Archive | Scandals RSS feed for this section

Mrs. Bill Clinton Exposed

3 Apr

The Criminal Arrogance of Mrs. Bill Clinton

3 Apr


11 Mar

By Emily Zanotti, The American Spectator
March 10, 2015

I’ve removed the UN press conference live feed now that Hillary is done talking because I highly doubt you want to continue to watch people standing around staring at a step and repeat. I mean, maybe that’s your thing. But do it on your own time.

Anyway, here’s what we learned from Hillary’s brief, somewhat contentious (as least as far as Andrea Mitchell was not involved) press conference at the United Nations. It began, as many press conferences have today, with a brief soliloquy on those dastardly Republicans who keep insisting on derailing the President’s landmark discussions with Iran. She also made some brief remarks on the anniversary of the Beijing conference on Womens Rights, which she appears to have attended, noting that she is thrilled to be a part of the event and the commission, despite having accepted thousands in donations for the Clinton Foundation from countries where women are still regularly stoned for adultery.

She made several remarks on her email:

One, that she chose to use one address as opposed to two, because she did not want to have to use two devices. Apparently, Ms. Clinton is incapable of loading two email addresses on to the same Blackberry, and considers forcing her personal assistant, who is with her literally all the time, to carry two phones beyond the pale. It seems when the 3am phone call finally did come in, Hillary Clinton did not want to be confused as to which phone it was going to. Let’s call this the “BlackBerry excuse.”

Two, she insists that any and all work email sent to another State Department or government official was recorded because they have a .gov email address, even though she does not. This, of course, only works if you believe that the Secretary was allowed to use her personal email address, but that literally no one else in the Federal govermentused an email that did not end it .gov. She says that the “vast majority” of her emails went to other .gov email users, they were recorded, so you shouldn’t worry. There are, of course, huge swaths of emails missing, failing to account for Ms. Clinton’s official business around very key events, but as far as you’re concerned, the only ones you need to see are on someone else’s account.

Third, when the State Department requested her emails, she turned over all those she determined to be “work related.” This was a subjective determination done by, apparently, her staff and her legal counsel. The emails she did not turn over involve mostly yoga and wedding planning. At least, that’s what she says. She hasn’t turned over the emails and she’s unwilling to reveal the contents of the email server to the public eye, so we’re just going to have to take her word for it.

So, literally, we have no clue what we haven’t seen, there are whole months of email missing, no one can get their hands on it, but Hillary Clinton would like to assure you that she has absolutely not done anything wrong and you’re all just a bunch of right-wing nut jobs.

As for the more important issue, the location and security of the server, Hillary Clinton says that it was never compromised, an assessment she mades, apparently, because it was guarded at all hours by Secret Service agents. She fails to realize, it seems, that you don’t break into a server by literally breaking into it. The server was, of course, Bill Clinton’s, not hers (even though the server appears to have come on line right before her confirmation hearings), and it never left her sight. Not even for a minute. She did not have improper relations with that server.

So, we learned nothing new, were told to take someone who has built her career on her remarkable ability to lie at her word, and we should all figure that the server the Clintons set up in their basement guest room was adequately fending off foreign attackers.

I’m most definitely convinced.

UPDATE: A couple of issues with her “it’s nothing”-ish statement. Two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton talked openly about using the multiple devices that were just so hard to keep track of today.

And Judicial Watch confirms.

Oh, and as for the “personal emails” that she and her staff and lawyer (“Better call Saul!) determined wouldn’t be very interesting to the State Department or were subjectively unrelated to her official duties as Secretary of State? Yeah, those are all gone. Deleted. Destroyed. So, apparently, we can all quibble over her faux veneer of “accountability” all we want — and I’m sure we will — but none of this matters because there’s nothing left to surface.

It’s oh, so Hillary Clinton.

How Many Straws on Hillary’s Back?

11 Mar

By Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online
March 10, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s pre-campaign for the 2016 presidential race is predicated on three givens: her landmark status as the likely first female presidential candidate of one of the two major parties; her name recognition as a Clinton; and the fact that no Democratic strategist is yet willing to risk turning over a presidential campaign to Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

Polls show that right now Hillary would both win the Democratic nomination and be elected president. But that likelihood assumes that four considerations will go her way.

The first is that she will not have to run on her record as secretary of state. Instead, she is betting that her iconic status and her years in Washington as first lady and then as a senator will trump her four years as Barack Obama’s chief foreign-policy architect. Her record as secretary was dismal — perhaps the worst since the tenure of Cyrus Vance under Jimmy Carter.

The Obama/Clinton reset diplomacy with Russia ended with Vladimir Putin gobbling up Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and starting a bitter new Cold War. Her idea of bombing Libya without congressional approval and in excess of the limited U.N. resolutions proved a disaster, especially when the U.S. let the ensuing mess on the ground fester. Pulling every American peacekeeper out of a quiet Iraq at the end of 2011 green-lighted radical Islamist terrorism and helped to birth the Islamic State.

On her watch, Israeli-American relations became the worst since the founding of Israel.

Most Sunni states in the Middle East do not trust the United States any more; they are confused only whether we are naïve about Iran or are trying in clumsy fashion to forge some new strategic partnership with the terrorist theocracy.

Yet Clinton is probably right that the public is more interested in the idea of her as the first woman president than in her disastrous conduct of American foreign policy. And so she is probably correct that by 2016 most voters will have forgotten or won’t care what a mediocre secretary she proved to be.

Second, Clinton also supposes that the public has long forgotten the scandals that engulfed her during the last years of her husband’s presidency. Does anyone still remember Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, shady cattle futures, defiance of subpoenas for billing records at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, the fact that she is the only first lady in history to be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury, and the mysterious presidential pardon during her Senate campaign of convicted Puerto Rican terrorists in New York?

The common denominator in all these fiascos was her assumption that she was above the law — that, and petty avarice. Or rather, Hillary always believed that progressive warriors such as herself needed the resources to do noble work and therefore should be exempt from legal scrutiny.

No matter. Clinton is probably right that the public either has forgotten all those ethical lapses or wants to move beyond them. Or maybe she assumes that unless she is indicted, the desperate Democratic party has no choice in 2016 except to nominate her — and if nominated she can win.

Third, Clinton also calculates that voters will not care much that she has always been a gaffe-prone and wearying public figure. She has clumsily feigned an African-American patois in front of black audiences.

In her failed 2008 presidential bid, for a while she tried to construct a white-working-class persona. When angered, her voice becomes eerily shrill. In impromptu interviews she can and will say almost anything. When questioned about the circumstances surrounding the four Americans’ being killed in Benghazi, Clinton blurted out, “What difference — at this point, what difference does it make?”

She once whined that when the Clintons left office they were broke and could barely pay the mortgages on their million-dollar-plus properties. Note the plurals. But once again, Clinton is probably right to assume that because she has no Democratic rival like Barack Obama this time around, voters will conclude she is far more viable than any of the alternatives.

Given that the nomination is hers for the losing, Clinton’s strategy for now is possum-like: Ignore the scandals, the memory of which will eventually die out, and limit the occasions where she might be asked questions that would require an ad hoc response — while offering canned one-liners about her historic candidacy and other gender boilerplate.

Finally, will the public forgive recent Clinton scandals and lapses? Here the picture may not seem so bright. As secretary of state, Clinton used personal e-mail accounts on her own private, unsecured server in a way that was designed to avoid transparency. But for a government official, communicating without an electronic trail is both unethical and illegal. Promising when caught to turn over government correspondence is not quite the same as making such communications available from the get-go.

Note that Clinton’s private, non-government server domain was not for secondary accounts; it was her sole e-mail account during her tenure in the Obama administration. The only logical implication is that Clinton was trying to shield her communications from later public scrutiny — and from possible scandal or subpoenas.

And it largely has worked.

What is missing from discussion of this scandal is that the secretary of state for four years freelanced with private e-mail addresses — and that everyone in the administration who received her e-mails knew it, and no one cared. As secretary, she also received millions of dollars in gifts for her family’s quarter-billion-dollar-endowed Clinton Foundation from foreign heads of states and wealthy foreign nationals.

Obviously, it is improper, to say the least, for the chief foreign-policy officer of the United States to solicit for her family foundation when dealing with foreign governments. Clinton’s aides must have assumed that none of those tawdry shakedown communications were recorded electronically on her private e-mails — as if checks arrived in the U.S. spontaneously without prior discussion.

In fact, Hillary Clinton was the chief fundraiser for her family foundation and had the ideal platform from which to garner big checks. When Bill Clinton points to the Clinton Foundation’s noble work or asserts that it does not prejudge the nature of its nation-state donors, his moral obtuseness about what a secretary of state should and should not do only makes Hillary’s plight worse.

Ms. Clinton of course emphasizes her gender and, by association, feminist issues. One might ask whether she ever worried about the gender apartheid practiced by the very Middle East monarchies from which she solicited gifts.

In addition, her husband’s past philandering is no longer just ancient history. It was recently reported that Bill Clinton flew more than a dozen times on the private jet (dubbed “the Lolita Express”) of convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, who had a sick habit of procuring underage girls for his Caribbean-island getaways.

The fact that Hillary Clinton herself, while a U.S. senator, paid female staffers substantially less than their male counterparts for the same work hardly gives her sufficient feminist credentials to negate the embarrassing fact that her husband cavorted with a convicted sexual predator and a group of underage girls. Does such hypocrisy matter? It has not mattered much in the past, given the liberal tenet of exemption:

A progressive man with a large libido can mouth liberal platitudes while treating women as he pleases, on the assurance from other women that a few unfortunate Monicas or Paulas are a small price to pay for advancing abortion rights or affirmative action.

If on public occasions Joe Biden in creepy fashion hovers over young girls and other men’s wives, or if Al Gore is accused of sexually harassing a masseuse, who really cares? Can’t we put up with Bill Clinton on a plane where there are frolicking teenagers if the alternative to his liberalism is a staid Ted Cruz stopping late-term abortions?

Finally, Hillary Clinton has regularly charged cash-strapped universities between $200,000 and $300,000 for a canned 20- to 30-minute speech. UCLA dared to negotiate with Hillary’s agents and was told that her $300,000 demand was the special cut rate for universities. When students owe over $1 trillion in collective debt — largely because of skyrocketing university tuition and expenses — Clinton’s fees take on the appearance of price gouging.

But here too, leftwing students don’t seem to mind paying for greed if the greed comes with liberal orthodoxy.

Note two facts about the Clinton scandals. One, hypocrisy is at the core of them all: lecturing about feminism, but silent about unequal pay when she was the paymaster.

Or decrying the old-boy system, while ignoring her own husband’s callous treatment of women, some of them subordinate employees. Hillary sent a memo reminding State Department employees not to break the law concerning non-government e-mail correspondence that she herself so readily broke.

She talks eloquently of inequality and fairness but then charges universities the sort of fees that ultimately only add to the exorbitant price of a college education.

Two, there is never an end to Clinton scandals, precisely because both Bill and Hillary assume that the media will not fully investigate what they do, and that their progressive agendas justify any means necessary to achieve them. And because their habitual expectation of government and media privilege is now four decades long, and because they have not entered ethical rehab, there will be lots more embarrassment to emerge.

The latest are reports that Hillary Clinton’s youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was part of a U.S. consortium that sought a rare sweetheart mining concession from the beleaguered Haitian government, which was still reeling from the disastrous earthquake — at precisely the time it was negotiating with the U.S. government for massive American relief aid.

Add it all up: Natural disaster, poor people of color, thousands of wrecked lives, an impoverished nation — and the secretary of state’s brother and a foreign mining corporation were conniving to obtain a concession to mine gold at a reduced rate from a corrupt government.

Hillary Clinton may prove to be the proverbial camel whose cumulative straws of scandals and unethical behavior will finally break her back.

She is the most ethically compromised candidate in recent memory, and genuinely sees no reason why federal laws or ethical prohibitions should ever apply to her exalted self. The idea that she still may be nominated has long excited, but increasingly also terrifies, Democrats. Hillary’s nomination will require the greatest amount of lying and suspension of disbelief in modern political history. If the Republicans have lots of candidates but none that are especially well known, the Democrats have invested in just one, the star and star-crossed Hillary Clinton, who they hope will win the presidency but fear will, in trying to reach the White House, destroy the Democratic party.

The First Two Lies from Hillary’s Press Conference

11 Mar

By JIM GERAGHTY, National Review Online
March 10, 2015

All over Twitter you can find negative reactions to Hillary Clinton’s just-concluded press conference.

To me, the most important part of her press conference was her statement that was an obvious, flat-out lie: She said the e-mail server was initially set up for use by former president Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton insisted that there were “numerous safeguards” in place, adding there were “no security breaches.” One hacker broke into Hillary’s account in 2013 and leaked several messages to Kremlin-funded RT.

Beyond that example, if her server is being privately managed, there’s no way for, say, State Department security professionals or the NSA or CIA or any other intelligence agencies to know if there was a security breach. Can we agree that the woman who said she couldn’t carry two phones because it would be too inconvenient is in no position to assess cybersecurity?

Also, Hillary kept insisting that federal-government workers get to decide what e-mails are considered “private” and which ones are work-related, and that doesn’t sound right at all.

On CNN a few moments ago, Margaret Hoover, a former employee of the Bush White House and Department of Homeland Security, said that wasn’t true.

Finally, while her wording was not terribly clear, it appears she kept half her e-mails from her time as secretary of state as “private” and either deleted them or believes she has a right to delete them.

In short, disastrous.

Hollywood Pedophile Allegations Involve Homosexual Democrat Donor

5 May

Allegations that a film director raped a teenage boy could impact fundraising for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, whose close ties to Hollywood’s homosexual community are potentially implicated in the scandal.

Bryan Singer, the openly homosexual director best known for the X-Men series of action films, has been accused in a lawsuit filed by a 31-year-old man who says he was 17 when Singer forcibly sodomized him in 1999. The plaintiff in that lawsuit, former model and actor Michael F. Egan III, describes attending Hollywood parties that “were typically sordid and featured sexual contact between adult males and the many teenage boys who were present for the parties.” According to the lawsuit, Singer attended the gay sex parties at the estate of Marc Collins-Rector, an entertainment entrepreneur who subsequently pleaded guilty to multiple crimes involving underage boys, and is now a registered sex offender.

“Since 2006 Bryan Singer has contributed at least $87,620 to Democratic candidates and committees,” the Daily Caller reported. “In 2006 and 2007 Singer contributed a combined total of $6,500 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets. In 2011 and 2012 Singer contributed a combined $61,600 to the Democratic National Committee.”

Singer has also hosted notoriously raucous gay parties at the home of film director Roland Emmerich, the London Daily Mail reported. In a 2011 interview with the Advocate, a leading homosexual publication, Emmerich described how Singer invited hundreds of “twinks” — slang for very young homosexual men — to the annual pool parties at Emmerich’s Hollywood estate. The paper highlighted a photo showing scores of men frolicking in Emmerich’s swimming pool.

It was at Emmerich’s estate in June 2007 that Hillary Clinton attended an “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) fundraiser event” for her Democrat presidential campaign. A description of the event: “The Senator first greeted the VIP guests in the upper section of the estate and then moved on to the pool area to address the approximately 250 supporters who have gathered to meet the former First Lady. Hillary Clinton’s main topic that night was the discrimination of homosexuals and their (mostly lost) rights, which she is fighting to restore.” That account described Emmerich’s estate: “The lush gardens and the unique building made a perfect backdrop for the presidential candidate and the many guests seemed to enjoy the privilege of setting foot on this private property.”

No one has accused Emmerich of involvement in the sexual misconduct alleged against Singer in Egan’s lawsuit, and an attorney for Singer dismissed Egan’s allegations as “without merit … absurd and defamatory.” However, Egan and his attorney Jeff Herman have suggested there was a larger network of homosexual pedophiles surrounding Collins-Rector, who Egan said repeatedly threatened him: “We control Hollywood and we will eliminate you.”

Claims of rampant pedophilia in the entertainment industry are not new. In 2011, former child star Corey Feldman said pedophiles were “everywhere” in Hollywood when he was making movies as a teen actor in the 1980s.

Lesbian Democrat Questions Hillary’s So-Called ‘Accomplishments’

21 Aug

Camille Paglia is a feminist, lesbian, and author. She made some very interesting comments on Hillary Clinton’s thin record of accomplishment in a recent interview on

As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.

I for one think it was a very big deal that our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. In saying “I take responsibility” for it as secretary of state, Hillary should have resigned immediately. The weak response by the Obama administration to that tragedy has given a huge opening to Republicans in the next presidential election. The impression has been amply given that Benghazi was treated as a public relations matter to massage rather than as the major and outrageous attack on the U.S. that it was.

Throughout history, ambassadors have always been symbolic incarnations of the sovereignty of their nations and the dignity of their leaders. It’s even a key motif in “King Lear.” As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood. The escalating instability not just in Egypt but throughout the Mideast is very ominous. There is a clash of cultures brewing in the world that may take a century or more to resolve — and there is no guarantee that the secular West will win.


Hillary Scales ‘Mount Scandal’ with Ease

25 Jul

By Sam Smith, The Progressive Review, February 24, 1999

In the late 1970s, the Clintons and McDougals buy land in the Ozarks with mostly borrowed funds. The Clintons get 50% interest with no cash down. The plot, known as Whitewater, is fifty miles from the nearest grocery store. The Washington Post will report later that some purchasers of lots, many of them retirees, “put up houses or cabins, others slept in vans or tents, hoping to be able to live off the land.” HRC writes Jim McDougal, “If Reagonomics works at all, Whitewater could become the Western Hemisphere’s Mecca.” More than half of the purchasers will lose their plots thanks to the sleazy form of financing used.

The McDougals will be among a number of close HRC’s friends and business associates who will end up in jail. Others include her law partner Webster Hubbell and financial middle man David Hale.

Two months after commencing the Whitewater scam, Hillary Clinton invests $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she has a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out she earns nearly $100,000 on her investment. Many years later, several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million.

Hillary Clinton makes a $44,000 profit on a $2,000 investment in a cellular phone franchise deal that involves taking advantage of the FCC’s preference for locals, minorities and women. The franchise is almost immediately flipped to the cellular giant, McCaw.

Jim McDougal tries to prevent state agencies from shutting down his S&L, which has been providing cash for the Whitewater operation. According to the Washington Times, Ms. Clinton is put on a $2000 a month retainer by the S&L. Ms. Clinton will later claim not to have received any retainer nor to have been deeply involved with Madison.

During the 1992 campaign, Hillary Clinton defends her role in the Madison Guarantee S&L scandal by saying, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas. But what I decided to do was pursue my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.” Forgotten, however, is what inspired this homily: accusations that Ms. Clinton had represented Whitewater business partner Jim McDougal’s S&L before her husband’s government. Here’s what the New York Times reported on March 17, 1992: “Hillary Clinton said today that she did not earn ‘a penny’ from state business conducted by her Little Rock law firm and that she never intervened with state regulators on behalf of a failed Arkansas savings and loan association. . . ”

Records will show that she did, in fact, represent Madison before the state securities department. After the revelation, she says, “For goodness sakes, you can’t be a lawyer if you don’t represent banks.”

Susan McDougal recalls Ms. Clinton coming in and drumming up the business. Ms. McDougal tells the Washington Post: “The problem was finances, her finances.” The Washington Times quotes an unnamed Clinton business associate who claims the governor used to “jog over to McDougal’s office about once a month to pick up the [retainer] check for his wife.” Jim McDougal’s version of the story, according to the LA Times, is that Clinton asked him to throw some legal work his wife’s way to help the Clintons out of a financial crunch: “I hired Hillary because Bill came in whimpering that they needed help.”

Hillary Clinton writes Jim McDougal enclosing a power of attorney for him to sign “authorizing me to act on your behalf with respect to matters concerning Whitewater Development Corporation.” Another power of attorney is enclosed for Susan McDougal. The power of attorney includes the right to endorse, sign and execute “checks, notes, deeds, agreements, certificates, receipts or any other instruments in writing of all matters related to Whitewater Development Corporation.” This letter, uncovered in 1993 by Jerry Seper of the Washington Times, directly contradicts the claim of the Clintons that they were “passive shareholders” in Whitewater.

From a 1996 Chicago Tribune editorial: “The legal issues will sort themselves out in time. But one thing has become all too clear. Bill and Hillary Clinton and their aides have made a concerted effort to deceive official investigators and the American public with half truths and outright lies . . . It’s not clear what the Clintons want to conceal, but it’s clear that they have made extraordinary efforts to do so.”

The American Spectator reports in 1996 that on her Asian tour, Hillary Clinton told New Zealand television that she had been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Sir Edmund, however, was an unknown beekeeper the year of Mrs. Clinton’s birth.

The Spectator also reports that HRC served on the board of a corporation about which serious questions have been raised concerning its role in the pre-Gulf War arms pipeline to Iraq.

A drug dealer donates $20,000 to the DNC, attends a Christmas reception hosted by Hillary Clinton, has his photo taken with the Clintons and Al Gore and then — three weeks later — is arrested for smuggling 6,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States. It should have come as no surprise to anyone involved. After all, Jorge Cabrera had already served two prison sentences — one for trying to bribe a grand jury witness and the other for filing a false income tax return. Later he will be back in the news when a businessman pleads guilty to laundering $3.5 million for Cabrera between 1986 and 1996.

“I see the White House is like a subway — you have to put in coins to open the gates.” — Clinton contributor Johnny Chung talking about the $50,000 he gave Hillary Clinton’s top aide while seeking VIP treatment at the White House.

Spilling some of the beans on her “close friend” Ron Brown, Nolanda Hill tells Prime Time Live that Brown used drugs while Commerce Secretary and considered taking a big payoff from Vietnam to get trade restrictions lifted but dropped the idea when he got a tip that FBI was on the case. Hill also says that Brown thought it was Hillary who placed John Huang in a Commerce Department job. Huang left the Lippo Group — with a golden parachute of around $800,000 — to work for Commerce. Brown orders a top secret clearance for Huang. While at Commerce, Huang visits the White House about 70 times, is briefed 37 times by the CIA, views about 500 intelligence reports, and makes 281 calls to Lippo banks.

A federal judge issues a fine for a quarter million dollars because, “The Executive Branch of the government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court.” At issue is the composition of Hillary Clinton’s health task force, a body stacked with those from the medical industry who would gain most from its faux reforms.

Number of times Hillary Clinton says “I don’t recall” or its equivalent in a statement to a House investigating committee: 50. Number of paragraphs in this statement: 42

Starr decides not to pursue the FBI file matter after an investigation that included a nine-minute interview with HRC over tea and coffee. FBI Director Louis Freeh calls the handling of the FBI tapes an “egregious violation of privacy . . . without justification.”

“Mr. Starr also botched the investigation into the White House’s illicit use of confidential FBI files on 900 Republican opponents. He used FBI agents to probe misconduct involving the FBI itself. Needless to say, they came up empty handed. A civil suit on behalf of the victims has since uncovered evidence that the purloined files were part of a campaign of political espionage ordered by Hillary Clinton herself. The dirt in the files, including raw data on congressional leaders, was fed into computers.

Presumably it was later used for blackmail, or fed to media surrogates for the systematic smearing of Republicans.” — Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, London Telegraph.

After quitting the Justice Department and before going to jail, Hubbell is a busy man. He meets with Hillary Clinton, and follows up by getting together with major scandal figures John Huang, James Riady, and Ng Lapseng. Riady and Huang go to the White House every day from June 21 to June 25, 1994 according to White House records. Hubbell has breakfast and lunch with Riady on June 23. Four days later — and one week after Hubbell’s meeting with Hillary — the Hong Kong Chinese Bank, jointly owned by Lippo and the Chinese intelligence services, send $100,000 to Hubbell.

“Through discovery in its civil lawsuit against the Clinton Commerce Department, Judicial Watch also has found evidence that President Clinton condoned and participated in a scheme, conceived by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and approved by the President, to sell seats on U.S. Department of Commerce trade missions in exchange for political contributions. ~~~ In addition to the illegal sale of taxpayer financed services, such as seats on trade missions, for political contributions, the President and Mrs. Clinton have illegally solicited and received monies directly from private citizens and others. The creation and use of legal defense funds is not only prohibited under federal law, but they have proved to be a means whereby lobbyists, influence peddlers and foreign powers have tried to influence the Administration, contrary to U.S. national security interests. In sum, Judicial Watch has uncovered a pattern of conduct by this President and his agents that indicates he has run, in effect, a criminal enterprise from the White House to obtain and maintain hold on the Office of the President of the United States. Indeed, he is likely in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). ” — Judicial Watch

“Communist Party cadres should study the speeches of Hillary Clinton because she offers a very good example of the skills of propaganda. Her sentences are short and stimulating. That’s why she gets a lot of applause. But Chinese people have a habit of giving long speeches in which the sentences are long and tedious.” — Yu Quanyu, director of the Chinese Academy of Social Studies, in Ideological and Political Work Studies.

Former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich reports that Hillary Clinton told the Secret Service agents in public to “stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me or else!” When her guards have argued with her, she had said, “Just fucking do as I say, okay?”

Hillary Clinton and David Watkins move to oust the White House travel office in favor of World Wide Travel, Clinton’s source of $1 million in fly-now- pay-later campaign trips. The White House fires seven long-term employees for alleged mismanagement and kickbacks. The director, Billy Dale, charged with embezzlement in the HRC-organized frame-up, will be acquitted in less than two hours by the jury.

White House-assigned FBI agent Gary Aldrich agrees to help trim the Christmas tree in the Blue Room. Aldrich is surprised to find a small clay ornament of 12-lords-aleaping. Among the things that were aleaping on the 12 lords are their erections. Also provided by Hillary Clinton and her staff: ornaments made of drug paraphernalia such as syringes and roach clips, three French hens in a menage á trois, two turtle doves fornicating, five golden rings attached to a gingerbread man’s ear, nipple, belly button, nose, and penis.

Hillary Clinton’s attempts to conceal the fact that she had $120,000 of editorial help in preparing a book-like substance.

Billing records documenting HRC’s work on the Castle Grande development scam are discovered in the family quarters of the White House. HRC says she has no idea how they got there.

Judicial Watch sues Hillary Clinton in a $90 million lawsuit on behalf of the 900 persons whose FBI files were taken by the White House. She is also a defendant in a shareholder suit filed against Loral and others over the sale of slots on public trade missions. The FBI files case is expected to reach trial next year.


A Clinton Scandal Primer

24 Jul

By John Wilson

Below is a guide to the Clinton scandals:

I’ve already written about the corruption issue as it relates to the current issue of earmarks. My primary reason for bringing up these scandals is because I think the same standards should be applied to all candidates (I’ll get to John McCain’s scandals later this year). If Barack Obama is going to be attacked for the very minor Rezko “scandal”, then Hillary Clinton deserves the same treatment for her involvement in many more scandals of far greater significance. The books by Carl Bernstein as well as Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta also provide useful (and often damning) information that the public hasn’t heard in the media coverage of the campaign.

Even Hillary Clinton’s appointment of Maggie Williams (a central figures in one of the Clinton scandals) as campaign manager prompted almost universal silence about the Clinton scandals. We need to re-examine the scandals of the Clinton Era involving Hillary for two basic reasons: 1) these scandals will not be forgotten by the press and the 527s in the general election, so they will become a campaign issue hurting Democrats; 2) these scandals may indicate what kind of administration Hillary Clinton will have, and the danger is that she may appoint people like Williams with this history of misconduct.

For each Clinton scandal (and I don’t pretend to cover every single one), I provide a short summary along with my judgment of how serious the scandal was, and the degree of Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it (on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest scandal).

Johnny Chung Fundraising Scandal

Level of Scandal: 2

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 9

Johnny Chung gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton’s office was his strongest defender under Hillary’s chief of staff Maggie Williams. Williams declared, “This is the one office where I can run it the way I want to,” and she gave Chung remarkable privileges during Chung’s 51 visits to the White House, including signed photographs with the first lady and the privilege to eat on her tab at the White House Mess. Williams testified, A prime example of his … misguided behavior was his persistent request to give money directly to Mrs. Clinton. On more than one occasion, I told Mr. Chung this was not possible, although his offer was much appreciated. However, Williams’ aide Evan Ryan directly told Chung that the DNC owed the White House $80,000 for a Christmas party and asked for a donation to help pay off the debt. Chung personally gave Williams inside the White House a $50,000 check for the DNC. Two days later, Chung brought in a group of Chinese businessmen into the Oval Office to watch Bill Clinton deliver his radio address, and have their picture taken with him. Chung pled guilty to election law violations for his illegal fund-raising.

Conclusion: The announcement on February 10, 2008 that Maggie Williams would become the new campaign manager for Hillary Clinton was a particularly shocking example of the influence-peddling that Hillary is willing to tolerate. Maggie Williams was Hillary’s chief of staff as First Lady, and in that role Williams was deeply involved in an especially sleazy aspect of the Clinton Administration. Chung summarized his view of the Clinton Administration this way: The White House is like a subway — you have to put in coins to open the gates.

Cattle Futures Trading

Level of Scandal: 2 (5 for cover-up)

Hillary’s involvement: 10

Wikipedia summary: “In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months….At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her…..In 1995, economists from Auburn University and University of North Florida ran a statistical computer model against a record of Rodham’s trades, factoring in Wall Street Journal market data from the time, and concluded in an article published in the Journal of Economics and Statistics that there was only a 1 in 250 million chance that Rodham could have made the profits she did legitimately.”

Conclusion: There’s no evidence that Hillary Clinton realized that she must have been getting some preferential treatment in order to benefit her and her husband financially. But she’s not dumb enough to think that people make free money like this without risk. That’s why she tried to conceal these facts. In 1992, Hillary personally warned staffers not to talk about the tax returns showing her profits, and the Clintons tax returns were only revealed up to 1980. The campaign successfully created a fake cover story to explain the jump in net worth, falsely telling reporters that it was a gift from Hillary’s parents.(Gerth and Van Natta, p. 114-5) The fact that the Clintons currently refuse to reveal their tax returns strongly suggests they have something to hide, considering that their history of selective concealment of tax information to prevent scandalous information from coming out.


Level of Scandal: 1 for scandal (7 for cover-up)

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 9

In 1993: “May 19: The White House fires seven employees of its Travel Office, following a review by Associate Counsel William Kennedy III, a former member of the Rose Law Firm. Mr. Kennedy’s actions, which included attempts to involve the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service in a criminal investigation of the Travel Office, are sharply criticized.”

Conclusion: The Travel Office firings were inept and misguided, but never a huge scandal. Hillary actually wanted to show her good government credentials by cleaning up the questionable activities of the White House Travel Office, never realizing that the workers had close relations to the media. I believe Hillary had only good intentions, even though the fact that Arkansas buddies taking over the office made it seem like a patronage issue. But the key fact is that Hillary lied under oath (or came perilously close) in denying any involvement in the firings. The independent counsel concluded, “The evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton had a ‘role’ in the Travel Office firings and that she had ‘input’ into that decision. Her testimony to the contrary was factually false.” Hillary could have easily been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, but proving that she knowingly lied was difficult, and Hillary was never the main target of the investigations, so they gave her a break. Still, the scandal shows Hillary’s managerial ineptitude and her propensity to deny responsibility.


Level of Scandal: 5

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 1

From wikipedia: “In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction (the couple were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business transactions in certain states). First Lady Hillary Clinton’s youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf. In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme….Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges. Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public.”

“Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion….Critics complained that Denise Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton’s senate campaign….According to Paul Volcker’s independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.”

Conclusion: Bill Clinton’s abuse of his pardon power disgusted nearly everyone, but there’s no clear evidence of Hillary Clinton’s involvement. Still, it’s hard to believe that she knew absolutely nothing about what her husband was doing on behalf of her brother and one of her major donors.


Level of Scandal: 1

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 5

According to Wikipedia: “The Whitewater controversy was the focus of media attention from the publication of a New York Times report during the 1992 presidential campaign, and throughout her time as First Lady. The Clintons had lost their late-1970s investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation; at the same time, their partners in that investment, Jim and Susan McDougal, operated Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan institution that retained the legal services of Rose Law Firm, and may have been improperly subsidizing Whitewater losses. Madison Guaranty later failed, and Clinton’s work at Rose was scrutinized for a possible conflict of interest in representing the bank before state regulators that her husband had appointed; she claimed she had done minimal work for the bank. Independent counsels Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr subpoenaed Clinton’s legal billing records; she claimed to be unable to produce these records. The records were found in the First Lady’s White House book room after a two-year search, and delivered to investigators in early 1996.”

Conclusion: Ultimately, the Whitewater scandal is not about a failed investment; it’s about McDougal using his influence with the Clintons to get preferential treatment for a failing bank. It’s possible (but ultimately unproven) that Hillary did try to cover up billing records that embarrassed her. They showed that either she was lying about her involvement in the legal work that included the Castle Grande transaction which “were quickly found to be a sham meant to hide from bank examiners that Madison was breaking federal lending rules”(p. 161), or (the most likely case) she was padding her billing on the case in order to make more money for work she didn’t do. As Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta conclude, “her invoices were undocumented, inaccurate, or padded.”(p. 162)


Level of Scandal: 1

Hillary’s Involvement: 10

Wikipedia summary: “In 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling. Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.”

Conclusion: Hillary Clinton’s secrecy about her health-care plan reflects a troubling tendency to avoid public disclosure. It probably wasn’t illegal, but it hurt the effort to pass health care reform.

Rose Law Firm

Level of Scandal: 1

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 10

Wikipedia summary: “Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm while she was First Lady of Arkansas. She earned less than all the other partners, due to fewer hours being billed, but still made over $200,000 in her final year there. She continued to rarely do trial work, but was considered a rainmaker at the firm for bringing in clients, partly due to the prestige she lent the firm and to her corporate board connections. She was also very influential in the appointment of state judges. Bill Clinton’s Republican opponent in his 1986 gubernatorial re-election campaign accused the Clintons of conflict of interest, because Rose Law did state business; the Clintons deflected the charge by saying that state fees were walled off by the firm before her profits were calculated.”

Conclusion: It’s not reasonable to expect the governor’s wife to give up her law practice to avoid contact with anyone doing state business. Still, Hillary clearly had some questionable dealings, and falsely promoted the idea that her profits were walled off from the start. Also, the disappearance of Rose Law records about her legal work (the surface a few days after the statute of limitations on fraud expired) raises serious questions.

Vince Foster Records

Level of Scandal: 1

Hillary Clinton’s Involvement: 8

In 1993, “July 20: The Little Rock FBI obtains a warrant to search the office of David Hale as part of its investigation into Capital Management Services. In Washington, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster drives to Ft. Marcy Park and commits suicide. That evening, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Clinton aide Patsy Thomasson, and Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff Maggie Williams visit Mr. Foster’s office. According to testimony by a uniformed Secret Service officer, Ms. Williams exits the counsel’s suite with an armful of folders.”

Conclusion: Obviously, the conspiracy nuts who think Vince Foster was murdered are idiots, but Hillary did try to block investigators from seeing all the records in Foster’s office, and there is evidence that her current campaign manager, Maggie Williams, removed records from his office.

Summary: I don’t consider any of these Clinton scandals, alone or taken together, to be a disqualifying scandal that should prevent her from becoming president. I don’t even think these scandals are the primary reasons why people shouldn’t vote for Clinton in the 2008 primaries. However, many of these scandals do include real components that show very bad judgment on the part of Hillary Clinton. They are, at the very least, relevant information that the public deserves to know about before they cast a vote.