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.
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, just a right wing conspiracy...
Re:Witchhunt...
pudge on 2002-07-30T18:01:59
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) stating that what the Republicans did was wrong, but that now it is their turn to take revenge, even though it's wrong to do so. The only thing worse than a witchhunt is the vindictiveness that follows as a result of it.:-)
Re:Witchhunt...
jordan on 2002-07-30T20:44:13
- 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 to be held to a high standard.
Re:Witchhunt...
pudge on 2002-07-30T21:03:34
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 years ago in Massachusetts and such: the purpose of the investigation was to cover up their own problems and shut up anyone who disagreed. The implication is that they are innocent, but that's not the main purpose of the word. Mere "persecution of innocent people" doesn't have the same sort of ZING! to it.
In any case, $30Mil is cheap to put politicians on notice that they have to be above reproach. I feel that the powerful need to be held to a high standard.
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. Sure, you need to spend money to investigate to get the evidence, but if you can't figure it out after a few million... give it up. In the end, they had no good proof of wrongdoing, except for the perjury that occurred during the course of the investigation.
Re:Witchhunt...
jordan on 2002-07-31T13:53:50
- 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 case. Ken Starr had to have his charter opened up to take this up. He took this to Janet Reno and she said go ahead. She thought the evidence was good enough.
Would you prefer a system where the Attorney General says "no, even though you have excellent, credible evidence that Bill Clinton lied under oath, we've spent enough money already investigating him... sorry."
That $70 Million figure also included the Filegate and things like and Campaign financing problems. In each case, there were serious problems. A Nixon staffer went to prison for having 1 FBI file. The Whitehouse had hundreds of FBI files and it was all blamed on some guy that nobody could remember who hired? Not at all credible.
This was no witch-hunt persecution of the Clintons by Right Wingers, it was just standard investigation of a very corrupt administration. I'm afraid you've bought in to the liberal press chant that this was much ado about nothing.
Re:Witchhunt...
pudge on 2002-07-31T14:24:35
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 included the investigation of Bill Clinton lying in court in the Paula Jones case. Ken Starr had to have his charter opened up to take this up. He took this to Janet Reno and she said go ahead. She thought the evidence was good enough.
But the point is that this was only as a result of the original case, which didn't have very good evidence of the Clintons' involvement; it was a result of the original witchhunt that jjohn referenced. I already said he committed perjury, and he should have been held accountable for it, but it is not a cause of the investigation, it is a result of it. Toward the end, it took on a life of its own and became the primary focus of the investigation, which only goes to show how weak the rest of the case was. They basically ignored the original case and went on to investigate how Clinton conducted himself during the investigation. That's not a shining endorsement of the original case.
That $70 Million figure also included the Filegate and things like and Campaign financing problems. In each case, there were serious problems. A Nixon staffer went to prison for having 1 FBI file. The Whitehouse had hundreds of FBI files and it was all blamed on some guy that nobody could remember who hired? Not at all credible.
Again, guilt or innocence is not the issue. What is the issue is twofold: intent and prosecutability (is that a word? it is now!). WHY did they investigate these things? Was it to punish or expose wrongdoing, or to go after a political opponent? And HOW LIKELY was the investigation to result in actual conviction of the President, the primary focus of the investigation?
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.
This was no witch-hunt persecution of the Clintons by Right Wingers, it was just standard investigation of a very corrupt administration. I'm afraid you've bought in to the liberal press chant that this was much ado about nothing.
If you think I "buy into" anything said by the press, you really don't know anything about me. I am infamously conservative, I spend a significant amount of time studying the press and the media, my favorite political writers are WFB and George Will, I have a degree in journalism, one of my first web sites was an Alan Keyes web site from his 1996 campaign, and I dislike Clinton. I think he was a horrible President, and that almost every good thing he did amounted to signing bills presented to him by a Republican Congress.
Contrary to popular belief, some people have minds of their own, and I see all the evidence, and the two things I stated -- that this was primarily motivated not by an interest in justice, but of politics; and that this had little chance of conviction, and that therefore the price tag could only be justified if the purpose was not to convict but to humiliate -- ring true. That doesn't mean I think that he is innocent, or that investigation and prosecution were unwarranted; I just think they amounted to a waste of money and time for the purpose of political advantage instead of justice, and that the word "witchhunt" is a reasonable description of what happened.
Janet Reno's Dance Party (Was: Witchhunt)
jjohn on 2002-07-31T15:18:21
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
- That Clinton perjured himself cannot be disputed
- That a President should be ousted for a adultry is insane
- That Clinton may have committed more egregious offenses, like accepting campaign money from a foreign power, ought to have been more vigorously pursued in lieu of the muckracking, tabloid-style Star investigation
- The investigation hobbled Clinton's ability to pursue domestic issues (whether Clinton's vision for America would have been worth the effort is moot)
- The investigation damaged the Republicans as badly or more so than the Democrats (yes, I had a jolly good laugh when Gingrich stepped down as Speaker)
- The government ground to a halt (several times) because of personality conflicts
- No one, including the American people, benefitted from the Star investigation
- Yet more trust in the Federal government has been lost (remember the 2000 election?)
On the whole, I do believe that the Star investigation qualifies as a politically-fanned witchhunt. This isn't to say there wasn't a small fire there to begin with. As much as I fantasize about seeing Dubya before an impeachment hearing, the Democrats do not have the leadership, the wherewithal or the moxie to do it. That's a Good Thing. Impeachment shouldn't be a political tool to remove ideological opponents. It is there to remove high criminals from office, like Rep. Traficant (yes, I know he wasn't impeached).
I also feel compelled to vouch for Pudge's conservative leanings. Pudge is no tool of the mainstream media. He is also no mouth piece for kneejerk, Limbaugh-spunk Republicanism either.
The problems with American politics cannot blamed on one party or the other. Blame both of them.
Re:Witchhunt...
jordan on 2002-07-31T16:03:54
- 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 are just inconsistent. Or, are you saying that Janet Reno was out to get the Clintons?
You can only evaluate the $70 Million after the fact. Which of these shouldn't we have investigated? Whitewater? Filegate? Perjury in a civil case? The Campaign Finance abuses? Which one would you have said, "nope, we stop here, $63 Million is all we should spend on a Democrat President by a Republican Special Prosecutor"? Once Reno set it in motion, there seems no reasonable way to stop this process.
- Contrary to popular belief, some people have minds of their own, and I see all the evidence, and the two things I stated -- that this was primarily motivated not by an interest in justice, but of politics; and that this had little chance of conviction, and that therefore the price tag could only be justified if the purpose was not to convict but to humiliate -- ring true.
Sorry, it doesn't sound like you've thought this through to me. It does sound like you're repeating what's being said by pundits.
There clearly was lots of reason to suspect that the Clintons and Hillary's Rose Law Firm, who did all the work on Whitewater, were deeply involved in any wrongdoing that might have been done there.
In retrospect, the fact that so many people around the Clintons were convicted and a key witness refused to testify, even when the 5th amendent didn't apply, is more than a little suspicious. The fact that this same key witness was granted an 11th hour Presidential pardon seals it for me. Sure, you can argue that this was all discovered since the investigation began, but doesn't this all go to justify the investigation in the first place?
It's funny how the commentators are all bemoaning the $70 Million price tag on all the "politically motivated" investigations and yet we heard no complaint about cost when Lawrence Walsh handed down an indictment of Casper Weinberger on the Friday before the 1992 election.
Lawrence Walsh spent $40 Million on Iran-Contra, BTW. Adjusted for inflation that might be closer to the "unjustifiable" $70 Million figure you seem to think is "too much". And, that's with the Reagan Administration cooperating in every way possible, as opposed to Clinton who stone-walled Starr in every way possible.
Re:Witchhunt...
pudge on 2002-07-31T17:13:04
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 spending my money, for the reasons already stated. I couldn't evaluate a specific figure, but that's hardly interesting.
And yes, as with all investigations, it is hard to know when to draw the line. But the line was never even an issue in this case. They never bothered to stop and look for it, never once thought, "you know, this is too much money when we still don't have any strong evidence of wrongdoing, we should consider ending the investigation at some point." Those discussions always happen in long-running, expensive, prosecution investigations. But that discussion never happened in this case with the House leadership, because the point of the expenditure of money was not to convict, but to humiliate and expose in public.
And as jjohn said, even if they did have the evidence, is what they were accused of worth $70 million dollars of investigation? I have to say no, it's not. Aside from the perjury -- which I do find to be cause for impeachment; I don't care what he was lying about, he lied under oath, and that is unacceptable -- these were not things of the same level as Watergate. Of course, it didn't take nearly $70 million to prove the perjury charge; you could've proved that for about $50 and a candy bar.
I do think we should have proceeded with the investigation of the perjury charge (not to mention obstruction of justice!) once it happened, and that he should have resigned or been impeached as a result of it. But that doesn't justify the investigation that led up to it in any way.
Sorry, it doesn't sound like you've thought this through to me.
Because I disagree, I am ignorant. OK.
It does sound like you're repeating what's being said by pundits.
What are you trying to say here? That if my opinion happens to coincide with that of someone paid to have political opinions, then I am not thinking for myself? Certainly you can't mean that, since your opinion is at least as similar to many pundits' opinions as mine is; you just like yours better. Good for you. That's self-evident and uninteresting.
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, Buckley questions whether Whitewater was ever worth investigating, but also notes that this has no bearing on whether or not the investigation in the matter of Monica Lewinsky should proceed. So my ideas are not original; I plead guilty to the charge.
Very few people you will ever meet will present to you an original idea about politics. You've not presented any original ideas here, and neither have I, nor has jjohn. It doesn't mean that we aren't thinking for ourselves; not that I am a believer in the transmission of memes, but there are only so many opinions to go around, and there's bound to be a lot of redundancy. So please try to stay focused here.
In retrospect, the fact that so many people around the Clintons were convicted and a key witness refused to testify, even when the 5th amendent didn't apply, is more than a little suspicious. The fact that this same key witness was granted an 11th hour Presidential pardon seals it for me.
You can beat up that straw man all you want, but it won't help your case. I never said they weren't guilty, and in fact said I suspect they are guilty. Whether or not they are guilty does not do anything to help or hurt my argument.
Being guilty and being provably guilty are two entirely different things, and I am saying they were not provably guilty. The fact that after $70 million they still weren't proven guilty of anything kinda seals it for me.
I am a conservative who wants small government and low taxes. An investigation of the President that never had a good shot at proving guilt of the President is not a good use of my money. It's that simple, from a monetary standpoint. You can say they had strong evidence, but you admitted that they needed the testimony of a good friend of the Clintons. That is not strong evidence, any way you slice it. That's evidence that gets the district attorney to bounce you out of his office, threatening to send you to traffic court.
And yes, again, you need to investigate to find evidence, but they were not interested in finding any sort of cutoff point for the funds, so that point is moot.
Sure, you can argue that this was all discovered since the investigation began, but doesn't this all go to justify the investigation in the first place?
The only thing I argued about being "discovered" since the investigation began was Clinton's perjury, which was not "discovered" as a result of the investigation, but happened because of the investigation. And to restate the obvious: if this perjury is the only thing they came up with after $70 million, that just proves how weak their case really was.
I have no real issue with Ken Starr, by the way. He was doing the job given to him, and did what prosecutors do. He wasn't perfectly admirable in his conduct, but not out of political motivation: he was hired to win the cases before him. It's the Republican House that I have a problem with, the people who set out not to convict but to humiliate and expose, that didn't care about how much they spent as long as they got their man.
I won't address your statements about Walsh except to say I think that it was politically motivated too, but at least it had a lot more relevance to the President's office than did the investigation of Clinton (again, excluding the Lewinsky matter, which is a result of the investigation moreso than a target of the investigation). Beyond that, it has no relevance to the discussion at hand.
Re:Witchhunt...
jordan on 2002-07-31T20:04:58
- 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 questions whether Whitewater was ever worth investigating, but also notes that this has no bearing on whether or not the investigation in the matter of Monica Lewinsky should proceed. So my ideas are not original; I plead guilty to the charge.
Oh, well then, if William F. Buckley raised questions, then it's decided, isn't it?
But... Buckley just raises questions in the referenced article. He says that it's a valid question as to if Whitewater was worth investigating. I agree that this is a valid question, but I wouldn't go on to answer it the way you seem to have.
- No, I said at the time that they were improperly spending my money, for the reasons already stated. I couldn't evaluate a specific figure, but that's hardly interesting.
What I'm saying is that you can't evaluate the expense at the time. You can look back and say, "boy that was $70 Million for nothing", but at the time you are investigating, you can't stop because you have leads to follow and the duty of investigators is to investigate, not to be cost accountants.
- You can beat up that straw man all you want, but it won't help your case. I never said they weren't guilty, and in fact said I suspect they are guilty. Whether or not they are guilty does not do anything to help or hurt my argument.
Being guilty and being provably guilty are two entirely different things, and I am saying they were not provably guilty. The fact that after $70 million they still weren't proven guilty of anything kinda seals it for me.
See, I can't understand this attitude. You don't know what you'll find until you investigate. The Clintons being legally innocent proves that they shouldn't have been investigated?
What seals it for me is that there was so obviously stone-walling going on and the fact that so many of their associates were guilty. Hillary was the lawyer on much of the Madison Guaranty Savings work and she knew nothing about the shady transactions? Certainly, there was enough to at least investigate there. If you think they were guilty of something, it's because of an appearance of guilt. An appearance of guilt is what prosecutors use to decide whether to investigate.
- The only thing I argued about being "discovered" since the investigation began was Clinton's perjury, which was not "discovered" as a result of the investigation, but happened because of the investigation. And to restate the obvious: if this perjury is the only thing they came up with after $70 million, that just proves how weak their case really was.
Or, how well the cover-up worked.
I thought guilt or innocence was irrelevant to your point. That's what you say elsewhere. But, as I say above...
In any case, your memory if faulty. The perjury was not the result the Starr investigation. Unless you buy-in to the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory" that the Paula Jones and the Starr investigation were being coordinated. Linda Tripp came to the Special Prosecutor with incriminating tapes of Monica Lewinsky which tended to indicate that Clinton had lied in the Paula Jones case. Then, Starr went to Reno to get his charter opened up and it was granted. This was in late 1997, years into the Whitewater case.
Re:Witchhunt...
pudge on 2002-07-31T21:02:34
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. Taking your line of reason, Clinton -- since he is the one who requested the special prosecutor -- also honestly felt that it required investigation.
Oh, well then, if William F. Buckley raised questions, then it's decided, isn't it?
That's both a straw man, and unnecessarily snotty. You tried to make the point that my views were the uninformed result of the liberal media, simply because some liberal people agree with what I say. I made several points to show how silly that idea is, and one was that a conservative pundit says some of what I am saying. I never said or in any way hinted that because Buckley, or I, or anyone else says something, that it is true.
What I'm saying is that you can't evaluate the expense at the time.
And what I am saying is that I can, and I did, and further that any responsible body is required to do so.
You can look back and say, "boy that was $70 Million for nothing", but at the time you are investigating, you can't stop because you have leads to follow and the duty of investigators is to investigate, not to be cost accountants.
Exactly. I even said I don't blame Starr. I blame the cost accountants: the House of Representatives. Thanks for helping to make my point.
See, I can't understand this attitude. You don't know what you'll find until you investigate.
Prosecutors, district attorneys, attorneys general, every day in the country make decisions about what to investigate based on available evidence, liklihood of conviction, cost of prosecution, and other factors. You are dismissing that Congress should have taken these factors into account, despite the fact that it is standard practice and expected practice to do so.
And for the umpteenth time, I did not say they should not have been investigated, and in fact have several times stated that they should have been investigated.
If you wanted to argue the factors were in favor of continued investigation, fine; but you aren't doing that, you're saying that having a discussion about it at the time couldn't reasonably be done. But it is reasonably done every day in this country.
The Clintons being legally innocent proves that they shouldn't have been investigated?
No. I wasn't talking about them being legally innocent, but that there was not even evidence to prosecute. They weren't legally innocent, because no charges were brought, no indictment was handed down; there was nothing to be innocent of. And that does prove that the price tag was too high, yes. Not that they should not have been investigated, because, of course, I never said they should not have been investigated.
The investigation did not turn up a single indictment of the primary targets of the investigation. In any city or state in this country, the prosecutor, DA, and everyone else behind it would have been fired after spending so much money and being unable to hand down even a single indictment.
Hillary was the lawyer on much of the Madison Guaranty Savings work and she knew nothing about the shady transactions? Certainly, there was enough to at least investigate there.
I agree. I disagree with the scope and cost of the investigation, given that there was not even enough evidence to bring charges. Saying there should be an investigation as though it is an argument against what I am saying is nonsense, since I have said several times that I think it should have been investigated.
I thought guilt or innocence was irrelevant to your point. That's what you say elsewhere.
I didn't change that. You misread/misunderstood. I was talking about the fact that they couldn't even bring charges.
In any case, your memory if faulty. The perjury was not the result the Starr investigation. Unless you buy-in to the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory" that the Paula Jones and the Starr investigation were being coordinated.
My memory is not faulty, my language was unclear. I was conflating the two investigations, but intentionally so: the point was merely that this was wrongdoing as the result of an investigation, and not a target of any investigation, so it certainly doesn't justify any of the investigations.
Re:Witchhunt...
jordan on 2002-07-31T22:21:26
- 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 helping to make my point.
So, you expect Congress to change the law during an investigation of a sitting President? A law that the Democrats had just finished praising as absolutely necessary to maintain our Democracy with the Iran-Contra Investigations?
Hey, there are political realities involved here, I don't deny it. But calling it a witchhunt just because Congress doesn't step in and stop it is farfetched to me. Especially after it got started and so many suspicious things started to turn up.
- No. I wasn't talking about them being legally innocent, but that there was not even evidence to prosecute. They weren't legally innocent, because no charges were brought, no indictment was handed down; there was nothing to be innocent of.
Unlike with some religions, there is no original sin under the eyes of the law. Everyone who has not been convicted, prosecuted or not, is considered legally innocent. But, of course, you forget that there was a prosecution and a trial, an Impeachment trial.
- And that does prove that the price tag was too high, yes. Not that they should not have been investigated, because, of course, I never said they should not have been investigated.
Your use of double negatives is confusing. By saying that "I never said they should not have been investigated." are you saying that they should have been investigated? Because, if you are, I'm glad you came over to my side. In the US these days, the Executive is investigated by Special Prosecutors, like Fiske and Starr, because it's a conflict to having the Justice Department investigating their boss.
- The investigation did not turn up a single indictment of the primary targets of the investigation. In any city or state in this country, the prosecutor, DA, and everyone else behind it would have been fired after spending so much money and being unable to hand down even a single indictment.
You base this one what example? The OJ Prosecutors weren't fired. The Justice Department often spends many millions investigating organized crime with no results. In this case, however, I think the conviction of a sitting Governor is a pretty impressive catch. You said Starr did an OK job, remember? Which is it, should he have been fired or...? Oh, we should have fired CONGRESS for not changing the law. Right...
- I didn't change that. You misread/misunderstood. I was talking about the fact that they couldn't even bring charges.
They didn't? What was that Impeachment thing all about then? Those were Charges of Impeachment. The most important function of a Special Prosecutor is to investigate to form the basis of an Impeachment proceeding.
- My memory is not faulty, my language was unclear. I was conflating the two investigations, but intentionally so: the point was merely that this was wrongdoing as the result of an investigation, and not a target of any investigation, so it certainly doesn't justify any of the investigations.
You have to admit your language was confusing:
The only thing I argued about being "discovered" since the investigation began was Clinton's perjury, which was not "discovered" as a result of the investigation, but happened because of the investigation. And to restate the obvious: if this perjury is the only thing they came up with after $70 million, that just proves how weak their case really was.It sure sounds like you are referring to the same investgation that cost $70 Million here. The Fiske/Starr/Ray investigation. The Paula Jones case was separate.
But, it's not up to you or Congress or anyone but Paula Jones and her lawyers if that investigation should have gone forward. The President tried to claim that a civil prosecution couldn't go forward against a sitting President and lost that one 9-0 in the Supreme Court.
Re:Witchhunt...
pudge on 2002-08-01T01:18:29
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 change the law during an investigation of a sitting President?
Stopping funds for an investigation that isn't producing anything isn't changing a law. All they have to do is strike it from the budget.
Hey, there are political realities involved here, I don't deny it. But calling it a witchhunt just because Congress doesn't step in and stop it is farfetched to me.
I didn't do that. I gave many reasons, not just that one.
Unlike with some religions, there is no original sin under the eyes of the law. Everyone who has not been convicted, prosecuted or not, is considered legally innocent.
No. In the law, you can only be innocent of a specific charge. There were no charges; hence, no innocence. No guilt, neither. You need to be said to be guilty or innocent of something, and there was nothing to be guilty or innocent of.
But, of course, you forget that there was a prosecution and a trial, an Impeachment trial.
No, I don't, because I was specifically excluding those few charges, which had nothing to do with the original investigation. Go back and read if you wish, but I was quite clear in drawing a distinction between the charges that resulted from an investigation, and charges that were the initial target of an investigation.
The whole point of this argument is whether the Whitewate investigation was a "witchhunt." The charges of perjury and obstruction of justice have nothing to do with the idea that the Whitewater investigation was a witchhunt, so I clearly and specifically excluded them from my statements about lack of indictments.
Your use of double negatives is confusing. By saying that "I never said they should not have been investigated." are you saying that they should have been investigated? Because, if you are, I'm glad you came over to my side.
Are we actually having a conversation here? If so, you'd realize I've said a bunch of times that they should be investigated. I never "came over to your side," as my view has remained entirely consistent throughout this discussion. Please read, or at least, stop making assumptions.You base this one what example? The OJ Prosecutors weren't fired.In any city or state in this country, the prosecutor, DA, and everyone else behind it would have been fired after spending so much money and being unable to hand down even a single indictment.
I don't intend to offend you, but this is quite frustrating: I keep talking about charges and indictments, and you keep talking about convictions. The OJ prosecutors didn't fail to bring about charges or indictments, they lost a jury trial. Those are two completely different things. I can't understand why you bring it up unless it's that you don't understand the difference, which would, frankly, explain a lot.
Re:Witchhunt...
jordan on 2002-08-01T10:53:13
- 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 Conrad and Charles Labella, assigned the task of investigating whether an independent counsel is necessary. In the case of Charles Labella, he subsequently is withdrawn for consideration for a Judgeship appointment recommendation by the Justice Department.
This failure to appoint a Special Prosecutor to look into these issues resulted in Senate hearings and much press coverage. There were numerous accusations of a cover-up.
Yep. Janet Reno sure appears beyond reproach, all right.
Nobody would have blamed her for stonewalling Clinton investigations instigated by Paula Jones' lawyers, who were widely regarded as money grubbing opportunists, but she didn't. Instead, she appears to have decided to curry favor with the prospective future President, Al Gore. Yes, quite a legacy she's protecting there.
- Stopping funds for an investigation that isn't producing anything isn't changing a law. All they have to do is strike it from the budget.
Not fund the office of the Special Prosecutor? There were several investigations on-going... Should Congress have cut off all funds, or just the one's they didn't agree with? Oh yeah, you're plan of striking Whitewater from the budget makes a lot of political sense. The Republican constituency would have loved Congress for selectively eliminating charges against Bill Clinton. Cutting funding would have been viewed as a cynical move to destroy the Special Prosecutor law.
Could you imagine the precedent that would set? Congress sets up an "Independent" counsel, only to move to not fund in cases where specific charges are viewed as "politically motivated"? Every single person ever investigated by the Special Prosecutor statute has claimed that it was politically motivated. What a mess that would cause.
- No. In the law, you can only be innocent of a specific charge. There were no charges; hence, no innocence. No guilt, neither. You need to be said to be guilty or innocent of something, and there was nothing to be guilty or innocent of.
IANAL, by YANAL, too. I do have access to a Legal Dictionary, though.
Innocence: freedom from fault or guilt under the law: as
a: the state of not being guilty of a particular crime or offense
(compare guilt)
I don't see anything above about having to be charged, just not being guilty. If you are free from fault or guilt, then you aren't guilty under the law and you are innocent.
- No, I don't, because I was specifically excluding those few charges, which had nothing to do with the original investigation. Go back and read if you wish, but I was quite clear in drawing a distinction between the charges that resulted from an investigation, and charges that were the initial target of an investigation.
The whole point of this argument is whether the Whitewate investigation was a "witchhunt." The charges of perjury and obstruction of justice have nothing to do with the idea that the Whitewater investigation was a witchhunt, so I clearly and specifically excluded them from my statements about lack of indictments.
Gee, I guess Watergate was a witchhunt against Nixon too, because the charges that would have certainly been brought against Nixon were obstruction of justice, the "result of the investigation". Nobody, to this day, has been able to demonstrate Nixon's prior knowledge of the Watergate breakin.
The pattern of obstruction and perjury just goes to justify the whole investigation.
A lot of Clinton supporters were shouting down the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky mess as "just about sex". I don't agree, but such distinctions as "just about sex" or "between the charges that resulted from an investigation, and charges that were the initial target of an investigation" should have no weight at all under law. Justice should be blind, even to the President, regardless of how we get there.
Are you saying that initially Whitewater was a witchhunt that later the Special Prosecutor's investigations became more substantive? Kinda justifies going down that road in the first place, doesn't it?
- Are we actually having a conversation here? If so, you'd realize I've said a bunch of times that they should be investigated. I never "came over to your side," as my view has remained entirely consistent throughout this discussion. Please read, or at least, stop making assumptions.
Well, why don't you just spell it out to someone as stupid as poor little me, then? Are you saying that crimes that brought down the Governor of Arkansas and close Clinton business associates Jim and Susan McDougal should not have been investigated, or they should have been investigated? And, if those investigations involve a sitting President, isn't it appropriate that they not be carried out by the Justice Department, over which the President has full Administrative control, but rather an Independent Special Prosecutor?
You seem to believe that the Special Prosecutor law is only to prosecute members of the Executive themselves. It's also to investigate associates where Executive influence might otherwise taint a Justice Department or FBI investigation.
- I don't intend to offend you, but this is quite frustrating: I keep talking about charges and indictments, and you keep talking about convictions. The OJ prosecutors didn't fail to bring about charges or indictments, they lost a jury trial. Those are two completely different things. I can't understand why you bring it up unless it's that you don't understand the difference, which would, frankly, explain a lot.
The Special Prosecutor brought evidence to the House Prosecutors that resulted in several Impeachment charges. The House prosecutors lost the case in the Jury of the Senate. Where's the important distinction? I would guess that you'd say it has something to do with the initial Investigation and not the Coverup and Perjury that came out of the Investigation (uhhh, some of which came out of AN Investigation, not really THE Investigation, or...).
Re:Witchhunt...
pudge on 2002-08-01T13:03:09
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 crime or offense
(compare guilt)
I don't see anything above about having to be charged, just not being guilty.
Perhaps you missed the phrase "of a particular crime or offense." Yes, you don't have to be specifically charged, but, as I already said:Thanks for helping me prove my point.You need to be said to be guilty or innocent of something, and there was nothing to be guilty or innocent of.
Gee, I guess Watergate was a witchhunt against Nixon too, because the charges that would have certainly been brought against Nixon were obstruction of justice, the "result of the investigation".
I never said it was a witchhunt "because" of such a thing.
such distinctions as "just about sex" or "between the charges that resulted from an investigation, and charges that were the initial target of an investigation" should have no weight at all under law.
I never said they should.
Are you saying that initially Whitewater was a witchhunt that later the Special Prosecutor's investigations became more substantive?
No. I am saying the Whitewater investigation was a witchhunt. Recall my insistence that the guilt, innocence, relative substance of a claim, etc. has nothing to do with whether or not something is a witchhunt. My claim that the investigation's scope was unwarranted is separate from that it was a witchhunt.
Are you saying that crimes that brought down the Governor of Arkansas and close Clinton business associates Jim and Susan McDougal should not have been investigated, or they should have been investigated?
I have already said they should have been investigated, several times, but that the scope of the investigation in regard to the President and Mrs. Clinton was too broad and too expensive.
And, if those investigations involve a sitting President, isn't it appropriate that they not be carried out by the Justice Department, over which the President has full Administrative control, but rather an Independent Special Prosecutor?
I think it should be carried about by Congress, actually.
You seem to believe that the Special Prosecutor law is only to prosecute members of the Executive themselves.
I don't know why you would think that, since I've not said anything that touches on it, and I fail to see the relevance anyway.
The Special Prosecutor brought evidence to the House Prosecutors that resulted in several Impeachment charges. The House prosecutors lost the case in the Jury of the Senate. Where's the important distinction?
The one where I was talking about something else, where I made it perfectly clear that I was doing so.
I said "being unable to hand down even a single indictment," specifically in the context of Whitewater itself. You said in reply, "The OJ Prosecutors weren't fired." That reply doesn't make any sense, since the OJ Prosecutors didn't fail to get indictments. You may claim that neither did the Special Prosecutor, but that doesn't make your reply sensical, because I was talking about people in general spending millions and millions and failing to get indictments, not failing to get convictions. You were arguing against something I never said. Again.
Look, in this last post you have made several impassioned arguments against things I've never said, and a few more against things I've specifically denied multiple times. If you mean to keep this up, it's pretty fruitless.
Re:Witchhunt...
jordan on 2002-08-01T15:44:13
- 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 one for the Linda Tripp allegations, so your "more reproach when related to the President" didn't seem credible.
- The Republican constituency would have loved Congress for selectively eliminating charges against Bill Clinton.
So, you admit it was political.
Yes, I admitted awhile back that there was a political aspect to the Special Prosecutor legislation and it's execution. I don't see how investigating people in the Executive branch could not have a political aspect. Here's what I said:
Hey, there are political realities involved here, I don't deny it. But calling it a witchhunt just because Congress doesn't step in and stop it is farfetched to me. Especially after it got started and so many suspicious things started to turn up.And now, onto the semantic quibble aspect of our discussion:
You need to be said to be guilty or innocent of something, and there was nothing to be guilty or innocent of.
- Perhaps you missed the phrase "of a particular crime or offense." Yes, you don't have to be specifically charged, but, as I already said:
- Thanks for helping me prove my point.
Sigh... Do I really need to explain the "Law of the excluded middle"?
The definition I gave clearly says that you are innocent if you are not guilty of a specific charge. This would apply to any charge. I, for example, am innocent of usury, of murder, of double parking, etc.
The state of innocence of a charge applies if you are not guilty of a charge. There is no other option given. There's no "does not apply" here. As you said yourself, it doesn't have anything to do with being charged. Now, if you were saying something about being found guilty or innocent, then there are three options there. Found Guilty, Found Innocent, not adjudicated (possibly because of not being charged).
I think it should be carried about by Congress, actually.
- And, if those investigations involve a sitting President, isn't it appropriate that they not be carried out by the Justice Department, over which the President has full Administrative control, but rather an Independent Special Prosecutor?
So, do you not like the Special Prosecutor law, is that it? This is the first you've mentioned that.
So Congress, a non-judicial body, should open court proceedings against Clinton associates? This kind of political circus is exactly why they passed the Special Prosecutor law.
But, if you don't like it, that I can understand. Would you say that all Special Prosecutor investigations are witchhunts? Or is it that only the ones where they have little evidence against the Executive, but lots of evidence against close associates, are witchhunts?
- I said "being unable to hand down even a single indictment," specifically in the context of Whitewater itself. You said in reply, "The OJ Prosecutors weren't fired." That reply doesn't make any sense, since the OJ Prosecutors didn't fail to get indictments. You may claim that neither did the Special Prosecutor, but that doesn't make your reply sensical, because I was talking about people in general spending millions and millions and failing to get indictments, not failing to get convictions. You were arguing against something I never said. Again.
They brought charges before Congress in the Impeachment relating the abuses of power and cover-ups subsequent to Whitewater. Isn't this exactly what we would have expected to happen with regard to Nixon had he not resigned?
It's not a perfect analogy to the OJ trial, but I fail to see how it is substantively different from the Impeachment trial here. One is for the crime of murder, before a Judicial court, the other is for crimes of obstruction and perjury, before a Senate court. Other than that, I don't see it.
However, I do agree that this is all pointless. The real argument here is that I say it's not a Witchhunt and you say it is. Is not, is too, is not, is too.
I pointed out that this sounded to me like you were just echoing the pundits and you seemed to take offense at that. Well, the pundits have been saying it, for years. Can you show any writing or have any witness who can attest that you were calling the Whitewater investigation a Witchhunt, say in 1996, before all the pundits started chanting that?
I believe that this reference to Whitewater as a "witchhunt" has seeped into the mass consciousness through media repetition. People throw slogans around all the time without serious evaluation. When I hear the same language that's being used repetitively by liberal media in, what I believe, is their attempt to make it true, I become suspicious of the origin.
It is a prejudice. I don't know how to live effectively in this world without having some pre-judgments. If I've offended you by criticizing your discernment or by association with those that you find distasteful, I apologize.
I may still go on thinking that people who use the term "witchhunt" with reference to Whitewater are just repeating what they've been told, because I've thought about it and I don't share that view and I seriously don't see how anyone who looks at it objectively could, either.
Hey, I've been wrong before, but that's what I believe today. I'm unapologetic for holding to things that I believe strongly and I don't show respect for views I disagree with violently. I don't know why I should.
Re:Witchhunt...
pudge on 2002-08-01T16:51:10
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 usury is untrue, unless there is a specific instance you are being accused of. You can disagree, but you are wrong, and I won't discuss it further.
So, do you not like the Special Prosecutor law
I do not.
is that it?
No, that is not "it." My preference has no significant relation to the discussion.
This is the first you've mentioned that.
Because it is not important to the discussion.
So Congress, a non-judicial body, should open court proceedings against Clinton associates?
No. They should have the power to do so, though. And they, in fact, do have that power, and occasionally exercise it.
This kind of political circus is exactly why they passed the Special Prosecutor law.
And the resulting political circuses have been worse than the ones they intended to avoid.
Would you say that all Special Prosecutor investigations are witchhunts?
No. Why would I? You have no rational basis for even asking this question.
Or is it that only the ones where they have little evidence against the Executive, but lots of evidence against close associates, are witchhunts?
I'd say an investigation that is intended for political reasons instead of judicial ones is a whitchhunt... as I did say, from the beginning.
I may still go on thinking that people who use the term "witchhunt" with reference to Whitewater are just repeating what they've been told, because I've thought about it and I don't share that view and I seriously don't see how anyone who looks at it objectively could, either.
That's just about the most retarded and offensive thing I've read in some time. Because you disagree with me, I am ignorant. I facetiously said that before, and note you didn't respond to it. Apparently, it's true, which is perhaps why you didn't deny it before.
It's sad that you can't see that people think differently, that you must resort to thinking that they are ignorant to make yourself feel better about your own views. Do you do it for a lack of self confidence, that thinking the other person is "wrong" somehow lends legitimacy to your own opinion?
Face the facts: you are clueless. Don't be sad, we are all clueless. Perhaps you are more than most, perhaps not, I don't know. But you are clueless, and there's no denying it. You can't cure cancer, you didn't get straight A's, you sometimes forget to use your turn signal while changing lanes. The very notion that -- merely because you've examined something and come away with a particular viewpoint -- you have any sort of handle or grasp on The Truth is the pinnacle of either arrogance or lunacy.
I'm unapologetic for holding to things that I believe strongly and I don't show respect for views I disagree with violently. I don't know why I should.
It has nothing to do with the view. I am not asking you to respect the view. But you are not talking about the view, you are talking about me, and saying that I am ignorant for holding to a particular view. If you can't see the difference between respecting people and respecting views, that's pretty damn sad.
I will not discuss things with people who don't respect me despite disagreeing with me, so this conversation is over.
Re:Witchhunt...
jordan on 2002-08-01T18:36:46
- 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 daily, there's nothing "retarded" in what I've said. I guess I'll have to consider the source. Someone who spouts out things that he's heard without circumspection, like insults currently popular with the young crowd as being hip or epithets of "witchhunt".
- You can disagree, but you are wrong, and I won't discuss it further.
- 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 usury is untrue, unless there is a specific instance you are being accused of.
You are just so mistaken in a number of fundamental ways. Legally, you cannot be guilty of a charge until it is adjudicated, at which time it becomes a fact that you are legally guilty of that crime. Until it is adjudicated, you are also considered innocent. In the eyes of the law, before you are charged you are considered innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty." not "Indetermined, then Innocent when charged and remaining Innocent until proven guilty." That's our legal system and we are talking about the legal definition.
I think you do need to go look up the "Law of the Excluded Middle", but you probably won't and you won't discuss it further, I won't be able to help you here.
- Because you disagree with me, I am ignorant. I facetiously said that before, and note you didn't respond to it. Apparently, it's true, which is perhaps why you didn't deny it before.
I ignored it because it was irrelevant. I wasn't going to get into your name-calling game. You've whined endlessly about my putting words in your mouth and yet, you don't hesitate to put words in mine.
I never said you were ignorant, I said you were wrong. You said the exact same thing about me above, but somehow, when I say it to you it's the equivalence of disrespect to your person.
- The very notion that -- merely because you've examined something and come away with a particular viewpoint -- you have any sort of handle or grasp on The Truth is the pinnacle of either arrogance or lunacy.
I specifically disclaimed any "handle or grasp on The Truth", when I said:
Hey, I've been wrong before, but that's what I believe today.But, for some reason, you chose to edit that out.
- I am not asking you to respect the view. But you are not talking about the view, you are talking about me, and saying that I am ignorant for holding to a particular view. If you can't see the difference between respecting people and respecting views, that's pretty damn sad.
Yes, I can tell the difference. I say that I think your views are poorly thought out and you subsequently accuse me of saying "retarded" things, of being "clueless", elsewhere of not being able to make simple distinctions.
I think it is you who has shown no respect for my person in this whole debate. That is a pretty clever argumentative technique though, accusing your opponent of your worst faults to make the return criticism sound hollow.
