Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Expensive China; the clinton legacy
10.17.03 | Mia T

Posted on 10/17/2003 4:48:07 AM PDT by Mia T

EXPENSIVE CHINA: the clinton legacy

by Mia T, 10.17.03



Double, trouble TOIL for HUBBELL;

Fire burn and cauldron bubble.


THIRD WITCH (a stealth Conservative)

Scale of BONIOR, tooth of WOLF,

HILLARY'S memory, maw and gulf

A ravin'd salt-sea shark,

Ears of the MARTINS digg'd i' the dark,

Gall of BILL, and McCURRY'S slips

"Noes" of LANNY, and HUBBELL'S lips,

Finger of ICKES ditch-deliver'd by a drab,

Make the gruel thick and slab:

Add thereto a Chinese squadron,

For the ingredients of our cauldron.



Double, trouble TOIL for HUBBELL;

Fire burn and cauldron bubble.



Cool it with cash and blood,

Then the charm is firm and good.


Enter Lady MacClinton


Mia T, MacClinton
Act IV, Scene I

It is no secret that Hillary's past takes us through a pile of hard, cold cash from the Chinese army, Chinese army agents roaming the White House and photos with a wide variety of scoundrels.

For example, the one prominent name missing from Hillary's recent "tell-all" book is Riady. Mrs. Clinton failed to mention the Riady family at all. One would get the impression that the Riadys were not present in the Clinton White House. Hillary Clinton certainly overlooked listing the table settings and menus for White House dinners with the Riadys.

The Riadys knew the Clintons from their Arkansas years, when Moctar bought out a local bank. Moctar and his son James were close to Bill and Hillary through 1992 and into the White House. Moctar even owned the firm selected by Hillary Clinton to replace the White House travel office.

Riady and Hillary

Moctar and James Riady played a key role in bringing the Clintons to power in Washington. The Indonesian billionaire and his Lippo banking company managed to contribute large sums of money to the Clintons' campaigns even though it was against the law. Moctar's gardener contributed $450,000 directly to Bill Clinton in a single check. James Riady, Moctar's son, eventually pleaded guilty to campaign violations.

The connections between the Riadys and the Clintons have a much more sinister theme than simple foreign money inside U.S. elections. Testimony before the U.S. Senate revealed Moctar Riady's involvement in Chinese espionage. The Lippo Group is in fact a joint venture of China Resources, a trading and holding company "wholly owned" by the Chinese communist government and used as a front for Chinese espionage operations.

Mrs. Clinton not only knew the Riadys but took their money as well. To prove my point I need only to cite photographic evidence. Her picture with Moctar Riady is certainly damning evidence of a relationship that spanned several bank accounts and two decades. It is often said that a picture tells a thousand words. However, Hillary's pictures not only tell stories left out of her book but they also netted $10,000 each for the DNC in illegal donations.

Hillary's Most-Wanted

Mrs. Clinton has left us with a wide selection of photo evidence. Mrs. Clinton has had her photo taken with drug dealer Jorge Cabrera. Jorge donated a load of drug money to the DNC in order to get close to the first lady. Jorge is currently serving federal time for smuggling 3,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States.

Ironically, Jorge and Hillary were photographed in front of the White House Christmas tree.

Mrs. Clinton also has a virtual personal photo gallery of modern crime. It is almost as if she wanted to collect snapshots of herself and major crime figures.

For example, the co-presidents were photographed together with Macao criminal boss Ng Lapseng. Ng makes most of his money through the female-empowering career of prostitution.

Ng owns the Fortuna Hotel in Macao. You can stay overnight at the Fortuna for a reasonable price. In addition, you can also purchase the services of a Fortuna hostess for an additional nightly or hourly fee.

Ng frequently visited the Clintons with his close friend Charlie "Yah-Lin" Trie. It was through Charlie Trie that Ng also donated thousands of dollars to the Clintons.

Ng's Fortuna Hotel showed up again later in official State Department charges against the satellite division of Hughes. The Fortuna turned out to be a front for a Chinese army company that leased a Hughes satellite.

Hillary Clinton's close relationship with the Chinese army is all too well documented. The first lady was clearly involved with Chinese agent Johnny Chung and the penetration of Col. Lui of Chinese army unit COSTIND, the Chinese Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense.

According to the GAO, COSTIND "oversees development of China's weapon systems and is responsible for identifying and acquiring telecommunications technology applicable for military use."

Johnny Chung also had several photo sessions with both Clintons. Many of the photos appear in Mr. Chung's beer advertisements. Chung passed Chinese army money to the DNC through Mrs. Clinton. In return, a very young and attractive female PLA colonel and COSTIND computer information warfare specialist was allowed inside the White House to meet Bill Clinton.

Hillary's Albatross
Charles R. Smith
Friday, Sept. 5, 2003

I believe that this espionage case -- the Chinese -- is the worst in the history of this country. They got just about everything that we have and you'll see it in the out years in their development of their weapons.

HEAR Sen. Richard Shelby

China space shot has military implications

China launches first manned space flight
Reuters ^ | 10-14-03

Wed 15 October, 2003 02:07 BST

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has launched its first manned space flight from the Gobi desert, Xinhua news agency says, in its bid to become the third country to put a man in orbit after the former Soviet Union and the United States.

The Shenzhou V, or "Divine Ship V", was expected to orbit the Earth 14 times before returning after about 21 hours.

Xinhua said the craft carried astronaut Yang Liwei, 38. The launch on Wednesday, 42 years after the Soviet Union put the first man into space, marked a milestone for China's secretive space programme, which analysts say has its sights set on a manned mission to the moon.



 hillary talks: ON CHINA

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

missus clinton's REAL virtual office update

TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Arkansas; US: California; US: Illinois; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bill911; charlesrsmith; charlieyahlintrie; china; chinagate; chinaresources; chinesetakeout; chinesetakepout; clinton911; clintoncorruption; clintonlegacy; clintons911; clintontreason; collui; costind; hillary911; jamesriady; johnhuang; johnnychung; lippo; lippobank; moctarriady; nglapseng; notratrulock; pla; reddragonrising; riady; theterrorismstupid


Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992*


*Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio


LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Three weeks from now--two weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and you're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country ...

On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world...And if a crisis comes up, ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision?

And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.

And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your support. And may God bless the United States of America.



play tape


1 posted on 10/17/2003 4:48:08 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Clinton in treason's shadow ANNOTATED ^ | Thursday 19 June 2003 | Peter Zhang

Seeing as Hillary Clinton's book has decided to mock history in an attempt to clear a path to the White House,

I think it behoves us to once again draw attention to the enormous damage her husband wilfully did to America's national security.

Several years ago I put forward the view that Clinton's cooperation with Beijing's intelligence operations were so extensive that it could be decided in the interest of saving the presidential office to suppress evidence that might directly incriminate Clinton and some of his associates. I also stated that "the damage to American national security is very deep and longstanding".

The release of the Cox Report tends to support the first statement and most certainly confirms the second.

play tape

In addition, FBI wire taps appear to have confirmed that Jiang Zemin approved the cover stories for the PLA's money conduits. Whatever Jiang did was done with the knowledge of Zhu Rongji and the rest of the leadership. It is now believed that FBI investigations also led to the conclusion that Clinton was fully aware of the details, including payments of what amounted to nothing less than bribes.

As I have said more than once: "The Americans gave Clinton the key to the candy store and he sold it to Beijing." And this, readers, is basically what the Cox Committee discovered. My old English teacher used to say that "the devil is in the details". I also said that "in accordance with my previous assessment, that it is these very details that will be withheld from the American public." This is exactly what has been done.

Despite the spin Clinton

and his horde of media friends

tried to put on this terrible situation, it still boils down to treason.

Observing the Clinton propaganda machine, even from this distance, I predicted that, using its media allies, it would launch a multi-pronged attack: 1. It would claim that most of the damage was done during previous administrations. 2. That most of spying occurred in nuclear facilities. 3. In any case, the loss of American military secrets to China represent only a marginal threat to national security. Again, I was right. What is more, none of these excuses can withstand an honest appraisal of the facts, which a quick examination will easily reveal.

Number one is simply not true. If it were, why was Chung given a top security clearance and access to the White House at the suggestion of Chinese officials? I made clear elsewhere that Beijing laid down conditions that gave it access to all of America's secrets. To fulfil this condition Clinton abolished Department of Energy internal controls that restricted access to sensitive facilities thus allowing Chinese intelligence operatives free reign.

In addition, and this is of critical importance, Clinton virtually abolished controls on exports to China of high-tech equipment that had important military applications. Moreover, to make it even easier to access this equipment and knowledge Clinton transferred responsibility for technology exports from defence to the Commerce Department. Why? Because this had the effect of removing these technologies classified status.

What is not classified cannot therefore be secret. This is the Clintons' devious legalistic logic at work. "How could I have sold secrets", he can now claim, "when they weren't secret?"

This allowed certain companies to sell formerly classified equipment to the People's Liberation Army in return for making heavy donations to the Democrats &emdash; especially one in particular. One would have to be incredibly naive, or fanatically partisan, to think all of this was due to administrative ineptitude. The important fact here is that previous presidents did not sell their country's secrets.

Defence number two that espionage of any significance only occurred in nuclear laboratories is made risible by a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Such a defence is the fruit of desperation. The third defence that any damage to US security is only marginal is worthless.

Marginal or not it would still have unnecessarily put at risk the lives of a great many Americans. Moreover, this too is a hollow defence. By selling this technology to the PLA Clinton strengthened the hand of China's crude nationalists at the expense of more liberal forces. The longer it took the PLA to develop these technologies the more time Chinese liberals would have had to consolidate their influence.

Clinton has also saved Beijing an enormous amount of time and resources, which can now be put to other military uses.

Even if the damage has been greatly over-stated, it should not be used to conceal the fact that treason is treason. An American who did far less by giving secrets to Israel is now serving a very long prison term. Clinton should do no less. Unfortunately this will never happen. I fear the American people could not live with the disgrace of knowing that a president had betrayed them, even though the networks apparently can.

Americans are now confronted with the spectacle of Hillary Clinton cynically trying lay down the foundations for a presidential bid. This woman is far worse than her husband ever was. God help America, not to mention the rest of us, should she manage to fulfil her overriding ambition.

The Manchurian Candidate?
Or Being There?

by Mia T


The Republicans' latest talking point is that the breach of national security enabled by clinton-gore must be simple incompetence, that the concept that anyone in government would commit treason is too outrageous even to contemplate.

If the Republicans believe what they are saying, then they are morons.
If they don't believe what they are saying, then they are traitors, too.

Outrageousness is an essential element of clinton-gore corruption. The clinton (and gore) crimes -- perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, rape, murder -- and now treason -- are so outrageous that they allow clinton hacks to reasonably brand all clinton accusers clinton-hating neo-Nazi crazies.

Yet privately few clintonites would deny that bill clinton facilitated China espionage. Their only question: "Why?"

Some call clinton a quisling, a Manchurian Candidate, bought off in Little Rock by Riady and company decades ago (and much too cheaply, according to his Chinese benefactors), trading our national security for his political power. This argument is persuasive but incomplete; clinton, a certifiable megalomaniac, is driven ultimately by his solipsistic, messianic world view and by that which ultimately quashes all else -- his toxic legacy.

William J. Broad suggests (Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes, The New York Times, May 30, 1999) that clinton had another reason to empower China and disembowel America. Broad argues that clinton sought to disseminate our atomic secrets proactively in order to implement his counterintuitive, postmodern, quite inane epistemological theory, namely, that, contrary to currently held dogma, knowledge is not power after all -- that, indeed, quite the contrary is the case.

Broad writes in part:

Since 1993, officials say, the Energy Department's "openness initiative"
has released at least 178 categories of atom secrets. By contrast, the
1980s saw two such actions. The unveilings have included no details of
specific weapons, like the W-88, a compact design Chinese spies are
suspected of having stolen from the weapons lab at Los Alamos, N.M. But
they include a slew of general secrets.
Its overview of the disclosures, "Restricted Data Declassification
Decisions," dated January 1999 and more than 140 pages long, lists such
things as how atom bombs can be boosted in power, key steps in making
hydrogen bombs, the minimum amount (8.8 pounds) of plutonium or uranium
fuel needed for an atom bomb and the maximum time it takes an exploding
atomic bomb to ignite an H-bomb's hydrogen fuel (100 millionths of a
No grade-B physicist from any university could figure this stuff. It
took decades of experience gained at a cost of more than $400 billion.
The release of the secrets started as a high-stakes bet that openness
would lessen, not increase, the world's vulnerability to nuclear arms
and war. John Holum, who heads arms control at the State Department,
told Congress last year that the test ban "essentially eliminates" the
possibility of a renewed international race to develop new kinds of
nuclear arms.
And the devaluing of nuclear secrets, highlighted by the rush of atomic
declassifications, was seen as a prerequisite to the ban's achievement.
The symbolism alone was potent, officials say. Openness let them
advertise a dramatic new state of affairs where hidden actions were to
be kept to a minimum, replacing decades of secrecy and paranoia.
"The United States must stand as leader," O'Leary told a packed news
conference in December 1993 upon starting the process. "We are
declassifying the largest amount of information in the history of the
Critics, however, say the former secrets are extremely valuable to
foreign powers intent on making nuclear headway. Gaffney, the former
Reagan official, disparaged the giveaway as "dangling goodies in front
of people to get them to sign up into our arms-control agenda."
Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense
Council in Washington, a private group that has criticized the openness,
said the declassifications had swept away so many secrets that the
combination had laid bare the central mysteries.
"In terms of the phenomenology of nuclear weapons," Cochran said, "the
cat is out of the bag."
Even before the China scandal broke, experts outside the administration
faulted the openness as promoting the bomb's spread. Last year, a
bipartisan commission of nine military specialists led by former Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the "extensive declassification" of
secrets had inadvertently aided the global spread of deadly weapons.
["inadvertently" ???!!!!]  
The ultimate brake on nuclear advances was to be the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, which clinton began to push for as soon as he took office in
1993, hailing it as the hardest-fought, longest-sought prize in the
history of arms control.

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain...(or, alternatively, to fail to understand that the underlying premise of MAD (mutually assured destruction) is the absense of madness.)

But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton 's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton 's campaigns, clinton 's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton 's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton 's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another desensitizing clinton apologia by The New York Times.

But even if clinton is a thoroughgoing (albeit postmodern) fool, China-gate is still treason. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does"applies.

(The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or mens rea runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.)

Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone" (if he must say so himself), clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.

According to James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, "the legacy codes and the warhead data that goes with them" [-- apparently stolen from the Los Alamos weapons lab by scientist, Wen Ho Lee aided and abetted by bill clinton , hillary clinton , the late Ron Brown, Sandy Berger, Hazel O'Leary, Janet Reno, Eric Holder and others in the clinton administration (not to mention congressional clinton accomplices Glenn, Daschle, Bumpers, Harkin, Boxer, Feinstein, Lantos, Levin. Lautenberg, Torricelli et al.) --] "could be particularly valuable for a country, like China, that has signed onto the nuclear test ban treaty and relies solely on computer simulations to upgrade and maintain its nuclear arsenal [especially when combined with the supercomputers that clinton sold to China to help them finish the job]. The legacy codes are now used to maintain the American nuclear arsenal through computer simulation.

Most of Lee's transfers occurred in 1994 and 1995, just before China signed the test ban treaty in 1996, according to American officials."

Few who have observed clinton would argue against the proposition that this legacy-obsessed megalomaniac would trade our legacy codes for a rehabilitated legacy in a Monica minute and to hell with "the children."


2 posted on 10/17/2003 4:57:15 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth; Gail Wynand; looscannon; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; Slyfox; ...
the clintons in treason's shadow PING
Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism

How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror

(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

 Q ERTY6It won't s-p-i-n utter failureBUMP

(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

3 posted on 10/17/2003 5:05:04 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
4 posted on 10/17/2003 5:25:45 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Hillary's election to President will start a civil war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Good work as always, Mia.
5 posted on 10/17/2003 5:33:55 AM PDT by OKSooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
6 posted on 10/17/2003 5:40:39 AM PDT by Doctor Raoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T; JohnHuang2; MeeknMing; Alamo-Girl; shaggy eel; Byron_the_Aussie
Mia, the star quality of this post surpasses even ... um ... your previous best!

And no other ever even comes close.

Thank you.

Warmest -- Brian

BTTT! Ping; Ping; Ping; Ping; Ping;
7 posted on 10/17/2003 5:59:18 AM PDT by Brian Allen ( Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

8 posted on 10/17/2003 6:14:05 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Check out the Texas Chicken D 'RATS!:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
Shouldn't Diane Feinstein be included in the China connection. After all, hasn't she and her husband benefited from China?
9 posted on 10/17/2003 6:21:55 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
You beat me to it. ;)

expensive china deux

A Shower Of Gifts For Hillary And Bill

cover image

Why did the Clintons troll for freebies they can surely afford?

Last month, when newspapers reported that Hillary Rodham Clinton had registered for gifts like a bride at a department store, many of her friends insisted Hillary simply wouldn't do something that tacky. Now that the President and First Lady have filed their annual financial-disclosure report, we have proof they would. Amid the DVD player and chandelier were $22,000 in china and $18,000 in silverware. Only one gift looks like a quid pro quo: furniture valued at $7,375 from Denise Rich, the ex-wife of Marc Rich, the fugitive tycoon pardoned last week.

The rest just smells bad. Most of us look at the platter from Aunt Katie with a wave of affection. Can you really get a warm glow from a place setting sent by a contributor you barely know who's angling for your attention? I'd stack my dishes on the floor before I'd accept a china cabinet from Walter Kaye, the insurance mogul who also delivered intern Monica Lewinsky to the West Wing.

What's most revealing here is not the gifts themselves--although it is hard to picture one adult giving another a sofa--but how horrified people were at the very suggestion that Hillary would lean on supporters to furnish her house. The Clintons have long dismissed the criticism of those in the vast right-wing conspiracy whom they don't respect. But how do you dismiss the views of those you do respect--who insist you would never sink so low, until they are silenced by proof of your grasping?

No prior First Family has reported a $190,000-plus haul in their last year (the Bushes only reported $52,000; Ronald Reagan's friends bought him a $2.5 million house, which he rented for $15,000 a month). While the givers may have hoped their generosity might remain a little secret between them and the recipients, the Clintons, well aware of disclosure requirements, had no such expectation. Even as Hillary was registering for the china (Spode) and the silver (Faberge), she understood that the day would come when she would have to admit to the world what she had done. In the absence of a law (the Senate gift ban didn't take effect for Hillary until Jan. 3) or an active conscience, you might think shame would rein in the Clintons. How many people would park in a handicapped space if they knew the next morning's paper would carry a picture of it? Answer: no one not in need of therapy.

Most Presidents are felled by failures of their office--Carter by the hostages, Nixon by Watergate, Johnson by Vietnam--but the Clintons have been brought down almost entirely by their sexual and financial escapades, the former his, the latter hers. Hillary's lapses have been explained away by her husband's low pay in Arkansas. Yet by most standards, the Clintons lived large in Little Rock; she was a partner in one of the city's leading law firms, they called the Governor's mansion home, and had only one child to put through college. Still, she got the family enmeshed in a shabby get-rich-quick land deal and cattle futures, which led to the Whitewater investigation, which led to Ken Starr, which led to impeachment. The most interest Governor Clinton ever showed in Whitewater was when he famously dripped sweat on James McDougal's office chair after a jog, stopping by for a look at the books at Hillary's behest. Ever angling, the Clintons actually took a tax deduction for donating used underwear (boxers or briefs not specified) to charity.

Here is the real tragedy: Hillary doesn't realize that finally she is rich, with her $8 million book advance and married to a man with massive earning potential. Just in salary and pension, the Clintons bring in about $300,000. So why did they debase themselves for gifts as if they were struggling newlyweds starting out? Some on the givers' list told NBC they weren't "wanting to give her special farewell presents," as a Clinton spokesman had claimed. They said they had been contacted by political supporter Rita Pynoos, who is married to a California developer, to send the gift registry a $5,000 check. Hillary didn't fill a pillowcase with the sterling after the last state dinner. But trolling for soup ladles you can easily afford is as irrational as the Fifth Avenue matron who filches a vial of perfume from the counter at Bergdorf's. Only Freud could sort it out.

Maybe the specter of giving up Hail to the Chief and motorcades puts you back in the nursery, frantic that your mother isn't going to warm your milk. But how can you ever have a home when it's partly filled with loot from strangers? There may be no connection between the disgraceful pardon Clinton gave Marc Rich and the coffee table Denise Rich gave the Clintons. But I'd never be comfortable putting my feet up on it.

Designs on designs...
Although a reliable source had previously warned me about the wife's designs on the people's designs -- she had apparently acquired the nasty habit of pilfering from the White House drapery fund -- when I created the following metaphoric musing a year before the clintons "moved," I never imagined that she would -- that they would -- in real life -- in real time -- actually swipe the sofa.
Smaller objects neatly tuck-able in nuncupative deals & unnumbered Swiss accounts, without question...


Jan. 1, 2000
hillary's "interior" design scheme
(an animated how-to)

by Mia T

copyright Mia T 2000

The White House Booty
Letters .. thanked Lee and Joy Ficks for their 1993 donation of a kitchen set to the White House. Joy Ficks said she was surprised to hear the Clintons are keeping the kitchen set as a personal gift.

White House Gifts List

• $19,900 two sofas, an easy chair and an ottoman from Steve Mittman,
New York.
• $3,650 kitchen table and four chairs from Lee Ficks, Cincinnati.
• $2,843 sofa from Brad Noe, High Point, N.C.
• $1,170 lamps from Stuart Schiller, Hialeah, Fla.
• $1,000 needlepoint rug from David Martinous, Little Rock.
Following are gifts the Clintons received in 2000 and are paying for:
• $9,433 china cabinet, chandelier and a copy of President Lincoln's
Cooper Union speech from Walter and Selma Kaye, New York.
• $7,375 two coffee tables and two chairs from Denise Rich, New York.
• $7,000 dining room table, server and golf club from Mr. and Mrs. Ron
Dozoretz, Washington.
• $6,282 two carpets from Glen Eden Carpets, Calhoun, Ga.
• $5,000 rug from Martin Patrick Evans, Chicago.
• $5,000 china from Mr. and Mrs. Bill Brandt, Winnetka, Ill.
• $4,994 flatware from Ghada Irani, Los Angeles.
• $4,992 china from Iris Cantor, New York.
• $4,967 flatware, Edith Wasserman, Beverly Hills, Calif.
• $4,967 flatware, Mr. and Mrs. Morris Pynoos, Beverly Hills, Calif.
• $4,787 china from Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson, Los Angeles.
• $4,920 china from Mr. and Mrs. Steven Spielberg, Universal City,
• $3,000 painting from Joan Tumpson, Miami.
• $2,993 televisions and DVD player from Paul Goldenberg, La Habra,
• $2,400 dining room chairs from Arthur Athis, Los Angeles.
• $2,110 china and jacket from Jill and Ken Iscol, Pound Ridge, N.Y.
• $1,588 flatware from Myra Greenspun, Green Valley, Nev.
• $595 pantsuit and sweater, Margaret O'Leary, San Francisco.
• $524 golf driver and golf balls from Richard Helmstetter, Carlsbad,
• $500 antique book on George Washington, Mr. and Mrs. Bud Yorkin, Los
• $499 golf driver from Ely Callaway, Carlsbad, Calif.
• $450 leather jacket from Vin Gupta, Omaha.
• $350 golf driver, Jack Nicholson, Beverly Hills, Calif.
• $350 framed tapestry, Mr. and Mrs. Vo Viet Thanh, Vietnam.
• $340 two sweaters from Robin Carnahan and Nina Canci, St. Louis.
• $300 flatware from Colette D'Etremont, New Brunswick, Canada.
• $300 painting of Buddy, Brian B. Ready, Chappaqua, N.Y.


Chair Lift
Among the gifts that former president Bill Clinton says he is keeping as
personal presents he accepted last year are $28,000 worth of furnishings
that documents and interviews indicate were given to the National Park
Service in 1993 as part of the permanent White House collection...
Two of the furniture makers whose donations Clinton took with him on
leaving the White House last month say they gave them to the White House
as part of a widely publicized, $396,000 redecoration of the executive
mansion and not to Clinton personally.
"When we've been asked to donate, it was always hyphenated with the
words, " 'White House,' " New York manufacturer Steve Mittman said of
his family-owned business, which gave two sofas, an easy chair and an
ottoman, worth $19,900 and listed by Clinton as part of the gifts he
took with him. "To us, it was not a donation to a particular person."
Gifts Were Not Meant for Clintons, Some Donors Say
Sen. Clinton made another assertion - one that is equally misleading.

She contends she was not obliged to report the first Leiber bag she received "because it was received before the Clintons entered the White House."

But this bag, valued at $3,500, was received after the election and during the transition and therefore obviously was related to the Clinton presidency.



But he said the Socks purse was given to Clinton during the transition in late 1992, before her husband took office...


TRANSLATION: An earlier example of the clinton post-election/pre-swearing-in klepto-bribery scheme...



10 posted on 10/17/2003 6:31:58 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
Thanks for the heads up!
11 posted on 10/17/2003 7:17:33 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Good morning Mia
thanks for the ping
12 posted on 10/17/2003 8:42:38 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BeforeISleep; Mia T
I don't think I'd ever trust someone who would dump the family cat as soon as the book the written, the job as WH trailer trash ended, and the photo opportunities of the little family with a beloved cat ceased to have impact.

But then...personally...I have always thought that only thing one needed to know about the clintons to cement in their character was the Travelgate.

Not surprised that ol Mochtar's firm owned the machine that filled in for Billy Dale and the 30 yr odd tenure his company once held at the WH.

hillary needed someone there to lie about travel plans and expenses and she needed a money funnel close at hand.

When you enter our National Art Gallery-the hall of Presidents cannot be entered without first passing a sickening bust of billy the rapist with the gold plaque below reading 'gift of Mochtar and James Riady'

I suggested to a museum employee, several yrs ago, that clinton's bust was missing pigeon poop and needed to be moved outside. He didn't understand my point, so next time I go, I'm thinking of taking a little pigeonpoop along, and putting it where it deserves to be displayed.

Can't think of a better way of expressing HOW MUCH I resent the clinton's selling our nation out to foreigners for money, and using that money, illegally, to win elections illegally.

The clintons are trash.

13 posted on 10/17/2003 9:53:25 PM PDT by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson