How (dis)honest are the Clintons, compared to other high-level pols?

[Shodan]

@mhendo

Well, given that the subject of this thread is, specifically, the relative dishonesty of the Clintons compared with previous Republican administrations, it might have been relevant for you to include this quote from your linked article:

Actually, I have read the accusations that similar damage happened when Bush Sr. left office. It was the word of one Clinton official, and no evidence was produced. So what we have is clearly demonstrated petty vandalism in the case of the Clintons, and no evidence of such for any Republican administration.

If you have the results of any proof that such vandalism occurred previously, please provide it. No such exists. So we have clearly demonstrated and verified vandalism in the case of the Clintons, vs. unsubstantiated accusations by the Clintons.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

And, boy, you just can’t beat Shodan’s cite for straight-forward and objective, totally nonpartisan commentary! Where else will you find such gems of clear-eyed analysis as…

@Shodan's Cite

…HILLARY accepted the traditional First Lady’s role of decorator of the White House at Christmas, but in a unique Hillary way. In 1994, for example, The First Lady’s Tree in the Blue Room (the focal point each year) was Decorated with drug paraphernalia, sex toys, and pornographic ornaments, all personally approved by Hillary as the invited artists’ depictions of the theme, “The Twelve Days of Christmas…”

Yessiree, Bob, we are talking straight from the shoulder non partisan candor here, no question! Regretably, no photos of the “sex toys and pornographic ornaments” are offered.

Puts a whole new meaning to “Ho! Ho! Ho!”, doesn’t it?

[Mr.Moto]

@Frank

Now you’re going way beyond lying and positing corruption. I certainly would not support corruption. Got proof?

First of all, I have to say that that stuff about the White House Christmas tree is from an author that I personally don’t trust.

Moving on:

Clinton brother-in-law returns pardon fees.

The investigation into former President Clinton’s last-minute pardons is widening amid revelations that his wife’s brother collected nearly $400,000 for helping secure a pardon and a prison commutation for two clients.

…Rodham contacted Clinton’s closest adviser in the White House, Bruce Lindsey, at least once in connection with one of the cases, which involved a major political contributor’s son convicted on drug charges, legal sources said.

…Legal sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Rodham, who is a lawyer, was paid for months of work on the prison commutation request of Carlos Vignali and received a “success fee” for helping win the pardon of Almon Glenn Braswell.

The money included $200,000 after the Braswell pardon was granted and the rest paid over a period time as Rodham worked on the Vignali commutation, the sources said. They declined to provide an exact amount but said it totaled just below $400,000. The money was returned to Braswell and Vignali’s family, the sources said.

Rich’s $450,000 for Clinton library.

The former wife of the fugitive financier controversially pardoned by President Clinton on his last day in office had donated $450,000 to his presidential library fund, according to reports in Washington.

Citing “sources familiar with the contribution”, the Washington Post said Denise Rich made three donations from July 1998 to May 2000, before she became active late last year in the successful lobbying campaign for Marc Rich.

The pardon freed one of the world’s richest men from prosecution on more than 50 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, income tax evasion and illegal oil trading with Iran.

…Ms Rich, who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party in recent years, refused to answer 14 written questions submitted to her by the committee, claiming her constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

…Republicans at Thursday’s hearing called the pardon “sleazy” and questioned the influence of Denise Rich’s donations on Mr Clinton’s decision.

They also noted that Ms Rich was a major contributor to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate campaign.

Campaign Finance Key Player: Johnny Chung.

Chung made at least 49 visits to the White House, despite the fact that a National Security Council official concluded that he was a “hustler” seeking to exploit his friendship with the Clintons to impress Chinese business associates.

During one visit to the White House, he handed a $50,000 check to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief of staff, Margaret A. Williams.

Williams accepted the check and passed it along to the DNC, even though federal law bars government employees from accepting campaign contributions on government property.

From 1994 to 1996, Chung made 12 personal or corporate donations to the DNC totaling $366,000. The DNC returned all of the money last year, stating that it had “insufficient information” about its origins.

Campaign Finance Key Players: the Riady Family.

James Riady made about 20 visits to the White House after Clinton was elected in 1992. He met privately with the president three times. During one of those visits, former Lippo executive John Huang asked for Clinton’s approval to move from the Commerce Department to the Democratic National Committee. On another visit, Riady urged Clinton to push trade with China.

And in 1994, a Lippo subsidiary reportedly paid Webster L. Hubbell $100,000. Hubbell, a former law partner of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s, had left his Justice Department job in disgrace and was the focus of inquiries by Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. Starr later started investigating whether the coterie of Clinton friends who paid Hubbell were doing so to buy his silence.

Campaign Finance Key Player, Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie.

Trie became friendly with Clinton in Little Rock, where he ran a Chinese restaurant that Clinton visited frequently.

According to the FBI, Trie opened an import-export business in 1990. It failed to make any money, so Trie decided to move to Washington in 1994, where he opened an office in the Watergate complex and became a Democratic fund-raiser and man about town.

Also in 1994, Trie became business partners with Macao businessman Ng Lap Seng, and encouraged him to donate to the Democrats.

Trie’s businesses also received more than $1.4 million in foreign wire transfers, much of it from Ng.

Trie arranged for Wang Jun, chairman of a Chinese arms-trading company, to be invited to a White House coffee.

In March 1996, Trie turned over two manila envelopes containing checks and money orders for more than $450,000 to a defense fund set up to help the Clintons pay their legal bills. The fund returned about $70,000 of this immediately, but deposited $378,300. Two months later, after the fund ordered an investigation, the rest of the money also was returned. The investigation found that some of the money came from sequentially numbered money orders, supposedly from different people in different cities, but all apparently signed in the same handwriting.

[mhendo]

@Shodan

Actually, I have read the accusations that similar damage happened when Bush Sr. left office. It was the word of one Clinton official, and no evidence was produced.

One Clinton official?

When you lie, it’s usually best to do so in cases where there are not readily available government documents to expose your duplicity.

From the GAO report, “Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition,” (June 2002). PDF document):

Observations of EOP, GSA, and NARA Staff During Previous Transitions

Five EOP staff told us they observed damage, vandalism, or pranks in the
White House complex when they worked there during past transitions.
Regarding the 1993 transition, an EOP employee said that she observed five
desks containing prank pictures of former Vice President Gore with written
messages on them and a banner on a balcony. In addition, two EOP staff (a
different employee for each of the following observations) said he or she
observed 1 to 2 poster-sized signs, and 5 to 10 missing office signs. Another
EOP employee showed us writing inside a desk that was dated January
1993.

Seven EOP staff who had worked in the White House complex during
previous transitions made observations comparing the condition of the
office space in 2001 to previous transitions; six said that the condition was
worse in 2001 than previous transitions and one said that the office space
was messier in 1993 than 2001. The director of the Office of Administration
(OA), who had been present during five previous transitions, said that he
was “stunned” by what he saw during the 2001 transition and had not seen
anything similar during previous ones, particularly in terms of the amount
of trash. The OA associate director for facilities management said that
there was more to clean during the 2001 transition than during previous
transitions.72 The telephone service director, who had worked in the White
House complex since 1973, said that he did not recall seeing, in past
transitions, the large amount of trash that he had seen during the 2001
transition. Further, an employee who had worked in the White House
complex since 1984 said that office space in the complex was messier
during the 2001 transition than all of the other transitions he had seen.

The chief of staff to the president, who was in charge of the 1993 transition
for the George H. W. Bush administration, said that he saw nothing
comparable during prior transitions to what he saw during the 2001
transition. (He said that he saw during the 2001 transition, among other
things, overturned furniture, prank signs, keyboards with missing “W” keys,
and trash and telephones on the floors of vacated offices.) The director of
records management, who had worked in the White House complex since
1969 said that, over time, he noticed that more personal items have been
left behind by departing staff. The OA senior preservation and facilities
officer, who had worked for the EOP since 1978, said she observed some
evidence of vandalism or pranks during the 2001 transition, but had not
seen any damage, vandalism, or pranks during previous transitions.
However, a facilities employee who said that she was responsible for
overseeing the custodial staff in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building
(EEOB) during the 2001 transition and was involved in the cleanup effort in
the EEOB during the 1993 transition said that she believed more trash was
left in the building during the 1993 transition than the 2001 transition. She
said that she found papers “all over the floor” and the remnants of a party
during the 1993 transition.

The OA associate director for facilities management said that every
transition has had a problem with missing historic doorknobs. The
telephone service director said that telephone cords were unplugged and
office signs were missing in previous transitions and that unplugging
telephones is a “standard prank.”

The director of GSA’s White House service center during the 2001 transition
said that the condition of the office space during the 2001 transition was
the same as what he observed during the 1989 transition. (He said that he
observed little during the 2001 transition in terms of damage, vandalism, or
pranks.) Similarly, a GSA employee who was one of the cleaning crew
leaders during the 2001 transition and was the EEOB building manager
when we interviewed him in July 2001, said that he had not seen any
damage or pranks during any transition during his 31 years of working in
the White House complex. He said there was an excessive amount of trash
during the 2001 transition, but that was not unusual for a transition.
Further, in a March 2, 2001, letter to Representative Barr on this matter, the
acting administrator of GSA said, regarding the condition of the White
House complex during the 2001 transition, that “[t]he condition of the real
property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when
tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy with limited
cyclical maintenance, such as painting and carpet replacement.” (Real
property includes the physical structure of the building and not items such
as telephones, computers, and furniture.)

NARA’s director of presidential materials said that she was in the White
House complex during the 1993 and 2001 transitions and that she went into
about 20 offices in the EEOB during the morning of January 20, 2001. She
said that she saw a lot of trash in the EEOB during the 2001 transition, but
that it was no more than what she observed during the 1993 transition. She
said that she did not see any damage, vandalism, or pranks during the 1993
or 2001 transitions.

pp. 77-79

Bolding mine.

You’ll note that i’ve pasted the whole section, so you can’t accuse me of leaving out the bits that say the Clinton White House was worse than previous administrations.

Also notice the title of this section, and the fact that it refers to EOP, GSA, and NARA staff. Those people are NOT Clinton staffers or officials, but are permanent government employees, many of whom have seen multiple White House transitions.

The GAO report devotes a separate section of its report (pp. 79-80) to the observations of Clinton Administrative Staff. I don’t place too much emphasis on that section because the statements of Clinton officials could well be self serving. It is worth noting a footnote in the section, however. Two Clinton employees made claims about non-functioning computers, and the footnotes says:

In Armstrong v. Bush, 807 F. Supp. 816 (D.D.C., 1992), the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order requiring personnel of the first
Bush administration to preserve backup tapes generated for certain EOP electronic
systems.

p. 79

I guess it’s harder to destroy or “lose” stuff if there’s a court order telling you to preserve it.

I’m not arguing that the post-Clinton transition was good; the report clearly states that it was not. I’m simply countering your claim that it was merely “one Clinton official” who talked about problems during previous transitions. And when you say that “no evidence was produced,” i assume you realize that testimony by disinterested third parties (i.e., the permanent staff mentioned above) is actually considered evidence?

@Shodan

If you have the results of any proof that such vandalism occurred previously, please provide it. No such exists. So we have clearly demonstrated and verified vandalism in the case of the Clintons, vs. unsubstantiated accusations by the Clintons.

Regards,
Shodan

Actually, what we have is evidence that vandalism occurred in the transition from the Clinton White House, NOT that the Clintons were involved in or knew about any vandalism.

You and your ilk have spent the last seven years defending Bush for actions undertaken (allegedly) without his knowledge by his subordinates, so i presume that you will accept that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

It sort of sucks that i’m actually defending the Clintons here. I don’t like them. I didn’t like Bill as a President, and i hope Hillary doesn’t get the Democratic nomination. I agree with many of the statements people have made about their self-interest and their lack of transparency and their blatant dishonesty. I think the way Clinton’s pardons were handled was problematic, at best, and downright nefarious, at worst.

But you make them seem upstanding by comparison. That’s quite a feat.

[Starving_Artist]

More lies from Bill Clinton here, plus a typical Clintonian side order of accusing opponents of their own sleazy tactics (bullying delegates, etc.).

Now to some these are only little lies and no cause for concern. But, leaving aside the likelihood that people who so blatantly and shamelessly tell tons of little lies are likely to tell big, important ones as well, I would suggest that telling a fairly significant lie (Bosnian sniper fire) wrapped around a dozen other little ones (evasive approach, sitting on flack jackets, being told to duck and run for the limousines, Sinbad’s a comedian (and therefore not being truthful in his comments on the landing), etc.) with the sole purpose of misleading voters as to her comportment under fire and greater suitability for the office of president, is a fairly significant lie. If you lie to people so as to create a false impression of your suitability for office, it is not a little lie.

Bill then comes along and in a speech says she only said it once, at 11:00 at night and exhausted from a hard day’s work. Now, leaving aside the fact that one would not expect such hallucinations to come from a candidate professing to be ready to take on serious national emergencies at 3:00 a.m., Hillary repeated this hallucination on at least four different occasions, as documented in the Forking 3 thread.

But of course, these again are only little lies, like the one about the blowjob.

Oh, wait…Bill Clinton, an attorney of long and devious experience, was disbarred and impeached over that little lie.

Now, say what you will about Nixon. He had nowhere near the reputation, let alone the exposure of day-to-day lies that the Clintons are racking up, of being a prolific and shameless liar in the way that they are.

Neither did Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, or Bush, Sr. Nor does GWB, regardless of the assumptive lie in regard to Iraq.

RTFirefly knows all this and has chosen to try to alter the playing field (hmm…who else has been doing that lately?) so as to change the debate to who has told the most ‘important’ lie, or whether ‘little lies’ should count, or whose behavior was most dishonest.

I said in the other thread that the Clintons are the most blatant, prolific and shameless liars in the history of this country’s politics during my lifetime, and I stand by that assertion.

[Little_Nemo]

Now, say what you will about Nixon. He had nowhere near the reputation, let alone the exposure of day-to-day lies that the Clintons are racking up, of being a prolific and shameless liar in the way that they are.

That’s just ridiculous. You can argue that Nixon didn’t deserve the reputation he had or that the Clintons deserve a worse one. But there’s no way you can say that Nixon didn’t and doesn’t have a bigger reputation for lying than Bill Clinton has.

[Siam_Sam]

@Little Nemo

That’s just ridiculous. You can argue that Nixon didn’t deserve the reputation he had or that the Clintons deserve a worse one. But there’s no way you can say that Nixon didn’t and doesn’t have a bigger reputation for lying than Bill Clinton has.

Indeed. I’d say such nonsense statements belie the age of those making them. I don’t know how anyone who actually lived through that time could make them.

[ZebraShaSha]

@Siam Sam

Indeed. I’d say such nonsense statements belie the age of those making them. I don’t know how anyone who actually lived through that time could make them.

I think the issue is that now everything is recorded and broadcast nearly instantly, so the “day to day lies” are not as well documented. Or something.

Still completely incomparable to Nixon, though. Not even close to Bush.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@ZebraShaSha

I think the issue is that now everything is recorded and broadcast nearly instantly, so the “day to day lies” are not as well documented. Or something.

Still completely incomparable to Nixon, though. Not even close to Bush.

Whatever. Like Bush’s lies are SO MUCH MORE DEVIOUS than former ones…you have heard the guy speak, right?
:rolleyes:

[Little_Nemo]

Nixon lied about everything - not just the important stuff. In his Checkers speech he naturally lied about the money he had received.

But look at this line: And, incidentally, Pat is not a quitter. After all, her name is Patricia Ryan and she was born on St. Patrick’s day, and you know the Irish never quit. Mrs Nixon’s name was Thelma Catherine Ryan and she was born the day before Saint Patrick’s Day and she was more German than Irish.

That’s the kind of liar Nixon was.

[Starving_Artist]

@Little Nemo

And, incidentally, Pat is not a quitter. After all, her name is Patricia Ryan and she was born on St. Patrick’s day, and you know the Irish never quit. Mrs Nixon’s name was Thelma Catherine Ryan and she was born the day before Saint Patrick’s Day and she was more German than Irish.

That’s the kind of liar Nixon was.

So Jacqueline Kennedy was lying when she called her husband Jack?

This from Wiki:

“Pat was a nickname given to her by her father, referring to her birthdate and Irish ancestry.[1] Upon enrolling in college in 1931, she dropped her first name of Thelma, replacing it with Pat and occasionally rendering it as Patricia, the name inscribed on her tombstone; the name change, however, was not a legal action, merely one of preference.”

[Starving_Artist]

@Little Nemo

Nixon lied about everything - not just the important stuff. In his Checkers speech he naturally lied about the money he had received.

Sorry, I somehow dropped this little gem above from my previous response.

This from Wiki:

“He [Nixon] provided an independent third-party review of the [alleged slush] fund’s accounting along with a personal summary of his finances, which he cited as exonerating him from wrongdoing, and he noted the Democratic Presidential candidate, Adlai Stevenson, had a similar fund.”

And Siam Sam, my memories go back to the days of Harry Truman. I have no recollection of Nixon being regarded as a prolific and demonstrable liar during any of his campaigns, vice-presidencies or presidencies prior to the Watergate era.

Further, I have no recollection of any of Nixon’s friends and supporters turning against him because of how easily and frequently he lied, as longtime supporter David Geffen has done with the Clintons. I have no recollection of his stating some bald-faced lie and then having forensic evidence prove it. I have no recollection of one ‘bimbo’ after another ‘erupting’ with demonstrable evidence of their veracity and having it denied time after time after time, despite evidence even from law enforcement personnel who were pressed into service to facilitate the occasions that eventually erupted.

The thing about the Clintons is that they use lies as an integral part of their operating strategy. They don’t lie just to cover things up, or to get out of some sort of trouble – they lie proactively in order to facilitate their ambitions.

They have always counted on getting away with it for three reasons: One, a pro-Democrat MSM that didn’t publicize their lies because it was more interested in seeing a Democrat win the presidency; two, they could lie to this or that constituency or special-interest group on a local level and then tell the exact opposite to someone else, and because these concerns were local the speeches never gained national attention; and three, they count upon the ignorance and gullibility of the people their audiences and know that virtually anything they say will be gobbled up at face value because most people aren’t as tuned in as we are here at the Dope.

But Internet technology has changed all that. Blogs, and news outlets not so partial to the left, have proliferated and now all their dishonest machinations are being exposed for all to see.

Hillary found herself virtually constrained in the early stages of the campaign from making any definitive statement as to what she’d do about anything as president because every time she did, evidence would immediately be brought forth that she’d said the exact opposite at some other time. This is what led to the equivocation and double-speak that so characterized her the early stages of her campaign.

And they still don’t get it. They blunder about saying this and that load of hooey to whoever they’re speaking to that day and then seem gobsmacked when a national furor erupts the next day.

The impression all this creates is that they must believe down to their very souls that to tell the truth is self-defeating and that the only way they can win is to lie. Then, like a demonstrable child who can’t speak when told to sit on their hands, they are left mute when faced with having to speak honestly. It’s the only thing they know, and given that fresh lies erupt on an almost daily basis, it looks like they’ve decided to just 'go with what brung ‘em’ and ride that ship of prevarication all the way to the bottom.

[mhendo]

@Starving Artist

And Siam Sam, my memories go back to the days of Harry Truman. I have no recollection of Nixon being regarded as a prolific and demonstrable liar during any of his campaigns, vice-presidencies or presidencies prior to the Watergate era.

There’s that selective memory working for you again. Nixon told lies about a whole bunch of things during his Presidency, such as lying about whether or not the United States had violated Cambodian neutrality during the wars in Indo-China. The fact that you choose to ignore them doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

@Starving Artist

Further, I have no recollection of any of Nixon’s friends and supporters turning against him because of how easily and frequently he lied, as longtime supporter David Geffen has done with the Clintons.

Whose case are you making here?

The fact that Nixon’s friends chose to stick with him despite his perfidy does not seem to me to be a point in their favor, or in his.

@Starving Artist

One, a pro-Democrat MSM that didn’t publicize their lies because it was more interested in seeing a Democrat win the presidency.

It’s good that we can always rely on you for an argument resting on the liberal media conspiracy theory. It’s rather comforting that you bring this up so frequently; it’s like a metronome in its soothing predictability, and serves periodic notice of how little you care about actually analyzing the issues.

[ZebraShaSha]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Whatever. Like Bush’s lies are SO MUCH MORE DEVIOUS than former ones…you have heard the guy speak, right?
:rolleyes:

Wait, I think you parsed all of that wrong, which is probably cause I’m awkward at posting anymore. I don’t know if Nixon lied more than Bush, but either of them have lied more than the Clintons, or at least Bill Clinton while he was in office.

[elucidator]

Nixon had friends? You sure about that?

[Siam_Sam]

There’s really nothing else to say. The man is convinced that black is white. How do you deal with something crazy like that?

[devilsknew]

Bush is the King of Lies.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@devilsknew

Bush is the King of Lies.

Dare I point out that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie? How about our alleged neutrality in the years preceeding our entrance into both World Wars? Oh, our invasion of Iran (Desert One/Operation Eagle Claw) was totally on the up and up. The list goes on and on, and it always will.

As I said before, everybody lies. The lies are simply starker because you’re either invested in them now or had been invested in them previously. This myopic focus on Bush is aggravating to say the least, if only because it gives everybody else a pass. And since this thread is about “Politicians” en toto and not “Bush”, it’s getting to be absurd, as usual.

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

Nixon had friends? You sure about that?

Ooh, yeah!

[Mr.Moto]

@Little Nemo

Nixon lied about everything - not just the important stuff. In his Checkers speech he naturally lied about the money he had received.

But look at this line: And, incidentally, Pat is not a quitter. After all, her name is Patricia Ryan and she was born on St. Patrick’s day, and you know the Irish never quit. Mrs Nixon’s name was Thelma Catherine Ryan and she was born the day before Saint Patrick’s Day and she was more German than Irish.

That’s the kind of liar Nixon was.

This was noted before - but this is Pat Nixon’s grave.

Kind of tough cookies - carrying that lie all the way to the tombstone. Unless it wasn’t really a lie to begin with.

I will fully admit Nixon’s dishonesty in many matters, but this isn’t a great example.