with his activities as a Commerce Department official and Democrat Party fund raiser, have raised questions of potential espionage on behalf of communist China.

    You getting bored yet?

  47. Ed Darrell Says:

    Yeah, I’m bored. You bring up campaign violations — similar on both sides. You’ve obviously never tried to comply with the campaign laws; it’s difficult.

    Gore made calls unpaid for by public funds — exactly according to the campaign laws that apply to the Congress (where Gore spent years complying), and exactly as required previously. Under a new interpretation — by CLINTON lawyers trying to super comply with the law — it was determined that it’s not enough that the calls be paid by the campaign; the calls had to be made by a phone wholly unconnected to the government, too.

    You complain about that? That’s not corruption. That’s being honest — the campaign confessed.

    John Huang? Yeah, he’s a bad guy. No one got hurt, Huang lost his business, an extensive investigation found no espionage problems.

    Yeah, I’m bored. Starr spent $75 million, and couldn’t pin anything on Clinton. Now you come along, with no money, and claim to have done it. Who’s got veracity here?

    Other investigations spent another $20 million. Cisneros had a mistress whom he supported financially (that’s the family thing to do, it’s what honest men do). He didn’t want it found out. Big whoop.

    Clinton’s campaign staff screwed up and put a fundraiser at a monastery. Technical violation of campaign laws. How was it found out? Oh, yeah — the Clinton campaign filed the reports on it.

    Yeah, I’m bored. You promised dozens of convicted, elected officials, close to the Clintons. You’ve produced quibbles about technical violations of campaign laws that were tightened by Clinton.

    Worse, everything you’ve produced is nothing that you promised. No dead witnesses, no corruption. No convictions, no graft.

    Your post deserves to be retracted.

  48. SC&A Says:

    I’m bored too.

    That said, you’ve inspired me to use this exchange and write a post on denial.

    No convictions? No guilty pleas? No resignations? Misrepresentations on my part?

    Remember, YOU said “The Clinton administration had the FEWEST people accused of crimes, investigated, or convicted, of any administration since Carter, and probably since Eisenhower. ONE appointed official was convicted, but for misdeeds done prior to coming to office (Web Hubbell). No others. None.”

    In fact that is not the case.

    As noted, there were plenty others who were subject to investigation, indicted, plead guilty or resigned.

    In fairness, there are also those who fled the country or pled with no intention of returning, and others who pled the Fifth Amendment while under oath.

    Cisneros, Espy, Berger, Brown, Macdougals, Tucker, Hale, Lindsey, Johnny Chung, James Riady, John Huang, Charlie Trie I had to laugh when you dismissed them as campaign issues only- they had access (possibly illegally) documents that were classified and they had no business looking at. In addition, some of those documents made their way to the Chinese.)

    Anyway, so much for the “The Clinton administration had the FEWEST people accused of crimes, investigated, or convicted, of any administration since Carter, and probably since Eisenhower…”

    But I do want to thank you for inspiring a post in the very near future.

  49. Ed Darrell Says:

    Anyway, so much for the “The Clinton administration had the FEWEST people accused of crimes, investigated, or convicted, of any administration since Carter, and probably since Eisenhower…”

    If half of what you said were accurate, it would still be true. The Clinton administration had fewer people accused of crimes, fewer investigations, fewer convictions.

    I wish I could inspire you to accuracy. But maybe the old Greek philosophers were right: The empty vessel makes the most noise. You’ve got little to talk about, and you still insist on shouting it out.

  50. [...] Feldman (via Siggy, wonders where exactly Hillary studied [...]

  51. SC&A Says:

    Yes, the Dems have a far better track record.

    Must be the integrity in public service factor.

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers

%d bloggers like this: