Author Topic: Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)  (Read 291 times)

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« on: July 30, 2002, 09:21:22 PM »
The following editorial was featured on the Editorial Page of the Arkansas-Democrat Gazette , July 30, 2002.

Now we all know where William Jefferson Clinton, suspended Esq., plans to get the money to pay all those legal bills he ran up during the late unpleasantness in Washington.

No, he isn't about to use up the fat fees he collects for speaking around the world - $9.2 million just last year.  Last we checked, he was getting between $75,000 and $350,000 a pop.

Nor does Bill Clinton propose to touch his book advance (which has been estimated at between $10 million and $12 million) for what will surely be the most widely unread presidential memoir in American history.  Why spend his own money when he can dip into the U.S. Treasury?

That's right.  Slick Willie proposed to have his legal bills paid by:

You.

Mr. and Ms. American Taxpayer.

Through his lawyer, who stands to collect a goodly share of those fees himself, the ever impeachable Mr. Clinton has asked a court to direct the U.S. government to pay off the squadrons of attorneys it took to get him off the hook.

Gives you a nice warm feeling, doesn't it?  Yes, now you, too, can pay off Bill Clinton's lawyers.

How is that possible?  Because Slick Willie is taking advantage of a law designed to protect those who were drawn into the independent counsel's investigation of his presidential circle even though they were never indicted or censured for anything.  For example, bystanders like Mack McLarty, who was bound to be questioned when he started hanging out with all that bad company, i.e., the Clinton administration.

A similar law was passed to help poor Billy Dale, the hapless head of the White House Travel Office whose job, along with everybody else's in that office, Hillary Clinton wanted for her own people.  To the victors belong the spoils and all that.  Which is fine, or at least acceptable by the usual standards of patronage politics.  Except that it wasn't enough just to fire Billy Dale;  he also had to be humiliated, smeared and then prosecuted on trumped-up charges.  Talk about sheer, preening, self-righteous meanness.  Once the case got to the jury, Billy Dale was of course promptly acquitted.  But by then the cost of his defense had wiped out the poor guy's life savings.

Now comes William Jefferson Clinton, and he wants the pupblic to pay his costs, too, even though he was impeached - the equivalent of being indicted.  As we were minded again and again during his trial in the U.S. Senate.  Cited for civil contempt, he avoided a criminal indictment by a classic plea bargain:  He admitted to testifying falsely under oath - which is as close as you can come to confessing perjury without confessing.  And now, after all this, he wants the rest of us to pay for all the distinguished lawheads who got him off.  There is a word to describe this kind of brass, moxie, nerve, chutzpah, and greed:  boundless.

Yet it's hard to be outraged at this latest caper of Bill Clinton's because it's just what you would expect of him.  What in others might be outrageous, is in Bill Clinton only standard operating procedure.

Different presidents respond differently to disgrace:  Richard Nixon, hopelessly puritanical, resigned rather than face impeachment, and then spent the next 20 years rehabilitating himself.  Bill Clinton has responded by asking the American people to pay his bills.

Whatever you think of that request, it's hard to resist a certain admiration for the sheer, unadulterated nerviness of it.  You gotta hand it to the rascal.  He keeps setting new records for shamelessness.

We can now all forget any faint hope that, once he was out of the White House and dog house, our prodigal son would turn into some kind of Jimmy Carter in his post-presidential years, traveling the country building houses for the poor.  Or settle down in the role of nonpartisan elder statesman a la Gerald Ford.

Fuhgeddaboutit.  In or out of office, Bill Clinton remains Bill Clinton.  The more he changes, the more he doesn't.

The years have passed, and by now our boy president has become our boy ex-president.  He is still the perpetual adolescent, forever striding up Fool's Hill knowing he'll get away with it.  And why not?  Haven't we let him?  He may get investigated, but it's always others who take the rap.

What a show.  The effrontery of it never stops.  Now we're suposed to take Bill Clinton for a victim of the Clinton Scandals rather than their central figure.  If there were any justice in the world, he would be arrested for imitating an innocent bystander.

It was said of Teddy Roosevelt by the British ambassador at the time, in perhaps the most concise and accurate summary of that remarkable personality, "You must always remember that the president is about 6."

When it comes to Bill Clinton, we must always remember that he's about 17 - with the same sure confidence that, whatever happens, somebody else will pay for it.  And this time, folks, he's nominated you, his fellow Americans.

We haven't been quite so honored since David Pryor was urging everybody to contribute to the Clinton Defense Fund.

Now it's no longer voluntary.  If Slick Willie has his way in court, we'll all get to chip in via the U.S. government.



Shuckins

Offline 10Bears

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2002, 11:04:41 PM »
You know Shuckins I was reading earlier about how unlike the ’91 gulf war when 80% was paid by Arab states the U.S taxpayer would be paying the tab for the new war on Iraq. Did you know it cost almost a million bucks to deliver one (1) Abrams tank?. That’s right they got to make a special 130 cargo plane and only one(1) 70 ton tank will fit. The article went on to say there might be “stress” on the economy. Imagine that.
 Nice opinion piece you got there Little Rock paper is it?.. nice town Little Rock. My boy Gene Lyons writes for that paper. Being an editor of a large newspaper you have to watch for column space you can’t have too many words in the column so it’s the editors job to find non essential words and take ’em out. Words like President Reagan and Bush both got their money back due to a lack of conviction.
Quote
Now comes William Jefferson Clinton, and he wants the pupblic to pay his costs, too, even though he was impeached -
and?..... now come on big city editor.. I know your trying to cut cost but please try and finish the sentence... Shuckins, can you finish the sentence? he was impeached and....
Quote
It was said of Teddy Roosevelt by the British ambassador at the time, in perhaps the most concise and accurate summary of that remarkable personality, "You must always remember that the president is about 6."

When it comes to Bill Clinton, we must always remember that he's about 17


Huh... what’s the British ambassador trying to say? that Teddy was only 6 inches but BigDawg had a big hookin’ 17 incher?

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2002, 08:32:43 AM »
I'm wondering how much we taxpayers had to pay for that little witch hunt.
sand

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2002, 09:59:30 AM »
10Bears,

As far as Reagan and Bush getting their money back is concerned, why shouldn't they?  They were never indicted! Iran-Contra (I guess that is what you were referring to.) was investigated by Congressional committees.  No indictments were ever returned against them.  I don't remember them getting any money back, if it comes right down to it.

I DO remember Reagan being man enough to take responsibility for the actions of the federal agencies involved in the Iran-Contra scandal.  That honest acceptance of responsibility seemed to satisfy most of his critics in Congress.

What a contrast to Clinton's reactions toward the scandals (Note:  that is plural; as in many) of his own administration.  Had he come clean about them from the very beginning the legacy of his administration would be far different from what it is now.  

Regards, Shuckins

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2002, 10:18:31 AM »
10Bears,

Glad you enjoyed your visit to our state.  I never appreciated it's great natural beauty the way I should have until I returned from the Middle East a few years ago.  After 6 weeks of desert and dust I was ready to kiss the ground when our plane touched down in Little Rock.

About Gene Lyons.  He's a good journalist.  Personal friend of yours?  Or are you just an admirer of his work?  I have read many of his editorials defending Clinton from his critics.  He makes some good points about the Clinton haters involved in the Paula Jones lawsuit, although I believe he actually did the things he was accused of.  Clinton isn't called Slick Willie in his home state for nothing.  Paula Jones was the perfect type of girl to hit on.  She was low on the totem pole as a government worker, somewhat unlovely (but a mouth is a mouth), and not exactly one of the great minds of our century.  Who would believe her if she went public.

Perjury and suborning perjury are serious enough charges to have to face.  If an average citizen such as you or I were to commit perjury in front of a federal grand jury we would face a minimum of two years in prison.  And it wouldn't matter whether the subject we were lying about was sex or not.  The state grand juries treat perjury the same way.  Why should Bill Clinton be any different from you or I?

Anyway, this was a minor scandal that diverted attention away from the more serious scandals dogging Clinton and his administration.  

There I go, digressing again! :D

Gene Lyons sometimes is like a horse wearing blinders when he defends the Clintons in his editorials.  That's only natural I suppose, since he is a personal friend Bill and Hillary.  But I would take what he says about some subjects with a grain of salt.


Regards, Shuckins

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2002, 10:21:17 AM »
What a load of crap!

When did the word "Indicted" become equivalent to "convicted"?

When did the word "Impeached" become equivalent to "convicted"?

You must have a hateful relationship with America to want to toss out our right to be considered innocent until PROVEN GUILTY!

That 70 million dollar witch hunt that came up with a freakin blowjob is the real ripoff. Bush Sr. got paid and so did Reagan, but hey, they were Republicans so it must be OK? BS of the highest order!

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2002, 10:42:38 AM »
Midnight Target,

Gently Boy!  Gently!

My main objection to Clinton's request to the court to direct the government to pay for his legal fees comes down to this:  Much of the work in his legal defense was done by White House attorneys who were already on the government payroll.  Why should government attorneys help defend an elected official during a private lawsuit?  

Strangely, I don't remember saying that I wanted to throw out due process, or the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I was attempting to make the point that the law mentioned in the editorial (Which I did not write by the way...so you can't blame me for it.) was intended to reimburse people drawn into a federal grand jury investigation, who had amassed legal fees that depleted their financial resources drastically, but who were never indicted  for anything.  I don't have any legal training, and correct me if I'm wrong, but in most states a person who is indicted by a grand jury is not entitled to reimbursement for the legal fees they have incurred.  That is right, isn't it?  That point of law has nothing to do with conviction either.

If Clinton really thinks that kind of treatment is unfair then why didn't he push harder for tort reform while he was in office?  

Midnight, please leave off the insults.  They are the lowest form of argument.  Take my arguments apart point by point if you wish.  I love a good political argu...uh, discussion!  Neither of us has a monopoly on wisdom or virtue.


Still with regards, Shuckins

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2002, 11:57:40 AM »
The Clinton's are asking for reimbursement for those legal fees spent on the Whitewater investigation.
Since they were not indicted for any wrongdoing in the Whitewater case, I assume you would agree that those legal fees should be refunded.

I apologize for the rant. I sometimes let my Italian out. It ain't a pretty sight!

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2002, 12:52:12 PM »
Midnight,

AWWW!  Shucks!  That's okay!  Been known to have a tantrum myself upon occasion.

Now on to another topic.

Whitewater.

There were a lot of complaints about the length of Starr's hearings and the fairness of them at the time.  Yet, they returned about 12 convictions if memory serves, including a sitting governor of Arkansas.  In light of the revelations surrounding Enron, how was Whitewater any different?  The principals in both cases were motivated by greed and engaged in illegal acts.  The Clintons may not have done anything themselves, but their close association with some of the key players naturally enough brought suspicion and accusations.

As for the money spent on the investigation, that is what usually happens when guilty people steadfastly maintain their innocence and manipulate the legal system to delay their conviction.

Even Starr's reputation was hurt by this investigation.  Seen as a fair man and a nonpartisan straight shooter by both sides, and even being approved by Clinton himself, Starr set out to do his job.  And his reputation will never be the same.  Clinton's defenders were incensed by his efforts to "get the President."  So the accusations and name calling began.

Was he being biased or merely doing his job?  The smoke generated by the political uproar may prevent us from ever knowing the truth.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2002, 12:56:57 PM »
I have very little to add to your post except this:

Quote
As for the money spent on the investigation, that is what usually happens when guilty people steadfastly maintain their innocence and manipulate the legal system to delay their conviction.


This is also what happens when a prosecutor feels he must continue to find something that just isn't there.

This is also what happens when innocent people steadfastly maintain the fight against a relentless prosecutor.

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Uncle Slick Wants You (Or rather your tax money!)
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2002, 01:06:12 PM »
Midnight,

That's one way of looking at it I suppose.

Another change of subject.  Do you think Hillary and her stock broker friend were guilty of insider trading in the famous Pork-Bellies Scandal ?   Whale of a profit she made on her initial $1,000 dollar investment.  Of course, there was "no evidence" of any wrongdoing.  But there really isn't much of a "paper trail" for investigators to follow in the Enron scandal either, is there!;)

Regards, Shuckins