ABC's The Note listed misleading American Spectator column on the Clintons as a "Must-Read"
SUMMARY: ABC's The Note referred to an American Spectator column claiming that there was a "vast record of Hillary's joint misdeeds with her spouse" as a "Must-Read," but the column offered false or misleading examples as evidence of these purported "misdeeds."
On October 18, ABC's political newsletter The Note included in its daily list of "Must-Reads" an October 17 column by American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and former President Bill Clinton. Titled "Crooked Hillary," the column claimed that there was a "vast record of Hillary's joint misdeeds with her spouse" but offered false or misleading examples as evidence of these purported "misdeeds." For instance, Hillyer falsely asserted that "the Clintons both benefited financially" from Whitewater -- a failed land deal in which the Clintons actually lost money, according to a report prepared for the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) by the law firm Pillsbury, Madison, and Sutro.
In The Hunting of the President (2001), Joe Conason and Gene Lyons note that the Pillsbury report "verified the amount lost by the Clintons on their investment" in Whitewater was "just over $43,000." Additionally, though Hillyer listed Whitewater itself as one of the Clintons' "misdeeds," Republican-appointed counsel Robert Ray, the third and final counsel assigned to investigate the Clintons, announced on September 20, 2000, that he had closed the Whitewater probe after concluding 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."
Hillyer later cited as another of Sen. Clinton's misdeeds that she "was intimately involved with the botched handling of the firing of longtime White House Travel Office employees." Apparently referring to her sworn statements in 1995 regarding the Travel Office allegations, Hillyer added, "Remember that Hillary Clinton actually was cited by independent counsel Robert Ray for making false statements at a 1995 deposition." But while Ray, in his 2000 report on the Travel Office firings, did conclude that her 1995 statement to the counsel denying involvement in the firings had been "factually false," he also found "insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false" and therefore declined to prosecute. Ray further determined that the decision to terminate the Travel Office employees "was a lawful one" and that "the evidence is insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either Mr. Watkins or Mrs. Clinton committed perjury or obstruction of justice during the course of their testimony before GAO, the Congress, and this investigation."
From the summary of Ray's report:
With respect to Mrs. Clinton, the overwhelming evidence establishes that she played a role in the decision to fire the employees and provided input into that decision to [White House staff members David] Watkins, [Mack] McLarty, [Vince] Foster, and [Harry] Thomason. Thus, her statement to the contrary under oath to this Office was factually false.
The evidence, however, is insufficient to show that Mrs. Clinton knowingly intended to influence the Travel Office decision or was aware that she had such influence at this early stage of the Administration. To a real degree, her interest in the matter was first generated by Thomason's intervention, and then overstated by him to others. Thus, absent persuasive, corroborated, and admissible evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false.
From the October 18 article in The American Spectator:
The truth is that Pardongate and the other end-of-presidency improprieties were child's play compared to the vast record of Hillary's joint misdeeds with her spouse -- and this is not including any that had anything directly to do with sex.
Still, for instance, there is no honest explanation for Hillary's killing in the cattle futures market, when she made about $100,000 very quickly on a $1,000 investment just at the time when brokers appeared to be curiously post-dating and probably re-allocating trades to benefit favored clients.
Then there was Whitewater, somehow written off by the big media as irrelevant even though the investigation landed about a dozen convictions of (mostly) close Clinton associates, even though the Clintons both benefited financially from the whole imbroglio, and even though Hillary's own Rose Law Firm was hip-deep in the whole mess -- as was shown when the infamous firm billing records mysteriously and belatedly showed up in a spare White House office, reportedly with Hillary's fingerprints (real, not figurative) all over them.
Hillary Clinton was intimately involved with the botched handling of the firing of longtime White House Travel Office employees, combined with the odd and scary (and utterly disproportionate) use of the FBI to investigate the employees on what proved to be utterly spurious charges.
[...]
Remember that Hillary Clinton actually was cited by independent counsel Robert Ray for making false statements at a 1995 deposition. They are part and parcel of a voluminous record of lies that she has been caught making through the years on matters big and small, for reasons apparently ranging from the most nefarious to the most petty.
Actually, if you look at the list... that is pretty lame. The American Spectator piece is first... Last time I checked, TAS is not exactly a bipartisan mag/rag... Last time I checked, ABC was/is part of the mainstream media. MMFA has a point with this one.
Yet another reason why HRC started MMFA (her words)....
Why else does MMFA go to any length to cover-up the sleazy misdeeds of HRC?
In any event, most of the sleaze involving both Clintons was that kind of low-level, small-state, trailer-trash corruption that one usually associates with back-water rubes.
Honestly, why can't we registered Dems find someone to run in our party who has at least a little bit of class and dignity?
Your posts are just ignorant posturing. Curdled milk has more actual content. Grow a brain.
Whitewater, somehow written off by the big media as irrelavent? Are they f**king serious? That was all we heard about in the "big media" for months and months. Gerth(?) at the New York Times won a freakin Pulitzer for his irrelavent coverage, which has since been thoroughly debunked by MMFA of course.
In his column Quin Hillyer tries to make the point that the misdeeds of the Clintons indicate a level of corruption so deep that HRC's opponenents are fools not to exploit them. What he fails to see from his perch on the right is that whatever misdeeds the Clintons may have been guilty of pale in comparison to the misdeeds of the current administration. Hilary is accused of turning a $1000 dollar investment in cattle futures into $100,000. Are you kidding me? You think Cheney even bends over to pick up $100,000?
The Bush WH manipulates the hiring and firing of US AG's, and we're supposed to be alarmed that some travel agents in an obscure office got fired?
Folks, there is a big difference between getting your friend a job as a travel agent and getting someone a billion dollar contract to guard state dept staffers in Iraq.
Pit,
You see the difference, I see the difference, but DON"T EVER expect the righwingnuts to see or even accept that there is a difference. :0)
Pit,
I'm sorry, you're making too much sense here. You will therefore be ignored or personally attacked so those still Blinded by the Right can disregard your point.
The American Spectator was just caught in a big lie a couple of weeks ago. The Spectator reported that Henry Waxman hired permanent investigators to monitor Rush Limbaugh and other right wing propaganda. Totally false! The Spectator have no evidence other than a claimed anonymous source. After Waxman brought out the truth, the Spectator stood by its false story.
ABC is even worse than Fox. It a shame they don't have the terrible reputation they deserve. The Spectator was tops in the '90s at running false stories about the Clintons. ABC knows this. ABC played along with every Clinton smear ever and covered up for the GOP when the truth came out. ABC is the same fascist network that created Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Beware the mouse.
That's right, this is not the first time a company owned by Disney or Disney itself has been involved in perpetuating right wing propaganda.
Disney refused to let its subsidiary Miramax distribute Farenheit 9/11 even though Miramax helped to finance it.
On the other hand you will remember Disney allowed ABC to air Path to 9/11 and brokered a deal with Scholastic to have it taught in schools even though it contained far right propaganda.
The Spectator was tops in the '90s at running false stories about the Clintons.
Most were written by David Brock. Ah the irony!
The irony seems to escape most here.
For years Brock attacked the left. Now he says it was all lies.
Now he attacks the right and people are supposed to believe that he's just "seen the light."
Maybe the guy is just a professional liar for profit, and has no real convictions.
Either that or Hilary has some SERIOUS dirt on him.
I didn't trust Brock at first either but I'm convinced he's gone straight. Remember the sleazy hit piece against Anita Hill? That was debunked soon after it went into print. I've yet to see the right wing debunk anything that MediaMatters.org publishes. The righties lie about it, like Limbaugh did with the phony soldiers thing. The right can't debunk though.
Pitt,
Nice rant which leads me to a couple of comments and questions.
You wrote: "What evidence do you have of "Hilary is accused of turning a $1000 dollar investment in cattle futures into $100,000. Are you kidding me? You think Cheney even bends over to pick up $100,000?"
As we all know, Hillary wasn't accused of it. It happened. It is beyond question. The real question is, was this a payoff? But that is a different subject. So calling Hillary's remarkable ROI isn't even a question that should be used as a comparison. It simply makes you look uninformed.
Secondly, What proof do you have of any influence peddling by Cheney regarding Haliburton? I know that this isn't a court of law, but really some link to something factual might lead some of to conclude you actually used some critical thinking rather than simply bRathering.
Thirdly. Aren't you confusing Blackwater with Haliburton in your last sentence? What proof or link do you have purporting that Cheney had any influence in the State Department hiring them for security?
Finally, Does it even matter a little that you are only spouting talking points and even more so, doing it badly? I must admit, it makes me wonder who took your hinges.
In another thread I brought up Dan Rather and it seems like it fits here.
Please disregard my last sentence. It stayed in my post by mistake. Sorry for the confusion.
Don't you think any man who heads a search committee and winds up naming himself the best candidate the way Cheney did with the vice-presidency might use his influence to get Halliburton, a company he was Chairman and CEO of no-bid contracts too?
Do you trust Cheney with a shotgun in his hands too?
Johnny, it's pointless to argue with ANOTHERAMERICAN who has long ago gone off the deep end. All attempts to use logic or to make comparisons to illustrate a point are quite useless with such. ANOTHERAMERICAN is but another example of an educational system which has long ago left its students so way behind that they identify with a (legacy) C mind, a "windshield cowboy," a man of questionable morals, fewer scruples whose idea of service and courage is to send others to war. It's a pretty sick lot.
Thsi sort of smear may have worked with some folks last time around. Please note that all of this disgusting activity of the Republicans and of the Special Prosecutors could not bring down the Clintons. With all that hate mongering, I can see how much it must bother the "vast right wing concpiracsy" to flunk out on their mean and hateful attacks on the Clintons.
I know it just drives them nuts so much that they are trying another time to muck things up for the Clintons but in the face of this monstrous war, the falling polll numbers of the Republicans, all I can say is that you just look very desperate to thinking Americans. All your posts say is that you are just hate filled . Sorry, that sort of tripe caused your loss of the house and the Senate. There has been a vast migration of Republicans (including me) out of the party since their viciousness and hate tried all these hokey things. Really, it is almost as if you never learned anything from your losses of the House and Senate last election. Poor thing, I feel sort of sorry for you.
Figures. The one million Iraqis the Clinton's casually killed in Iraq from their foreign policy isn't even mentioned. Just the financial shenanigans. But then even Republicans called me "un-American" for speaking out about the racism of Clinton's overseas adventures.
MMFA, why are you even bothering to defend Hillary? She's right-wing scum. A conservative, not a progressive. So much for claims of "no party affiliation". Guess that's just more conservative misinformation.
Another American is obviously on the right, but that doesn't automatically make him wrong. I have defended the Clinton's for years in internet forums, and I am tired of doing it. In this case, the defense, "not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt," is a weak defense. Innocent is the only defense that stands up before the American people. It was the inability of the Clinton's to claim innocence that gave us GW Bush, and the horrors of these two terms. It was Al Gore's weakness that lost him the election.
<> As of now I am considering Gore as probably the best candidate for the presidency, hell make that head and shoulders above all the front runners.
<> Hillary's name recognition is he *ONLY* thing she has going for her. Bill may push her ahead among the party faithful, but in the election every suspected misdeed will be open again.
<> We cannot aford another right wing deal making republican administration. This country cannot afford another crony based right wing pandering to the religious right administration. And that means we need not only the best candidate, but the best qualified candidate for president.
<> And that ain't Hilary.
<> We need a president who has a better defense than "they can't prove it", we need a president who can say, "The accusation is false". He must be able to say that honestly and believably. I have no loyalty to the Clintons, though I have defended them for years, often better than they defend themselves. My loyalty is to America. I am a democrat because I believe the principles of the democratic party are the ones that best serve this country. Not because of any personality claiming the mantle of leadership on the basis of being one of the beautiful people, or the Anointed One.
<> Let's try to do better.Hear! Hear! Sen. Clinton has some good points, but can't we do better? Can't we find someone who really is anti-war, who truly is committed to democracy and open government, who is deeply committed to helping the poor and narrowing the income gap, and who isn't so entrenched with the big corporate interests who wield so much power?
The MSM would never let such a candidate become legitamite. Instead they deride such a candidate and make fun of his height. I think we know who I am talking about.
The guy you're looking for is Dennis Kucinich. He's in the race and you can vote for him in the primaries. But Corporate America doesn't want him, he's on the other side of their class war. Hillary and Obama are on their side and that's all they're gonna feed you.
Figures. The one million Iraqis the Clinton's casually killed in Iraq from their foreign policy isn't even mentioned. Just the financial shenanigans. But then even Republicans called me "un-American" for speaking out about the racism of Clinton's overseas adventures. -redking
I'm no expert on either of the Clintons affairs, so help me out. How did they casually kill one million Iraqis? I thought it was Lil' Dubbya who told us we had to "stay the course" after he told us "mission accomplished".
In the 1990s, the US ambassadors at the UN, Madeleine Albright and Bill Richardson, conssitently veto'd Iraqi requests to purchase necessary basic medical supplies that they could not manufacture in Iraq. Such simple things as oxygen for those with lung ailments, lab equipment and advanced medical machinery, chemotherapy drugs for cancer patients, etc. Heck, they even once banned the purchase of chicken eggs, calling it a "dual-use" item capable of creating biological weapons. An estimated one million Iraqis, half of them children, died prematurely due to the lack of such basic medical supplies.
Denial of medical supplies to a civilian population is a war crime, a crime against humanity as defined in the Nuremburg Charter. 4% of the population of Iraq died this way. Thanks to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Bill Richardson and all the Democrat sheep who supported this with total ambivalence.
But as long as no American died, the USA was quite happy to let the children of Iraq die from very preventable, very curable childhood diseases. But then Americans are the Master Race, all others are subhuman, or so the racist logic of empire goes.
And the genocide continues, with Democrats eagerly signing the funding bills and rejecting all calls for immediate withdrawal, even insulting the anti-war protestors with ever more open contempt.
Welcome to the reality which is American foreign policy...racist, murderous, barbaric.
REDKING:
In July of 93, Clinton and the UN were trying hard to get Saddam to give assurances that he was not attempting to rebuild his weapons arsenals. Saddam was notorious for seizing humanitarian funds and supplies and NOT ALLOWING THEM TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO HIS CITIZENS.
For the reason Saddam could not be trusted, the USA and Clinton insisted that there be proper MONITORING of all distribution, a condition that Saddam refused to agree to.
"Iraq is now negotiating with the United Nations on a Security Council offer to let it sell $1.6 billion worth of oil over six months to buy food and medicine, for instance. But even if the United Nations allows that oil sale, a third of the proceeds would have to be used to compensate victims of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Iraq would also have to let the United Nations monitor the distribution of the goods it purchases to insure that they are spread fairly among its citizens."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DD1238F933A15754C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
SO, Redking, your accusations that Clinton MURDERED A MILLION Iraqis by being simply callous to the people there is simply not true. Sending supplies and cash to Iraq, WITHOUT ANY AGREEMENT (with monitoring) that those things would not be turned into WEAPONS by Saddam (selling medical supplies on the black market in return for desired weaponry, for example) would not be acceptable to any thinking person.
Your accusations are incindiary and boneheaded, taking NOTHING into account about whether your "good intentions" would even be carried out, had Clinton lifted the embargoes imposed.
There is one man responsible for the hardships being imposed on the Iraqi people, and that man, in 1993, was Saddam Hussein. HE stood in the way of getting humanitarian aid, by refusing to agree to the monitoring which would assure that the people of Iraq would actually ever SEE any of that aid.
You seem to view the world through a special kind of soda-straw, Redking, and it renders your declarations as hopelessly naive and/or ignorant.
If a simple drugstore in America refused to be audited by the FDA or other agency to make sure narcotics were not being distributed on the streets without prescriptions, that store would be REFUSED the licensing to distribute ANY drugs. With your logic, you would blame the FDA for any problems that store's customers might encounter, ignoring that the entire BLAME sits with the store's owner who refused to comply with reasonable accountability.
Put another way, any firearm manufactured under your "logical constructs" would be engineered NOT to hit the target aimed at, but would instead consistently backfire.
Yup, Clinton didn't kill anyone. It was ok for him to help kill all those people. It's ok that he bombed that country for eight years straight in contravention of international law and denied them medical supplies in constravention of the Geneva Conventions. Just blame it all on Saddam and say those 500k dead children were "worth it". Just keep voting Democrat and keep killing arabs and blame it on someone else. Arab children don't matter. They're not as human as Americans. Right?