A Whitewater Judgment

The Wall Street Journal ^ | March 25, 2002

[VinnyTex]

Independent Counsel Robert Ray's release last week of his final Whitewater report recalls an unhappy era in American politics. But the report's many facts, some of them new, are a useful reminder that the battles over Clintonian ethics were well worth fighting.

[RLK]

Nixon couldn't survive Watergate because he had a sense of shame and didn't burn the tapes. The Clintons had no such moral qualms.

-----------------------

I have always admorered Nixon for his sense of shame, remorse, and personal conflict. Given the condition of the country and the pressures upon his, his actions were somewhat understandable.

In the Clintons I see only hard defiant psychopathic arrogance.

[Mike K]

There are 2 sets of laws. Sad but true. We were sold out by Lott, Hatch, Armey, Hastert and certainly not least among them, Robert Ray.

[Rockiesrider]

Thats not all together true. If you remember, Nixon wanted to stay and fight it out. Its only after enough Republicans crossed over and announced that they would vote for impeachment and ultimately for conviction, that Nixon struck a deal with Ford to pardon him. A quid pro quo : pardon for resignation. I think in our ferver to bash Clinton and our desire to see him resign in shame (or my preference for him to be convicted of a felony) that we give too much applause to Tricky Dick. Only in my eyes Clinton is a bigger rat.

[RLK]

Nixon should have fought it out.

[jtw99]

Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the Whitewater Judgment Independent Counsel report online? I did a quick search without finding it.

[altair]

But in a broader, political sense the Clintons were brought to a rough Whitewater justice.

I do not believe Mrs. Clinton has experienced anything remotely resembling justice.

he was forced to give up his law license in his home state.

Only temporarily. If he were formally disbarred, he would be prevented by law from serving on the board of directors of a corporation. Now, does he even have to wait for his license to be restored five years from now?

his designated heir lost the White House

Under the circumstances, I don't think he really cared, after all, Algore pretty much refused his political advise. One of the two of them is going to be actively campaigning in the coming election and I do not believe it will be Algore.

[Quila]

That prosecutors could never implicate the Clintons beyond a reasonable courtroom doubt is hardly vindication.

We could say the same thing about Ronald "I don't recall" Reagan. Change dates, crimes and names of the convicted, and there you go.

[TroutStalker]

What the press (with the exception of the WSJ) has failed to mention throughout the whole investigation is the fact that, even if everything had been perfectly legal, the Whitewater deal targeted lower income people who were planning for their retirement.

The purchase documents, written by Hillary herself, contained language such that if the purchaser missed a single payment, the property was forfeited and the buyer lost all the monies that had already been paid. This in and of itself tells you everything you need to know about the character of the clintons.

[Quila]

The purchase documents, written by Hillary herself, contained language such that if the purchaser missed a single payment, the property was forfeited and the buyer lost all the monies that had already been paid.

These are the kinds of clauses that get businesses around military installations banned from dealing with any military personnel. And here the wife of the commander in chief was writing them. Not surprised.

[TroutStalker]

Actually, she was only the wife of the Governor of Arkansas at the time.

[Quila]

Actually, she was only the wife of the Governor of Arkansas at the time.

A technicality. I don't think her morals improved after Bill got elected.

[TroutStalker]

Nor did her memory.

[jtw99]

I found the IC Report online' it's :http://icreport.access.gpo.gov/final/

[thucydides]

The only real remedy against gross abuse of power and criminal acts by a sitting president is impeachment. The Constitution wisely requires a 2/3 vote to convict, that is, it requires a bipartisan vote. The democrats chose to stonewall it on a party line vote. The republicans at that point could do no more than go through the motions, which they did. Any attempt to stage a full scale trial would have been unavailing, given democrat corruption and intransigence, and would have created the public impression that somehow Clinton was exonerated and the republicans had been wrong to pursue the matter.

The outcome is that the democrats are permanently stained by their actions. The public knows an injustice took place and the responsible party escaped justice. In the long run, this will prove very damaging to democrat political prospects. They have lost all claim (however specious it was) to the moral high ground. While this may not matter the the democrat core, it will take a serious toll among the swing voters in the middle. Just look at Bush's astronomical ratings among this group.

[okiedust]

I think you are wrong to conclude a real trial in the Senate with evidence and witnesses sworn to tell the truth would not have altered anything. The dems banked upon Clinton's high approval rating which gave them cover to stonewall an investigation. Had a real trial resulted, the polls could have very well slipped significantly and the public pressure could have changed some votes. In other words, the presumption was that nothing would change, but had the trial been held, a lot could have changed. I do believe there would have been much more public outrage had the truth been made clear. The Senate blew it because they were political prostitutes and cowards.

regards

[Revolting cat!]

I agree with your points regarding the Senate trial. The public is fickle, lacks permanent loyalities, and would have lost its admiration for the Slick Ones once the evidence in Ford Building had been aired. All the Pubbies had to do was run with the ball. Scared in their panties, they instead trusted the polls of the moment and the speculative scenarios presented to focus groups which were run by the opposition anyway. The media with its thirst for sensationalism trumping political loyalties, as it often does, would have abandoned Slick as well, I believe.

But all of this is speculation and we'll argue about it until doomsday.

[palo verde]

I too wanted a Trial
However at the time Trent Lott and GOP leadership almost didn't let it come to Senate at all, so I was grateful vote took place
also that no cover was given by censure
I was a life-long Democrat at that time, I believed their propaganda that they were the Party of Principle and of Peace
When no Democrat Senator voted to convict, I knew the Dem Party had collapsed into corruption
and I vowed to never vote Dem again (I never will)
and I couldn't wait till 2000 election to vote straight GOP (which I did)
Love, Palo

[BeAChooser]

He shows it was a serious bank fraud involving numerous Clinton intimates; a dozen people went to jail. The main Clinton business partners, Jim and Susan McDougal, were convicted on multiple fraud and conspiracy charges. A former governor of Arkansas was convicted, and so was their close friend, Webb Hubbell, whom Mr. Clinton made the number three man in the Justice Department.

But how can this be? Move-on'ers have been claiming that even if Bush investigated the many crimes committed by the associates of Clinton in Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, the Riady Non-Refund and the deaths of Foster and Brown, those people couldn't be convicted in court given the control that democRATS still have over the courts. Obviously they are wrong else how DO the move-on'ers explain away what happened here?

[BeAChooser]

Nixon couldn't survive Watergate because he had a sense of shame and didn't burn the tapes. The Clintons had no such moral qualms.

No indeed. The facts would seem to suggest they even had people killed to stop investigations and keep from going to jail.