PINCH CLINTON

2-9-02 | Mia T

[Mia T]

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,

Calif.

 

• $3,000 painting from Joan Tumpson, Miami.

 

• $2,993 televisions and DVD player from Paul Goldenberg, La Habra,

Calif.

 

• $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,

Calif.

 

• $500 antique book on George Washington, Mr. and Mrs. Bud Yorkin, Los

Angeles.

 

• $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.

HILLARY'S STORY ON HER WHITE HOUSE GIFTS IS FULL OF (LOOP)HOLES, Dick Morris

 

 

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

--HILLARY: I RETURNED GIFTS TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVE

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

 

MORE:

HILLARY: I RETURNED GIFTS TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVE [SOCKS BAGS BAG]

Is hillary clinton's $8M "book advance" a Peter-Principle artifact?

[karebare]

The jacket could use some color...black has such a slimming effect!!

[Mia T]

Q ERTY6 clinton & clinton were utter failures

kleptocratic REALITY-CHECK ping! 

QWER•TY (kwûr'tee) adj.

Of, relating to, or designating the traditional configuration of typewriter or computer keyboard keys. [From the first six letters at the upper left.]

Q ERTY Series: The Inspiration

No Joke

 

Those who trashed the White House were vicious vandals, not merry pranksters.

 

BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN

Monday, January 29, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

The Wall Street Journal

 

What is a "prank"? And when does a prank take on a darker hue and

merit, instead, a less indulgent label--such as "delinquency," or

"vandalism"?

 

These questions, whose answers are rooted in common sense, culture and

civilization, were raised last week by revelations first detailed on the

Internet by Matt Drudge, for whose insolent, frontiersman's approach to

newsgathering we continue to be grateful. He's not always right, and

he's not always elegant, but he bawls his tales from the rafters when

others, more timorous and more conventional, would only mince their

words, or whisper.

 

Although the mainstream press echoed the story only reluctantly, and

sought to draw its sting by downgrading it to the status of rumor, the

contents of the Drudge report seemed to be unquestionably consonant with

the tone, the oh-so-jarring tone, struck, in their departure from the

White House, by the Clinton cohorts--from the strutting

self-congratulation of the ex-president at Andrews Air Force Base (like

a weed, he'd taken root, and like a weed he called to be ripped from the

soil beneath him), to the stripping bare of the former Air Force One by

the ex-presidential locusts.

 

According to reports, outgoing Clinton-Gore staffers at the White House

performed a range of "pranks," including the prizing out from many White

House computer keyboards of the W (Dubya) key, the gluing shut of

drawers on office desks, the infecting of computers with viruses, the

recording of offensive reception messages on the answering machines, the

slashing (yes, slashing) of telephone lines, the loading of pornographic

images on printers and computers, offensive graffiti on corridors and

bathroom walls, the turning upside down of desks, and, as a valedictory

signature, the leaving of a trail of trash across the West Wing.

 

Mr. Drudge, the only one to quantify the damage publicly, has put the

monetary estimate--in terms of its cost to the taxpayer--at $200,000.

There is some speculation that this is a conservative estimate. Peggy

Noonan writes: "You just know when you read about it that it's worse

than anyone is saying--the Bush people being discreet because they don't

want to start out with complaints and finger pointing, the Clinton-Gore

people because it is in their obvious interests to play it down."

 

These actions have been characterized as "pranks" in the press, although

the Washington Post did, in a giveaway line, suggest that there was more

to the story than high jinks. Quoting Clinton(ian) sources, the paper

said:

"The Democratic officials said the actions were meant to be funny, or in

some cases were an outlet for frustration by soon-to-be-unemployed

staffers."

 

 

 

Were these actions "pranks"? Let's parse the situation, and start by

returning to my original question: What is a prank? I think most people

would agree that a prank is an impish action, intended by the prankster

to make the "prankee" feel momentarily sheepish, but not shell-shocked

or outraged. Classic pranks are intended to provoke a prankish payback,

not heated antagonism, or contempt. In other words, the prankster's

motivation lies in a sense of irreverent one-upmanship--in mischief, not

malice. The mental state, or mens rea, of the perpetrator is as central

to the definition of prank as it is to murder or assault.

 

To give you an example: In my days at Oxford, I was witness to a healthy

rivalry between my college, Trinity, and our insufferable neighbors,

Balliol.

Pranks were the currency in which this rivalry was traded. On one

occasion, some chaps from Balliol uprooted the rugby posts from the

Trinity grounds (some four miles away), brought them in a hired lorry to

college, and set them up on the lawns in front of the Trinity chapel.

They chuckled, and, yes, we chuckled too. In reprisal, a handful of

hearties from Trinity stole into Balliol in the pitch of night and

unleashed a sheep in the college library there, the stench of whose

droppings caused the Balliol librarian nearly to faint the next

morning. Again, we chuckled, and they chuckled back. These were

pranks, part of a sequential, good-natured rivalry. There was no malice

aforethought, only a juvenile sense of caper.

 

The other distinction between a prank and an act that exceeds a prank's

bounds is the causing of harm, or damage. In boarding school in India,

as a boy, I once threw a rock at a hive of wild bees that had grown,

high up, on the clock tower of the school's main building. My aim was

unerring, and the hive broke, discharging scores of furious bees in the

direction of my admiring friends. While I was able to scamper to

safety, two boys were stung so badly that they were hospitalized. My

act was not a prank, since it had caused damage. I was publicly caned,

and rightly, by the principal.

 

 

 

In the context of the White House, any harm or damage must be construed

to include the infliction of a burden on the taxpayer--not to mention

the interference, however temporary, with the business of government.

So the hanging up, here and there, of signs that said "Dept.

of Strategery"--a play on the president's bumbling way with words--was a

prank worthy of my confreres at Trinity or Balliol, or even of the frat

house at which our "frat boy" president earned his spurs.

 

But the slashing of phone lines? The gluing shut of desk drawers? The

gouging out from keyboards of the W key? The infection of computers

with viruses? The redirection of official phone lines, on which the

public and government rely? These, I fear, violate the prankster's

rulebook. They caused damage; lines, desks, computers and keyboards

needed repair and replacement. My money, and yours, was used for this

repair.

 

Most shabby of all, however, was the perpetrators' intent. A true

prank--a prank properly defined--is carried out in a jocular spirit.

Pranks are escapades, monkeyshines. They're not acts of venom or spite,

of resentment or ill-will. If the actor is malefic, he is not a

prankster but a vandal. He is, in truth, a delinquent.

 

That's what I learned in grade school, and I commend that interpretation

to you.

 

Mr. Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays.

I would argue with Mr. Varadarajan's contention that mens rea must be considered and that the absence of malicious intent reduces the act to mere prank. Such an argument 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.

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.

Let's start with typewriters."

- Frank Lloyd Wright

Someone recently tested the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays of Will Shakespeare, but all they got were the plays of bill clinton.

 

 

[Slyfox]

HILLARY: I RETURNED GIFTS TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Notice she didn't say ALL the gifts, that rascaly beast.

[StarFan]

...prompted complaints from GAO chief David Walker, who told the News, "they want us to do more work than is even reasonable."

Is this RINO referring to Enron (sarcasm)? I'm still at a loss to understand why the GAO is involved in Enron to begin with. Clearly the area of vandalism is within their scope and I don't consider it unreasonable to expect they fulfill their duty.

It's not clear whether the White House's newly aggressive attitude will translate into action in the office of the U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District, which has been accused of footdragging in its probe into the Clinton Pardongate scandal. We can dream, can't we? Although to finally see justice seems to be a dream that I don't wish to be beguiled by.

[RichInOC]

I think you meant to say "punch". Hope this helps.

[RichInOC]

I'm kidding, of course. Who would want to soil their fists on that face, anyway? God only knows where it's been.

[martian_22]

Bump for later reading.

[Faith]

Bump for Mia. Nice work!

[kassie]

Thanks for the info.

[DoctorMichael]

My God, woman, are you prolific! Bump for MiaT.

[edwin hubble]

Thanks for the heads-up. Great work. You are too much.

[backhoe]

This will be the first link I put in that DUBOB update- been off the board since noon yesterday trying to get an old 486 DOS/Win 3.1 PC set up as a spare browser...
( Geez! Return with us now to those Thrilling Days of Yesteryear... "Abort, Retry, or Fail?"-- )

[f.Christian]

In answer to liberal/libertarian reality---the... realatarians!!

[Mia T]

clinton-clinton-gore reinvention-of-government scheme screwed America clinton, clinton & gore were utter failures

The Bard REALITY-CHECK Q ERTY6 BUMP!

Someone recently tested the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the

plays of Will Shakespeare, but all they got were the plays of bill clinton.

 

Thou art arm'd that hath thy crook'd schemers straight.

Cudgel thy brains no more, the clinton plots are great.

Mia T, On Neutered and Neutering, by Mia T and Edward Zehr (EZ)

 

clinton-clinton-gore reinvention-of-government schemata

by Mia T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[be-baw]

One could spend hours studying this post to fully understand and appreciate all that you've included.

Regarding the issue of the Bush team leaning on the GAO to investigate the vandalism, however--why now? It's been over a year since the trail has started to grow cold. What are they going to find now that couldn't more easily have found in January/February, 2001? And, what are they going to do once they've assessed all the damages? Will anyone be prosecuted? I think not. Will they go after the (presumably) low level staffers who left porn in the copy machine, or who rendered the "W" keys on keyboards inoperable?

Given their initial response that it was no big deal, 'twould seem that the Bush team are leaving themselves open to charges of vindictiveness here. If they were interested at all in meting justice to the scoundrels of the previous administration, there are other, much more heinous, acts that could (and should) be scrutinized.

[be-baw]

This will be the first link I put in that DUBOB update

I would greatly appreciate you pinging me when you post that.

been off the board since noon yesterday trying to get an old 486 DOS/Win 3.1 PC set up as a spare browser...

Let me know if you need any bubble gum or rubber bands to keep it all together...

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Yes, it does take time to digest everything MiaT produces - but it is worth it when you can take the time to do so. But she also presents an accumulative of the Clinton Crime Years in such a graphically intense and unique manner, you can pick and choose at each presentation which line of criminal behavior you would like to focus upon and just absorb one presentation at a time.

I, too, wondered about why after a year the trashing of the White House is finally going to be looked into - seriously - I hope. Whyever it is, I am very glad that it is.

And, HLL - (hello at the Olympics) - and Mia T - had the Clinton cleptocracy nailed - with MiaT's drawing a year before the theft of White House furniture was known by the world - an amazingly prescient presentation!

MiaT = is there more regarding this information that you can reveal?

"And yet, according to a reliable-source friend of mine, even back in those days the wife had designs on the White House furnishings; she had already acquired the nasty habit of pilfering from the WH drapery fund."

?????

[SkyPilot]

Mia T BUMP!

[Quilla]

What a post! Madam's mu-mu morphs magnificantly into the missing menagerie.

I believe the fact that the Clinton's have gotten away with every scheme, crime, and indecent act leaves conservatives with a horrid taste in our mouths. I would love to see them held accountable for one unsavory instance or act. Our President and First Lady entered the White House with funds (and keys) held back by the GAO and entered the Clinton cesspool - a filthy, disgusting, morally corrupt environment. The magnanimous way President and Mrs. Bush handled this slap in the face is a testiment to their character and I envy their control.

But the recent meeting of Clintonites, held for whatever vanities the rapist deems important, released the hounds of his administration into the waiting arms of the lamestream media. Their attempts to divert responsibility, undermine our President at time of war, and rewrite their do-nothing policies into passable excuses may have been the last straw. For just a moment, I'd love to see the President take his gloves off and slap Hillary.