Posted on 04/20/2004 10:39:11 AM PDT by Mike Bates
According to the Los Angeles Times, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is looking into a Hollywood fundraiser held for Hillary Clinton in 2000. Moreover, the Justice Department is also investigating the event and examining the actions of Senator Clinton’s former finance executive.
These inquiries bring to mind a profound insight from the noted philosopher Yogi Berra: It’s deja vu all over again.
I wish the FEC and Justice Department would just forget it. Probing the Clintons again will be as unproductive as trying to convert Teddy Kennedy to a teetotaler.
Sure, hearing that one of the Clintons is under investigation initially brings a joy, an exhilarating gladness of heart, to those of us who serve the vast right wing conspiracy.
That elation, however, inevitably turns to melancholy when, as always, the Clintons get away with it.
And get away with it they do. No matter the scandal – Whitewater, Cattlegate, Filegate, Pardongate, Travelgate, Fostergate, fund raising irregularities, Paula Jones, Monica what’s-her name – they constantly manage to slither out of harm’s way.
Once in a while they may get a wrist slapped. Bill Clinton was fined $90,000 for lying under oath and obstructing justice. He had to pay an $850,000 settlement in the Paula Jones lawsuit. He was disbarred in Arkansas and prohibited from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court.
That is hardly enough for conservatives. Many of us want nothing less than to see him and his Mz doing the perp walk in orange jump suits with DOC emblazoned on the back. At least that’s what I’d like to see.
Realistically, that’s never going to happen. A principal reason is that the Clintons and their cronies suffer acute amnesia whenever they’re called to testify.
Consider, for example, what happened during one of the scandals. According to the Washington Times: "In the portions of President Clinton’s Jan. 17 (1998) deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, President Clinton’s memory failed him 267 times."
That was quite a performance for a Rhodes scholar, particularly one whose close friend Vernon Jordan claimed has "an extraordinary memory."
Even more surprising, perhaps, is the feeble recall of the world’s smartest woman. Here’s part of Mz Clinton’s written answers concerning the White House Travel Office scandal (italics added):
"At some point during the first part of May 1993, I believe I became aware from Vincent Foster or Harry Thomason of concerns about financial mismanagement in the White House Travel Office. I do not remember precisely what the concerns were . . . I had no personal knowledge of or direct involvement with that office, and, indeed, I do not recall even knowing of the existence of the Travel Office until sometime in the first two weeks of May. I have a vague recollection. . .but I do not recall how or whether these complaints specifically related to the Travel Office. . . . . I cannot recall specific conversations with [Mr. Thomason] regarding the White House Travel Office or its personnel, but as indicated above, it is possible that at some point in May 1993, he may have mentioned to me issues of possible financial mismanagement in the Travel Office. I do not recall what, if anything, I may have said to him on this topic. I do not recall saying to him that I was ‘ready to fire’ the Travel Office employees."
Not all the Clintonites claim poor memories to avoid trouble. Some of them prefer the Fifth Amendment, which includes the right not to testify against oneself.
When Clinton appointee and Democratic National Committee official John Huang was questioned about his role as a possible Chinese agent and what he did at the Commerce Department, he invoked the Fifth Amendment. More than a thousand times. Even when asked merely to identify his former boss in a picture.
What do you do with people like that? We know that the Clintons have long surrounded themselves with slavish bootlickers. All appear fully prepared to get tossed overboard by their hero and/or shero at any time. Their only life preservers are implausible memory lapses and the Fifth Amendment.
The frustrating thing is that, like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick, it works time and again. The main difference is that the investigators are the ones who end up falling down.
So let’s just get off the Clintons’ case. There’s no point in looking into anything they do. They are so completely corrupt, so absolutely amoral, that they’ll do or say anything to evade exposure. Their rigid code of silence will protect them.
Why waste any more time, money or effort? Why lift our hopes to simply have them cruelly dashed yet again?
Keep 'em coming. Get the truth out no matter what.
When Hillary tries to run in 2008, people will need to know what she really is before they vote. Honesty is always the best policy.
Expose a liberal fascist to destroy a liberal fascist.
Legally , maybe, but it eats away at the public psyche. The public will know truth when they hear it, criminal charges or not.
They'll hear the name "Clinton" and cringe.
The more investigations, the better as far as I am concerned. I would kick in some money to see that the investigations NEVER end until the end.
I find it interesting that the Federal Prosecutor, (her name was White) dropped the case, while serving under Ms. Jamie Gore-Lick. Now a GRAND JURY is investigating the Marc Rich case, illegal campaign violations, etc.
Like the rest of us (already) do!
I'm not certain that it does. It seems to me that lots of folks see each instance of her not getting nailed as evidence that she and the lug she's "married" to are innocent victims of baseless investigations. How many times have you seen Carville and the other robots rail about millions being spent to investigate and nothing ever, ever being found? I think that is eating away at the public psyche.
I'd be all in favor of throwing the book at her, if it were possible. But the reality is that rather than that, what she gets is an official finding of insufficient evidence to prosecute. This, IMHO, is often interpreted as her being found "innocent" yet again.
The Leftist media won't devote much time to Hillary's latest. Like Jello, there's always room for Bush bashing when it comes to the fair and balanced coverage we've come to expect.
You, sir, are an optimist. Thank you.
Last polled approval ratings:
Bill - 23%
Hillary- 36%
They can't seem to get any numbers above those.
Thanks you for the info. I believe their lack of popularity (which certainly isn't reflected among rank-and-file 'Rats) has a great deal to do with their unabashed liberalism.
Quite Sincerely...MUD
They're no longer in charge. We are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.