Clinton scandals

Oct 282007

Conservative writer Austin Hill has praise for Bill Clinton’s words, “How dare you.”

As he then attempted to continue with his address, another heckler shouted at President Clinton, claiming that the terrorist attacks had been an “inside job.”

“An inside job?” Clinton retorted, with indignation in his voice. “How dare you. How dare you! It was NOT an inside job!”

In a matter of a few seconds, former President Clinton used a spontaneous moment with rude people in his midst to communicate to a fearful, skeptical American people. What was the message he conveyed? That the worst suspicions about our country and government are not to be tolerated, and certainly not to be believed.

I beg to differ. I think it’s fine that Clinton confronted the hecklers, and it’s fine to tell them they’re nuts or to make fun of them. And it’s fine to have them carted away if they’re not letting him speak.

But to say, “How dare you?” That implies they should not be allowed to say such things. In fact, that’s the message Austin Hill took away, as indicated by his words, “not to be tolerated.” Our Bill of Rights gives people the right to say crazy things. That’s how they dare say that. We do need to tolerate such words; otherwise we’re not much better than those who took down the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

I realize it might just have been a manner of speaking, and that Clinton may not really have meant this kind of speech should not be allowed. Maybe I shouldn’t be so hyper-literal.

On the other hand, maybe in Clinton’s case we should parse his words very carefully and take them seriously. I am reminded of this incident from 1995, as told by Todd S. Purdum in the NYT:

This area is also a stronghold of anti-Government paramilitary groups, and Mr. Clinton addressed them tonight in a question from the daughter of a worker in the Federal Bureau of Land Management, who said the Oklahoma City bombing had left her afraid for his safety.

“The most important thing we can do to make your father safer is to have everybody in this room, whatever their political party or their view, stand up and say it is wrong to condemn people who are out there doing their job, and wrong to threaten them,” Mr. Clinton said. “And when you hear somebody doing it, you ought to stand up and double up your fist and stick it in the sky and shout them down.”

Shout them down? That’s the way dissidents may have been handled in the beginning days of Nazi Germany. But that’s not the sort of behavior the Leader of the Free World should be encouraging.

If people were a physical threat to this woman’s father, that should be reported to the police. If they were just criticizing him for working for the government, that is their right. And it is her right to criticize them back. Or to ignore them, if that would seem to be more effective.

But for an American president to be advising people to be shouted down is to encourage mob rule and the voice of unreason. He should be upholding the right of people to dare to say what the voices in their head are telling them, secure in the knowledge that we are upholding a country where reason and evidence will stand against it. Telling crackpots that they dare not speak vindicates their conspiracy theorizing in their own minds, and lends them credibility. What we need to do is bring these people and their crackpot ideas out into the sunshine, not shove them into a closet.

And speaking of sunshine, what was on those papers that Sandy Berger stuffed into his shorts, anyway?

Oct 212007

No, not the socks into which he stuffed documents. I’m talking about Socks, the cat.

Hillary dumped an innocent cat when he was no longer politically useful. But she picked up a convicted national security risk, and made him an unofficial adviser to her campaign. Could it be she expects him to be useful? Has he done more for her than Socks did?


This is a photo of our Calico Cat, caught sleeping in the dog dish again. That may have been in 2002. She has since died, at about age 16. And more recently, E-Flat, too, has died, also at a very old age, leaving us with no cats at all. (Mittens and Theophrastus died many years ago.) Somewhere in between Calico and E-Flat, Toelpel died. He was a black Lab mutt, a contemporary of Calico. So there are no animals to keep the mice, chipmunks, and whitetail deer at bay. And it’s the time of year when mice are trying to move indoors to winter quarters.

Everytime I become aware of a stray cat that needs adopting, my wife says no, because she is the one who will have to care for it. (Which is true.) But she has left the door open a bit to the possibility of getting another cat if it’s a Tuxedo cat, like Mittens.

socks 385x185 222463a

Well, guess what? Socks, too, is a Tuxedo cat. He’s pretty old by now, but if Betty Currie feels put upon to have him, I know where he could find a good home. He wouldn’t even be required to catch mice, though it would be nice if he could advise us on matters of household security.

I make no such offer if Sandy Burger gets dumped.  I make no such offer to take in Sandy Berger if he gets dumped.  I have a hard enough time as it is finding the papers I need without having to search peoples’ shorts.

Oct 162007

Sean Macomber, on an expedition somewhat reminiscent of Dante Alligheri’s, travels deep into leftwing blogdom to find out what they’re saying about us conservatives. Here is some of what he came back with:

“They’re vicious, violent, and unprincipled, just like unaffiliated muggers,” he wrote, adding, in retort to one conservative who protested, “We are not animals,” “Well, you’re sure not human…not if you can still call yourself a conservative after seeing what your people really have in mind for this country. I won’t say ‘our country’ as I’m now ashamed to admit that I was born American, and technically still am one, although I’ve washed my hands of your nightmare psychologically, and soon, physically as well.”

This prompted yet another commenter to relate a lesson from his father — a “very smart man,” we are assured — who taught him long ago, “people like these right-wing pundits have souls that look like maggot-infested corpses, you know, like the ones you always see in horror movies.”

PROGRESS! MAGGOT-INFESTED OR NOT, a liberal acknowledges the existence of a conservative soul!

This was about the assault on Randi Rhodes that it turns out never took place.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that the people who thought these unkind thoughts about conservatives were not the same people who were concerned about why Kathleen Willey’s cat was killed and why her tires were slashed.

Oct 142007

In my previous post about the AP coverage of the Larry Craig/Sandy Berger scandals, I linked to a Fox News story that I thought was an AP story. I got this by going to google news and entering the search terms “Sandy Berger.”

Google news entry

The only story that came up on the first page that seemed to be an AP one was the third one in the list, the one that is datelined “AP Washington”. I figured FOX news had printed an AP story. But in looking at the Fox News link, there is narry a word about that article coming from the AP.

So is the AP even silenter than we had thought on the Sandy Berger scandal? If you google for “Larry Craig,” you have no trouble at all finding Associated Press articles.

Oct 142007

When comparing the lies of Bush and Clinton, leftwingers would ask how could we possibly compare lies about a mere sex scandal with lies that caused people to die.

So now we have a Republican sex scandal and Democrats are saying, “He lied, he lied! Larry Craig said he would resign, and he isn’t doing it.”

And at the same time we learn that a man who lied about national security, who was convicted for stealing and destroying documents, is serving as an unofficial advisor to one of the leading presidential candidates. If national security really is national security, it’s a matter in which millions of lives are at stake.

So now which issue are Democrats, e.g. the Associated Press, saying is the more important?

Here is the AP on the sex scandal:

Now that scandal-tinged Idaho Sen. Larry Craig has reneged on a pledge to resign this fall, his fellow Republican senators act as though they hardly know him. They want voters to forget him, too.

But they privately acknowledge that an earlier strategy to drive Craig from office has backfired, sticking them with an open-ended ethics investigation likely to keep the issue before the public for months.

And here is the AP about the national security scandal. Note that there is not a word saying this issue is likely to be kept before the public for months.

I assume we can take this to mean that the AP is telling us it is going to campaign hard for the Democrats on the Larry Craig issue, and is going to report no more than absolutely necessary on the Sandy Berger/Hillary Clinton scandal.

Oct 102007

Sen. Clinton: Sandy Berger has ‘no official role in my campaign’

So is that supposed to make it better? Is that sufficient to make the media quit asking more questions about it?

I mean, the guy is a crook. He jeopardized national security and stole government documents, getting off with a slap on the wrist.

What difference does it make if his role is “unofficial?” Back when the Clintons were obstructing justice, did it somehow make it better if it wasn’t done “officially”?

Or is Hillary just trying to flaunt her basic criminality, knowing it will serve her well if she can corrupt the news media now by making them accomplices. (It’s the same psychological technique LBJ used on his aides, making them come close and conduct business while he sat on the toilet stool taking care of bodily functions usually done in private. It broke down their self-respect and made them partakers in his ruthless behavior.)

I suspect she is telling us there will be no official crimes, but that there will be crimes. And she wants the media to know and fear her criminal nature, and to not dare speak loudly of it.

Here is a reminder from Larry Klayman, lest we forget, of the kind of behavior she is asking us to pretend to forget, but to remember well.

While Judicial Watch has asked FBI Director Louis Freeh to investigate this attempted judge-tampering by the Clinton-Gore White House — and he has promised to do so in a personal letter which I received in the last few weeks — the “hazing” of Judge Lamberth continues unabated.

In a bogus and premature “appeal” of Judge Lamberth’s finding that the president had violated Ms. Willey’s privacy rights — through a writ of mandamus procedure — the Clinton-Gore Justice Department mocked and ridiculed this fine jurist in court pleadings. Asking the appellate court to set aside Judge Lamberth’s ruling even before the end of the case — which is when appeals are supposed to be heard — the president asked the higher judicial body to do him a favor and reverse the lower court’s decision now. The motive was obviously to protect the Senate race of Hillary Clinton — who participated in the crime committed by the president.

When the “appeal” was argued in court last week, two liberal pro-Clinton judges on the three-judge panel continued the personal attack. While effectively admitting that the attempted appeal was premature, procedurally flawed, and thus frivolous, these two judges questioned, in mocking language, how any decision by Judge Lamberth could be respected. One of the appellate judges, who was appointed by Democrat President Jimmy Carter, went so far as to say, while himself incredibly laughing from the bench:

To be very candid, I think any White House, no matter who is in it, would laugh at the suggestion Judge Lamberth is your guiding light.

Yesterday, this liberal appeals court panel, which included a Clinton appointee who refused to recuse himself, predictably was forced to affirm Judge Lamberth’s decision but, again, could not resist taking more shots at him. In largely unnecessary language of their own, they stated:

We view the District Court’s discussion of the crime-fraud exception [i.e., finding that Bill Clinton had committed a crime] as unnecessary to his decision. Indeed, it was inappropriate for the District Court gratuitously to invoke sweeping pronouncements on alleged criminal activity that extended well beyond what was necessary to decide the matters at hand.

Not only was this behavior transparent — to embarrass Judge Lamberth in front of a packed courtroom of over 200 reporters and then in a written opinion — but perhaps was also done in order to put a chilling effect on Lamberth’s willingness to continue to make strong rulings against the most corrupt administration in American history. You see, judges of a feather — largely liberal Democrats in this instance — flock together, lest they forfeit their ability to curry favor in influential political circles that can advance, or destroy, their aspirations.

Sep 212007

Another way to explain the latest revelations on the Hsu scandal:

Hsu was looking for people a) with lots of money to invest in his Ponzi schemes, and b) stupid enough and greedy enough to fall for them.

So where did he spread all of his bait? Among Hillary Democrats. He must not have expected that any Republicans would meet those criteria.

Maybe he needed to get out more.

Sep 212007

The WSJ continues to pursue the Hsu campaign finance scandal.   It now reports this about what Hsu was trying to accomplish.

Federal prosecutors said in a criminal complaint that Democratic fund-raiser Norman Hsu pressured investors to make campaign contributions through him in order to raise his public profile — then used his prominence to find more investors for illegal Ponzi schemes.

Link: Hsu is accused of Ponzi scheme

But why isn’t anybody asking the next question:  Why Hillary?

Contributors who are looking for some advantage usually hedge their bets by contributing to both parties.  Even a leftwing partisan like Steve Jobs tossed a $1000 bone to Republicans.   Bill Gates contributes to both parties.  So why did all of Hsu’s money go to Democrats, and such a large amount of it to Hillary?

It’s tempting to snark about the Ponzi aspects of Hillary’s ideas on social security or health care.  But really, what kind of reason would that be for Hsu to orchestrate so much money to be sent to her campaign.

If he’s looking for more investors, wouldn’t he want to find some rich Republicans to invest in his schemes?  And wouldn’t the way to do that be by donating money among Republican candidates, too?