Hannity asserted that "Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster" are "chapters remaining open" for Sen. Clinton
On the July 15 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, discussing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, host Sean Hannity asserted: "[T]here are still many chapters remaining open from her time at the Rose Law Firm. Take Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster." In fact, Foster's death has been conclusively determined to have been a suicide. Moreover, after extensive investigations, three different independent counsels determined that there was insufficient evidence to bring any charges against the Clintons in the Whitewater matter. The July 15 segment was the latest edition of "The Clinton Chapters," a regular series on Hannity's America whose assertions Media Matters for America has repeatedly debunked.
In September 2000, independent counsel Robert Ray concluded a six-year, $60 million investigation that found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Clintons had committed any crimes in connection to the Whitewater controversy. According to the statement from Ray that accompanied the independent counsel's final report:
This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct involving Madison Guaranty, C.M.S. [Capital Management Services Inc.], or Whitewater Development or knew of such conduct. The evidence relating to their testimony and conduct, in connection with this investigation and other investigations involving the same entities, was also, in the judgment of this office, insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either of them committed any criminal offense, including perjury or obstruction of justice.
Although several conservative outlets have suggested that the Clintons were somehow involved in Foster's death -- as Media Matters has documented (here, here, and here) -- numerous investigations determined that his death was a suicide. The Office of the Independent Counsel -- then headed by Kenneth Starr -- completed its inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Foster's death with a report issued on October 11, 1997, which concluded that "based on investigation and analysis of the evidentiary record, that Mr. Foster committed suicide by gunshot in Fort Marcy Park."
In addition, after asserting that "Hillary's time as partner in the law firm was closely associated with her husband's political seat in the state of Arkansas," Hannity selectively quoted reporter George Wells' statement in a March 19, 1994, Baltimore Sun article:
HANNITY: But the truth is, Hillary's time as partner in the law firm was closely associated with her husband's political seat in the state of Arkansas. George Wells, a reporter who covered the courts for Arkansas papers, said the following in a 1994 interview with the Baltimore Sun, quote: "A few people would say that the Rose Law Firm was married to Governor Clinton -- and there were businesses that thought it was to their advantage with the state to go to Rose." End quote.
Although Hannity ended the quote there, Wells actually went on to note that "no one in the firm that I know of ever solicited business based on the governor's wife being a partner there":
Some say the very fact that the governor's wife was in the firm gave it an unfair advantage in luring clients and state business.
"A few people would say that the Rose Law Firm was married to Governor Clinton," says George Wells, who has covered courts for several newspapers in town.
"And there were businesses that thought it was to their advantage with the state to go with Rose," Mr. Wells continues.
"But no one in the firm that I know of ever solicited business based on the governor's wife being a partner there."
Hannity also discussed what he termed "the infamous scandal where billing records went missing from the Rose Law Firm." Hannity asserted that the documents "had to disappear," adding, "[D]uring the investigation, prosecutors tried to link Hillary to Madison Guaranty, but couldn't because there were no billing records. That was until they were found by Carolyn Huber, a White House aide and former office manager of the Rose Firm." However, prosecutors were not prevented from investigating; the Office of the Independent Counsel received the billing records in February 1996, according to a February 22, 1996, Washington Post report. The independent counsel's office -- at that point headed by Robert Ray, a Republican, like the two investigators appointed before him -- concluded 4 1/2 years later that "the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct involving Madison Guaranty."
Moreover, according to a March 1, 1996, New York Times account, while an "inquiry was quickly reopened after the White House produced copies of Rose firm billing records," investigators at the law firm of Pillsbury Madison & Sutro, in a report prepared for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), found "no grounds for a civil lawsuit" against Rose Law Firm for work done on behalf of Madison Guaranty. The Times report continued:
Federal savings and loan regulators had announced in December that they would not sue Mr. or Mrs. Clinton in connection with the Madison failure. But the inquiry was quickly reopened after the White House produced copies of Rose firm billing records, which had been missing for more than two years. The records outlined Mrs. Clinton's work as a lawyer for Madison.
Two weeks ago, lawyers representing the F.D.I.C. interviewed Mrs. Clinton for more than two hours at the White House. Much of that interview was devoted to the newly discovered billing records, which indicate that Mrs. Clinton had worked on a land deal known as Castle Grande.
According to the transcript, released by the White House today, Mrs. Clinton answered many questions by saying she could not recall details of her work 11 years ago on the real estate deal, which has been deemed by Federal regulators to have been a sham transaction.
But the Pillsbury report said none of the newly discovered evidence suggested that Mrs. Clinton or other Rose firm lawyers were aware of the fraud.
A February 29, 1996, Washington Post article noted that Pillsbury Madison had previously served as outside counsel investigating Rose Law Firm's work for Madison Guaranty for the Resolution Trust Corp. (RTC), "the agency created to dispose of failed S&Ls," until that agency was dissolved January 1, 1996, leaving the FDIC to continue the investigation. The Post also reported: "The retention of the Pillsbury firm [by the RTC] in 1994 drew sharp complaints from the White House because Republican former U.S. attorney Jay B. Stephens, a critic of the Clinton administration, was a member of the Pillsbury team evaluating Madison." A March 26, 1994, Washington Post article described Pillsbury Madison as "a law firm that has done extensive work for the RTC, which regularly hires outside lawyers to pursue cases against lawyers, accountants and others who may have contributed to the collapse of savings and loans companies."
From the July 15 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: And welcome back to Hannity's America. It's time now for the "Clinton Chapters" and a look back at another part of Hillary's past that she's trying to hide. In this week's installment, we take you inside her days of practicing law, and the cases that may come back to haunt her.
[...]
HANNITY: Then there was the infamous scandal where billing records went missing from the Rose Law Firm, and after nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, they turned up in the first lady's book room at the White House. Now, these were documents that detailed her work that she did for the savings and loan association Madison Guaranty. Hillary and Rose were hired by Madison Guaranty and the McDougals [Whitewater figures Jim and Susan McDougal] to represent them after the S&L failed in the late '80s.
Jim McDougal was convicted of 18 felony counts of fraud, conspiracy, and the counts were brought for bad loans made by Madison S&L. But those documents had to disappear. The Clintons were in bed with the McDougals in the Whitewater Development Corporation deal, and that project also went sour. Yet during the investigation, prosecutors tried to link Hillary to Madison Guaranty, but couldn't because there were no billing records. That was until they were found by Carolyn Huber, a White House aide and former office manager of the Rose Firm. Like that isn't a conflict of interest.
Former adviser to Bill Clinton George Stephanopoulos recounts how these times at the Rose Law Firm impacted Bill's campaign for president in his book All Too Human [Little, Brown & Co., 1999], saying, quote, "Hillary's investments and legal practice was embarrassing but not scandalous. The early stories were too convoluted to do any real political harm, but the Hillary controversy reached a fever pitch during the Illinois primary," end quote. But they did pay a toll on her husband's campaign.
[...]
HANNITY: But the truth is, Hillary's time as partner in the law firm was closely associated with her husband's political seat in the state of Arkansas. George Wells, a reporter who covered the courts for Arkansas papers, said the following in a 1994 interview with the Baltimore Sun, quote: "A few people would say that the Rose Law Firm was married to Governor Clinton -- and there were businesses that thought it was to their advantage with the state to go to Rose." End quote.
[...]
HANNITY: So, with this chapter now opened on the Clintons, we understand why she wants to hide this part of her story. But we have to ask, how does she possibly think she'll be able to escape this, too? Besides all the incidents we just mentioned, there are still many chapters remaining open from her time at the Rose Law Firm. Take, for instance, Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster. Now, this is why this is another part of Hillary's forgotten past that is anything but closed.
Does anyone else get the creeps just thinking about living in a country called "Hannity's America"?
I would assume even the most idiotic of his followers are quite tired of bringing up Whitewater when talking about Clinton.
Hannity America? Ever see a movie called "The Handmaid's Tale?"
I think this may be a foreshadowing of the Talk Radio barrage we'll witness if Hillary is the nominee. You better believe that Sean, Rush and the hundreds of GOP professional liars on local talk radio will dredge up all of that crap from the 90s.
Sick of Whitewater? Naw...not going to happen a long as they keep reminding their base of things they forgot....and maybe throwing in some new stuff.
We were in a local restaurant not long ago, and 5 men sat behind us, regurgitating right wing talking points.
They ran the entire gambit of Clinton stories...from Vince Foster, to Clinton destroying our army and closing all the bases...leaving poor Bush struggling to deal with 9/11, Whitewater, ruining the economy before handing it over to Bush....Clinton's BJ, and the rape he got away with,murders, you name it. I was fuming through my entire dinner. It was like listening to bad highlights from Rush, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, etc..
I suppose I'm thinking too highly of even his most idiotic followers.
Never misunderestimate the abject stupidity of the Republican base. They are the worst of Black and White thinkers, easily excited and easily duped.
As for Clinton "ruining" the military, I wonder if any of these rocket scientists have ever read the Constitution? It clearly states that Congress is responsible for raising and funding the Army. Who was in charge of Congress during the last six years of Clinton's presidency?
Does anyone else get the creeps just thinking about living in a country called "Hannity's America"?
About as much as "Clinton's America" would. My guess is Hannity's will cost me a lot less.
Yeah, that little trip into Iraq is barely a blip on the budget.
As if CASH is the only "cost" of Presidential policy.
Tens of thousands are DEAD as a result of Bush"a activities, and LACK of action. Ignored terrorism, and we lost 3000 citizens. Invaded Iraq for no good reason, and we've lost over 3500 brave American soldiers, not to mention the tens of thousands maimed and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed as "collateral damage".
But DAVE is wanting those great Republican tax breaks, so being an American doesn't "COST" him anything.
This is the perfect profile of the Rightwinger: Shallow, immoral, greedy, and unaffected by the unnecessary suffering of others. This is the face of EVIL, folks.
What do you base that guess on? Or are you talking purely taxes?
At least Clinton's America would probably resemble America somewhat. Hannity's America = today's China.
It'd be nowhere near that productive.
Probably more like Mogadeshu in Somalia. Ya know, armed gangs, taking responsibility for their own needs and actions, roaming around, keeping the city safe for commerce.
Now see there Fawlty.....Dave has just given us an example of one of those Hannity followers you just talked about.
Throw stuff out there, offer no facts, no details..... just say something vague about Hannity's America costing us a lot less. I've seen a few of his comments today, and said to myself, what the heck is he talking about.
Actually Gray, I'm just venting over the fact that my cigars may go from a 5 cent tax to a 10 dollar tax, compliments to the D's in charge of the Senate. Thank GOD, W has already advised he will veto it.
Too bad you can't buy Cubans either. I guess cigar lovers are screwed by both parties. Not that I care.
Interesting Dave, that when you look up stories on the tobacco tax, you get stories about a cigarette tax, such as the ones below, from newspapers, and newstations.
But when you search Cigar tax, you get almost all right wing sites telling us that a cigar will increase by 20,000 times, or from 5 cents to as much as $10 EACH.
BTW....The first search result to the cigar tax story is Rush Limbaugh's site. I wonder why the $10 per cigar story isn't showing up in mainstream news stories?
New York Times: "The new spending would be financed by an increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco products. The tax on cigarettes would rise to $1 a pack, from the current 39 cents."
CBS news: "The legislation calls for a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes. The revenue would be used to subsidize health insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid — the government health insurance program for the poor — but not enough to afford insurance on their own. "
"But when you search Cigar tax, you get almost all right wing sites telling us that a cigar (TAX)will increase by 20,000 times, or from 5 cents to as much as $10 EACH. "
Also....on one right wing site, the writer of the article against the tobacco tax said he put in the numbers and came up with a $10 tax increase on each cigar.....the same story being repeated on right wing sites, and I'm trying to understand how a 60 cents per pack raise on cigarettes, raises the tax on a cigar from 5 cents to $10.
"Also....on one right wing site, the writer of the article against the tobacco tax said he put in the numbers and came up with a $10 tax increase on each cigar.....the same story being repeated on right wing sites, and I'm trying to understand how a 60 cents per pack raise on cigarettes, raises the tax on a cigar from 5 cents to $10." - Graydogs
Forgive me Graydogs, but this is not hard. Certainly the additional tax must be proportional to the mass of the tobacco involved. What else would be sensible?
Here, let me walk you through it...
The tax on one pack of cigarettes increases by precisely $0.61. The tax on one cigar increases by precisely $9.95. With me so far? Divide 9.95 by 0.61...the result is 16.31, well *everyone* knows a cigar contains as much tobacco as 16 1/3 packs of cigarettes. Well, okay, maybe not Liberals. Not being members of "the party of fiscal responsibility", no one would expect a Liberal to actually be any good at accounting.
Yes, the Dems are terrible at accounting and managing budgets. Which party was in total control of the government when the United States had its largest deficit ever? Remind me......
"Which party was in total control of the government when the United States had its largest deficit ever? Remind me......"
Ay, and did ya notice me tongue ever so slightly and subtly bulging me cheek there. Did ya now?
The key is contained in me text. And if you're unsure where to look, the answer might come to you if you try stuffin the tobacco from 16 1/3 packs of cigarettes into the wrappin leaf of one cigar. :^)
An with that in mind, you might find some o' me words had one more edge than an empty-head Con blogger might be given to notice.
(By the way, "empty-head Con blogger" is in no way a reference to you. Honest.)
Trust me brutha, I am in no way a con. Sorry if I missed your humor. Well done.
When you refer to "empty-headed Con," will you please not capitalize it? I get called that enough by my wife.
For all you right wing "math wizzards": The price raises by the value of the items.....a typical pack of cigarettes goes from 39 cent tax to $1.00 tax increase.
The highest price cigars could see a $10 tax increase.
This does not mean that cigars with a current 5 cent tax, will raise to $10 or more according to right wing web sites.
Now, if you think a $10 tax increase on say, a $200 cigar, is out of range, then you had better choose cheaper cigars. Poor Rush.
"An array of tobacco taxes would be increased by the bill, and taxes on cigars could rise to a ceiling of $10 for the most expensive cigars"
my cigars may go from a 5 cent tax to a 10 dollar tax
Cry me a f*ckin' river.
Somebody call the waaaambulance.
I guess you have no problem with the notion that the Dem's raise taxes....it's what they're good at and it's what they do.
no, the problem is with invented stories.
You are upset because there may be a tax on a nasty unhealthy item such as cigars. Is that all you got against Democrats? The fact is that you are actively engaging in an unsafe health practice with will likely lead to a catastrophic health crisis for you and in the end cost me money one way or another because you chose to voluntarily destroy your body with burning vegatable matter. If you want to smoke them then fine, sign a waiver that when you get cancer in the future you will refuse any government money for your care. How is that for a conservative approach?
Yeah, that was exactly my response. Oh boo hoo, the tax on your cancer delivery system of choice is going to go up to help pay for some of the damage your obnoxious, filthy, deadly habit causes. Go listen to Cigar Dave on the radio, he'll tell you this is the worst thing to happen to humankind since the Nuremberg Laws, and the "Pleasure Police" in Congress are worse than Nazis, and smokers are the new Sons of Liberty. What-ever, man.
I just researched this. As far as I can tell, you're wrong (big surprise).
The tax will increase a lot, to 53%. The maximum tax per cigar will be $10, up from a max of 4.8 cents/cigar.
However, most cigars will see a much smaller increase, in terms of dollars. A cigar that costs $5 will cost around $8, so roughly a $3 increase, not $10. While this is still a big increase, it's not $10/cigar, like you say.
If your point was that the Democrats in congress raised taxes on smokes, you could have made that argument with real numbers. Or maybe you didn't know.
But you are right, in "Hannity's America", a truly necessary item for Rebuplicans and rich Democrats alike, like cigars, would never be taxed that high.
Fawlty.....I'm still waiting for Dave to get back to you on that. I also want to know why he thinks Hannity's America would be better than Clinton's. Maybe he's on the internet doing some research so he can give you an informed reply?
Based on what he said, it's obvious that Dave is talking out of his a$$.
"My guess is Hannity's will cost me a lot less."
Hey, good one...you sound like a typical caricature of a greedy Republican.
Yeah, Bush's America is costing us less...wait until our grandchildren get the bill for his optional war.
I think Hannitys anyplace MIGHT be marginally better than Saddams anyplace. That is about it.
Yep- maybe the Democrats won't get us into any wars in which hundreds of thousands of innocent people die, including thousands of American soldiers, and maybe the Democrats won't create new havens for terrorists all over the world, and maybe the Democrats won't turn world opinion against us and give one public relations axe after another to our enemies to use against us, and maybe the Democrats will balance the budget (again,) but at least under the Republicans, my taxes will get cut. That pretty much sums up the world view of these numbnuts, doesn't it?
Damn straight.
And besides, how can Republicans here at home feel like real men if the US isn't losing a half-dozen young soldiers a week in conflicts halfway around the globe?
Gee Dave, the asininity straming from your caustic diatribe plainly identifies you…Dave is troll.
Your screen name identifies you as a hippie. I think we're even.
Oxymoron alert!
Dave said "I think."
Seriously though, in one quick statement he has tarred all SF residents as being hippies, and opined that hippies are as bad as trolls.
Two strikes, he's out. Send him back to the minors where he belongs.
...Hmm higher Hill's ratings get the more desparate Hannity gets.
This is conservative misinformation for sure... but if there are people who think that Hannity has his facts straight on anything must hear a lot of wind whistling through their vacant skulls.
I talk to the trees. Thats why they put me away. If only Sean, if only.
Of course these chapters remain open, so long as the media remains Corporate, Repugnants slither, and Shammity lacks the soul he sold for dross.
The only reason those chapters are still open is that Hannity is an incredibly slow reader.
I get the feeling Hannity has a lot of "open chapters" in that big hollow head of his.
WMDs in Syria, Vince Foster, those Democrats and their $10 cigar tax.
I really think Sean is less of a deliberate propagandist than a lucky find for the Republican media; a gullible childlike simpleton who doesn't easily change his mind, no matter what the evidence that he's wrong.
I think he actually believes much of what he says, and so is appealing to that part of the Bush base that has decent bullsh*t detectors, but can believe somebody who believes himself.
If you go to: portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/38/38175.shtml read the 20 rules for "Spotting Media Disinformation".
Hannity wouldn't be able to pimp himself out ,if he didn't follow these rules ,they are his bread and butter,otherwise he'd still handing towels out in a steam room in Frisco!
Dave, Are you UnAmerican? Do you not want to pay taxes? Did you have a problem with authority? Is smoking a Right? Isn't it like burning money? Dave you've cried about this tax on different threads...I hear you and have set up the "Dave Needs Ten Bucks Fund" to support your need to smoke those $0.30 cigars. I am sure all you fellow Cons will send me the TEN BUCKS..cash only...you know us liberals.
Now back to the original post...Chapters remaining OPEN
Why did you bother to ask Dave that? Yes, he's Un-American, because he has no interest at all in living in a Society but instead prefers to delude himself with fantasies of living in a cabin in the woods, shootin' his own dinner every night and fishin' in the creek, dependent on nobody and nothing but his wits.
All these guys are the same- they KNOW it's Un-American to think like this, so they argue that "gummint doesnt work" and that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are all illegal scams that waste money and don't help anyway. They love guys like Bush, incompetent, coldblooded b*stards who devote themselves to PROVING that government doesn't work by exploding the deficit and letting people drown in New Orleans. They hate guys like Clinton, who understand how government is supposed to work and can make it a positive partner of the citizenry.
Oh, and none of them actually forgo the use of tax-provided goods and services- NONE of them. But they have an excuse for that, too- the "gummint" doesn't LET them live on their own, and besides, they PAID for that service, why shouldn't they use it, etc. etc.
Please, guys: go buy a ranch in Idaho (but don't use a govt-sponsored and protected bank loan to do it) and live off the land. Set an example for all us welfare babies.
i have been a practiscing psychologist for 25 years and know quite well the apparent behavoirs and much of the underlying reasons for its pathology. i am familiar with most of the current as well as historic theories of personality as well as the attendant disorders, but these ninconpoops, (not a true climical term) baffle me to the point of abject disorientation. how dors dave and his ilk, bitch about possible taxes on his cigars, seen by some as surrogate penises, while this crew can spend 12 bill a month on this contrived war on terror, which according to the nie , is an abject failure. how can the pilonial cyst man belittle kerrys vietnam service as cwell as his congressinal service, when he ducked at his term of service and acumulated that fine resume of one semerter at ole sw missouri state. where does hannity, also an incipid admirer of all things military, while again avoiding any personal invovlment himself, get the cajones to question anyone about anything, with his proud resume of an aa from a community college.? bush , a lifelong failure, in virtually all his endeavors, continues can do no wrong among the hard right , despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. am i dreaming if so please someone wake me up from this nightmare of unreality.
Perhaps, when Democrats once again run things, you could apply for a grant that would fund a new course of study:
Rightwing Liars, And Followers-401, An in depth psychological study into why seemingly normal people will agree with and follow those who have proven their incompetance at leadership on any level.
Now, this is why this is another part of Hillary's forgotten past that is anything but closed...Sean Insanity
================================================
Only in the masturbatory fantasies of Hannity and the rest of his wingnut fellow travelers.
This stuff was gone over ad nauseum in the 1990s. There's no "there" there, as much as Hannity might wish for there to be.
Anyone else get the idea that there's a dog-eared copy of the Starr report hidden somewhere in Hannity's bathroom?
Whitewater? Wow. It's time to put on your Tommy Hilfiger jeans, grab your beanie babies and pop in a Spice Girls CD. We're headin' to 1994 -- Not!
Hannity is a blatant liar. One day, around the time of the Foley scandal, Hannity was, of course, talking about Monica Lewinsky and Clinton, saying Monica was 19 y.o. when she was involved with Clinton. A caller on his show, corrected Hannity and said Monica was actually 22. Hannity replied, actually, I have a paper here which says she was 21. Then immediately, Hannity went right back to saying Monica was 19! (Actually, the caller was right). Hannity appeals to those who don't have a high affinity for truth, or to those who are ignorant.
Believe me, you don't want to live in Hannity's America. This phony media hack should have been nominated for an Emmy (Best Actor) for his portrayal of a patriotic Christian talk show host. He's a great actor. Better than Ronald Reagan.
Maybe next time.