Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

jjohn (22)

jjohn
  (email not shown publicly)
http://taskboy.com/
AOL IM: taskboy3000 (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Perl hack/Linux buff/OSS junkie.

Journal of jjohn (22)

Saturday July 27, 2002
08:21 AM

Now, swallow

[ #6682 ]

The Clintons raked in millions of dollars last year after leaving the White House. The former president earned $9.2 million on the lecture circuit, and Hillary Clinton -- now New York's junior senator -- received an $2.85 million advance on her memoirs.

But they still have legal bills totaling between $1.75 million and $6.5 million, according to the financial disclosure form Mrs. Clinton was required to file as a member of the Senate. The Clintons paid $1.3 million in legal bills last year, according the Senate filing.

--BBC News

Slick Willie does it again. Even though I preferred the Clinton administration to W.'s and I thought the Whitewater investigation was a political witchhunt from day one, this is a little much to take. Clinton is lucky he's not doing jail time right now. But that's The Clin-ton -- temerity incarnate. I guess that's part of his charm.


List all Journal entries
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Now, swallow 18 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • Witchhunt... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jordan (120)
    Right... It's a witchhunt that sends the sitting Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker and close Clinton business associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, to jail.

    Susan McDougal gets thrown in jail for refusing to testify against the Clintons. Why refuse to testify against someone else if they are innocent? Immunity deals were offered. Oh, and then, McDougal gets a Presidential pardon at the last minute. I guess there's no immunity deal as good as the Presidential pardon.

    Yeah, nothing to see here, move along,

    • I don't think jjohn was saying the Clinton's didn't break the law in Whitewater, but was it worth the time and money Congress put into it in relation to the crime committed? That is, just because someone's a witch, does that justify spending millions and millions of tax dollars to prove it?

      Of course, the Democrats are now going to follow suit and do the same thing. Many Democrats say flat out: they are going to try to do to Bush what the Republicans did to Clinton, implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) s
        • I don't think jjohn was saying the Clinton's didn't break the law in Whitewater, but was it worth the time and money Congress put into it in relation to the crime committed? That is, just because someone's a witch, does that justify spending millions and millions of tax dollars to prove it?

        I always thought that a witch-hunt was persecution of innocent people. Maybe I'm wrong.

        In any case, $30Mil is cheap to put politicians on notice that they have to be above reproach. I feel that the powerful need

        • I always thought that a witch-hunt was persecution of innocent people. Maybe I'm wrong.

          Usually, "witchhunt" refers not to the actual guilt or innocence of the accused, but the reasons and manner for which they are accused. American Heritage -- by no means authoritative, I'd say, but still has a good definition here -- says "an investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views."

          Recall the witch hunts of a few hundred
            • Salon reports it cost $70 million, by the time it finished. And I am not opposed to prosecuting crimes, but I'd prefer if they first found good evidence before spending all that money.

            There was very good evidence. Good enough to convict everybody around the Clintons. If it hadn't been for Susan McDougal's steadfast insistence on not testifying, things may have not gone so well for Bill and Hillary, too.

            That $70 Million included the investigation of Bill Clinton lying in court in the Paula Jones ca

            • There was very good evidence. Good enough to convict everybody around the Clintons. If it hadn't been for Susan McDougal's steadfast insistence on not testifying, things may have not gone so well for Bill and Hillary, too.

              There was not very good evidence of the Clintons' involvement, though. In the end, if you rely on testimony from a close friend, your evidence is weak. And most of the money involved went to investigate them, not the others. We're not talking about the rest of them.

              That $70 Million

              • Even though Pudge-daddy has done far better that I could, I suppose I should jump in here to defend myself. However mushy-headed and ill-informed they are, these are my opinions on this Clin-ton scandal.

                • The Whitewater investigation was out of proportion to the proported crime
                • At worst, the Clintons used funny accounting methods to end up losing money (sound familiar?)
                • The investigation appeared opportunistic when one remembers how virtriolic the Republican House was of 1994
                • Tha
                • Answers: it was primarily motivated by politics, not justice; and it was not very likely to result in conviction, but instead was primarily intended to make the President look bad to the public, rather than to actually find him guilty. Hence, it was a witchhunt, and $70 million was way too much to spend, IMO.

                You can't suppose a politically motivated witchhunt when it was Janet Reno that authorized the Fiske (later replaced by Starr) originally and increased the scope to Starr's investigations. These a

                • You can't suppose a politically motivated witchhunt when it was Janet Reno that authorized the Fiske (later replaced by Starr) originally and increased the scope to Starr's investigations. These are just inconsistent. Or, are you saying that Janet Reno was out to get the Clintons?

                  You're right, there was no political pressure on Reno to allow the scope of the investigation to increase.</sarcasm>

                  You can only evaluate the $70 Million after the fact.

                  No, I said at the time that they were improperly s
                    • You're right, there was no political pressure on Reno to allow the scope of the investigation to increase.</sarcasm>

                    Surely, a party stalwart like Reno felt a lot more pressure to not investigate than to investigate her own boss.

                    The only credible explanation is that she honestly felt like these issues required investigation.

                    • In fact, conservative warlord William F. Buckley himself has asked some of the same questions I've asked. In a piece from July 9, 1998 [onlinemadison.com], Buckley question
                    • Surely, a party stalwart like Reno felt a lot more pressure to not investigate than to investigate her own boss.

                      Surely, she felt a lot more pressure to appear above reproach, as deciding against it would have made it look like she was protecting the President and that he had something to hide.

                      The only credible explanation is that she honestly felt like these issues required investigation.

                      That statement is self-evidently false. There is never only one credible explanation for someone's actions. Takin
                      • Surely, she felt a lot more pressure to appear above reproach, as deciding against it would have made it look like she was protecting the President and that he had something to hide.

                      Funny how she somehow resisted such pressure when it was Al Gore on the line for Buddhist Temple/Campaign Finance misdeeds, even though no less than 3 independent investigators recommended a Special Prosecutor.

                      • Exactly. I even said I don't blame Starr. I blame the cost accountants: the House of Representatives. Thanks for
                    • Funny how she somehow resisted such pressure when it was Al Gore on the line for Buddhist Temple/Campaign Finance misdeeds, even though no less than 3 independent investigators recommended a Special Prosecutor.

                      You like proving my point, don't you? The evidence against Gore was far stronger. If you are saying she was compelled by the evidence, then she would have appointed one for Gore. But the political pressure to look above reproach is far greater with the President.

                      So, you expect Congress to chang
                      • You like proving my point, don't you? The evidence against Gore was far stronger. If you are saying she was compelled by the evidence, then she would have appointed one for Gore. But the political pressure to look above reproach is far greater with the President.

                      Time for the King's horses to work on this argument, I think.

                      Let's see. She wants to appear above reproach, so she goes against the advice of FBI chief Louis Freeh, Justice Department Aide Robert Litt, and two separate lawyers, Robert Conra

                    • Yep. Janet Reno sure appears beyond reproach, all right.

                      I never said she did. I said that was the intent. Your whole argument is, therefore, moot.

                      The Republican constituency would have loved Congress for selectively eliminating charges against Bill Clinton.

                      So, you admit it was political.

                      IANAL, by YANAL, too. I do have access to a Legal Dictionary, though.

                      Speak for yourself.

                      Innocence [findlaw.com]: freedom from fault or guilt under the law: as

                      a: the state of not being guilty of a particular cr
                      • I never said she did. I said that was the intent. Your whole argument is, therefore, moot.

                      Your argument is that Reno gave into political pressure to authorize the Whitewater Special Prosecutor so as to appear "above reproach". Here are your words:

                      But the political pressure to look above reproach is far greater with the President.

                      I pointed out that there was a great deal of reproach about her denying to authorize a Special Prosecutor for Gore, and there would have been little for not authorizing

                    • Yes, I never said she was above reproach, nor did I say she appeared to be above reproach.

                      The definition I gave clearly says that you are innocent if you are not guilty of a specific charge.

                      Yes, which is what I said, which is what you disagreed with.

                      I, for example, am innocent of usury, of murder, of double parking, etc.

                      No, those are not specific charges, those are specific crimes. A charge is, in this context, an accusation of a specific instance of a criminal act. To say you are innocent of usur
                      • I will not discuss things with people who don't respect me despite disagreeing with me, so this conversation is over.

                      I wouldn't normally insist on the last word, but after being insulted repeatedly I take it as a point of personal privilege to respond.

                      • That's just about the most retarded and offensive thing I've read in some time.

                      As the father of a retarded child, I find your careless insult about the most offensive thing I've read in some time. Let me assure you, being exposed to retardation da

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.