# Hilary Gets Booed by Heroes. Had it coming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2001, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273 "2001-10-24T06:20:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/141 "2001-10-28T04:31:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\*You believe wrong. \*\* Salon says I believe right. **Gaderene’s** Salon link says: > [@](#): > > Hale’s payments came from representatives of the so-called Arkansas Project, a $2.4 million campaign to investigate Clinton and his associates between 1993 and 1997, according to sources familiar with the arrangement. These sources told Salon that Scaife, who has underwritten a wide variety of anti-Clinton legal and media efforts, funded the Arkansas Project through several tax-exempt foundations he controls. > > Under the scheme, two of Scaife’s charitable foundations transferred as much as $600,000 a year to a third charitable foundation, which owns the conservative American Spectator magazine, knowledgeable sources at the magazine said. The American Spectator then transferred most of the funds to Stephen S. Boynton, an attorney and conservative political activist with long-standing ties to Scaife. Boynton then used the money to pay private investigators to unearth damaging details about the president, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their associates. Even though Salon obviously hates Scaife, in the two portions that I underlined, Salon says that the Arkansas project involved paying investigators to look for corruption commited by the Clintons and their associates. Nowhere does it say that Scaife or the Arkansas Project did anything illegal. BTW note the word “unearth” in the second underlined portion. “Unearth”, not “invent.” According to Salon, the purpose was to discover the truth. What am I missing? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/142 "2001-10-28T20:20:01Z")
another example of ‘december spin’. First you speculate that the Arkansas project is > [@](#): > > I believe it was a good-government effort to investigate and expose corruption in that state. then you read some of the links provided, quote from them and even the quotes you provide (and enhance by underlining) indicate that it’s a project funded by a certain select few folks, specifically to investigate Bill/Hilary Clinton, and you don’t see that as contradtory? Perhaps then if we set up and fund a program to investigate underage drinking in Texas by young ladies with the surname “Bush” just to pull one out of the hat, funded by James Carvelle, this would seem to be a reliable, fair minded endeavor? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/143 "2001-10-28T20:49:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*…then you read some of the links provided, quote from them and even the quotes you provide (and enhance by underlining) indicate that it’s a project funded by a certain select few folks, specifically to investigate Bill/Hilary Clinton, and you don’t see that as contradtory? > \*\* I don’t see a problem with the project having been funded by “a certain select few folks.” Is that immoral? **wring** , your second point is not quite what Salon said. They said the project was, “to unearth damaging details about the president, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their associates.” Since some of the Clinton’s real estate partners went to jail and at least one of Hillary’s law partners did too, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to investigate their associates. But, even if the project were focused on corruption involving just Bill and Hillary, why is that so bad, **wring** , or what’s the contradiction? Note that the Watergate investigation sought to unearth damaging details about RMN and his associates, just as it ought to have done. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/144 "2001-10-28T21:10:24Z")
Watergate was a governmental investigation, launched to check into a well publicized bunch of wrong doing. the Arkansas stuff was launced by specific folks with an axe to grind, dedicated to finding stuff about specific people. Though the differences should be apparent, let me elaborate for you: say my neighbor is a criminal. The government gets wind of it, launches an investigation, with folks taking oaths and all. Now, say my dad, who dislikes my neighbor, hires some private investigators to follow them around, look into every single aspect of their past for a period of a couple of decades with the express intent to find and expose wrong doing. You don’t see a difference? You see the latter an ‘objective’ source? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/145 "2001-10-28T23:04:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*Watergate was a governmental investigation, launched to check into a well publicized bunch of wrong doing. > > the Arkansas stuff was launced by specific folks with an axe to grind, dedicated to finding stuff about specific people. > > Though the differences should be apparent, let me elaborate for you: > > say my neighbor is a criminal. The government gets wind of it, launches an investigation, with folks taking oaths and all. > > Now, say my dad, who dislikes my neighbor, hires some private investigators to follow them around, look into every single aspect of their past for a period of a couple of decades with the express intent to find and expose wrong doing. > > You don’t see a difference? You see the latter an ‘objective’ source? \*\* Compare Woodward and Bernstein with the Arkansas Project [li]W&B worked for a newspaper; Scaife owns a newspaper[/li][li]Both conducted investigations of specific people[/li][li]Both wanted to find and expose wrong-doing[/li][li]Arguably, both were not objective. (The Washington Post is a Democratic paper. They, and W&B, never committed that level of investigative reporting effort to Dem corrruption.)[/li] I agree that private investigations are different from government investigations, but these newspaper people were doing their job. The Washington Post and W & B are heroes in my book for their Watergate efforts. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/146 "2001-10-28T23:16:33Z")
Oh, Lord love a duck, **December**! Its staring you right in the face! The Arkansas Project uncovered diddly squat because there wasn’t a god-damned thing to uncover! Bill and Hillary made a bad investment, lost thier money, and that’s it! All the smoke and mirrors, fuss and feathers, was about **nothing**. Could it be any plainer? _ **They weren’t guilty!!!** _ Nixon got nailed for Watergate, which is, ironicly, damn near the least of his offenses. Its kind of like indicting Vlad the Impaler for wearing brown shoes with a blue suit! And, trivially, wasn’t one of the Woodward/Bernstein guys a registered Republican? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/147 "2001-10-28T23:26:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > Oh, Lord love a duck, **December**! Its staring you right in the face! > > The Arkansas Project uncovered diddly squat because there wasn’t a god-damned thing to uncover! Bill and Hillary made a bad investment, lost thier money, and that’s it! All the smoke and mirrors, fuss and feathers, was about **nothing**. Could it be any plainer? > > _ **They weren’t guilty!!!** _ Even if you’re right, elucidator, it doesn’t prove that Scaife was doing anything wrong by looking into these matters. > [@](#): > > And, trivially, wasn’t one of the Woodward/Bernstein guys a registered Republican? I don’t know. Anyone have the answer here? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/148 "2001-10-29T16:03:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Even if you’re right, elucidator, it doesn’t prove that Scaife was doing anything wrong by looking into these matters. It does. A) The money transferred to our pair of shady republican activists was from a 501c(3) charitable foundation. Someone was getting a _tax break_ by donating money with the expressed purpose of uncovering corruption in the dealings of a political opponent. B) Scaife stopped funding the project because he was concerned about how the money was being disbursed. I think that even he was concerned that nonprofit funds were being spent to pay for the legal defense of a crooked Arkansas judge who was willing to provide evidence against Clinton to save his own ass. All of which evidence, of course, was subsequently discredited. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/149 "2001-10-29T16:51:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \*A) The money transferred to our pair of shady republican activists was from a 501c(3) charitable foundation. Thank you Meglin. I’ve been trying to understand why the Arkansas Project has been represented as so really terrible, and you’ve offered an explanation. Question: What was “shady” about these Republican activists? (Note that some would consider the phrase “shady Republican” to be a redundancy. ;)) > [@](#): > > Someone was getting a _tax break_ by donating money with the expressed purpose of uncovering corruption in the dealings of a political opponent. Yes, this thought had occurred to me. Was that tax break illegal? Was anyone charged with tax evasion or tax fraud? Was anyone required to go back and pay tax on allegedly tax-deductible money used to fund this project? OTOH if the tax deduction was legal, then what’s the problem? > [@](#): > > Scaife stopped funding the project because he was concerned about how the money was being disbursed. I think that even he was concerned that nonprofit funds were being spent to pay for the legal defense of a crooked Arkansas judge who was willing to provide evidence against Clinton to save his own ass. All of which evidence, of course, was subsequently discredited. I take this paragraph to mean that the Project had become embarassing to Scaife and that it was unsuccessful. From what I’ve read, I’d agree. Still, having an investigation that doesn’t pan out doesn’t sound like a crime to me, or even particularly immoral. Again, Maeglin I appreciate your information and opinion on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/150 "2001-10-29T17:16:34Z")
I been had! Every Monday I check out Democratic Underground (thats [democracticunderground.com](http://democracticunderground.com), folks) weekly Top 10 Conservative Idiots which is a hoot, a laugh riot, and good clean fun. Anyway, my whole premise appears to be crapulous. The original story appeared way buried in NY Times, Hilary was in fact only supposed to speak for twenty seconds or so, and the cheers were seen by the reporter as far outweighing the boos. Twas Drudge who spun it widdershins, and I fell for it! So…I’m full of beans. I go now to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a chorus of bitter virgins intoning dirges of woe and humiliation. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/151 "2001-10-29T19:27:12Z")
You’re welcome, **december**. I do not mean to be short of tone. This is merely an issue which gets me rather excised. And yes, Ken Starr himself investigated the alleged payoffs to David Hale with nonprofit funds. He appointed Michael E. Shaheen, Jr., of the OIC, to do the investigative work. But here’s the problem. Richard Mellon Scaife funded Ken Starr’s chair at Pepperdine University with $1 million. VRWC? YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/152 "2001-10-29T19:40:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \*But here’s the problem. > > Richard Mellon Scaife funded Ken Starr’s chair at Pepperdine University with $1 million. > > VRWC? > > YMMV. \*\* Quite the reverse. Surely a real conspirator would have kept Starr on the job doing his nefarious deeds. However, in order to take that position, Starr would have resigned as Special Prosecutor. Starr got vilified when he prosecuted and vilified when he tried to stop prosecuting. Scaife got vilified for supporting Starr as Prosecutor and for taking an action that would have removed Starr as Prosecutor. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2001, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273/153 "2001-10-29T20:05:38Z")
**december** , I find your double-reverse-_rationcinatio_ logic rather bewildering. Can you please relate it in a way that a liberal, who does now know how the world works, can understand? After all, if Starr began prosecuting under shaky circumstances, why should he not be criticized? And if he left under circumstances of the same nature, why should he _not_ be criticized? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hilary-gets-booed-by-heroes-had-it-coming/89273.md?page=7)