Posted on 02/20/2002 5:58:52 AM PST by Pokey78
Remember a couple of years back, when Bill and Hillary Clinton were forced to return about $50,000 of gifts they had packed up for Chappaqua, because the givers had intended the gifts for the White House and not for the personal use of the former First Couple? That attempted looting of the White House was not the only example of the Clintons’ unquenchable sense of entitlement. Their willingness to bypass ethical and legal niceties in return for material advancement is again on display, this time in a new report by the House Government Reform Committee, which concludes that the Clintons underestimated the value of dozens of gifts they received and failed to disclose others. In addition to the already long list of outrageous actions by both Clintons–lying before a grand jury, last-minute pardons to a sleazy cast of criminals linked to wealthy donors, the travel-office firings, Mrs. Clinton’s lost billing records, the Whitewater scandal, the abuse of the Lincoln Bedroom for fund-raising, etc.–now we have this.
The Clintons’ full haul over eight years was $400,000 worth of gifts–everything from art to antiques to a 1934 check signed by Harry Truman–and included over $75,000 of furniture, china and silver given to them in the last month of their White House occupancy. It seems the last-minute windfall came about when donors were made to understand that, come January 2001, Mrs. Clinton would be sworn in as a United States Senator and would fall under strict rules about accepting gifts. The House investigators also report that a registry in Mrs. Clinton’s name was set up at Borsheim’s Fine Jewelry and Gifts in Omaha, through which $38,617 of china and silverware made its way to the Senator-elect.
But it was the Clintons’ creative approach to estimating the value of gifts that drew the most interest during the year-long investigation. The couple estimated gifts to be worth under $260–the threshold for reporting them on disclosure statements–when in fact they were worth far more. Examples include a Tiffany silver necklace, a black leather Coach Bag and a set of Spalding golf clubs. One motive in underestimating the value is that one does not have to reveal the name of the giver. Gifts that the Clintons "misplaced" or never reported include a gold saxophone pin, an Oriental rug, a gold bracelet, a satin handbag, a bottle of 1959 Rothschild wine, a gold-and-pearl brooch, a crystal bowl and many others–together worth tens of thousands of dollars.
What to make of the Clintons’ grabby romp? It seems the Clintons used the Presidency as a device to furnish their two large homes–houses they bought with money from their multimillion-dollar contracts for books about the behavioral lapses they displayed during eight years in Washington.
All of this points to the contempt in which Bill and Hillary Clinton hold the Americans who elected them President and Senator. For all of their self-righteous oratory, their actions are pure trailer-trash. Do these people have no shame?
Okay, sarcasm off. Screw X42 and #97 -thx
It was determined at least a decade ago, and the proof irrefutable ... the Clinton's have no shame. Nothing new here ...
I wonder how Dan Rostenkowski -- who served time for the check kiting scandal in the House in the early 1990s -- feels about this, especially since Clinton pardoned him for that transgression. Floating a check here and there is just as unethical and illegal as accepting large gifts and not reporting them properly.
(P.S.: This article is an insult to White Trash everywhere. LOL)
I do not have nearly the amount of personal possession that the Clintons have ammassed for themselves in a frenzy of greed and petty clutching. But as I look around me in my home, I realize that everything I have was earned. And that makes me far richer than they will ever be. Many of us here can say the same and I doubt that any of us would want to trade places with these shallow and empty people.
During the Clinton Crime Years dozens of organizations and individuals considered "enemies" were audited by the IRS. When asked how come all these were conservative groups/individuals - the answer was: It just takes a citizen complaint to draw an IRS audit.
DO WE HAVE ANY BRAVE ACTION ORIENTED FREEPERS who would like to make a citizens complaint to the IRS about the Clintons so that they can be audited? If not = how about auditing some of their pet groups that funnel millions of taxpayer provided dollars to them? How about auditing Terry McCAuliffe? How about auditing NOW? How about auditing the Sierra Club???? ey???
It is truly amazing that for a country that has immortalized *slave-owners* on Mt. Rushmore, suddenly we are so self-righteous about the morality or lack thereof by the occupants of the White House.
In addition to owning slaves, there is the never-to-be answered question of Mr. Jefferson's relationship with his slave Sally Hemmings. Since Miss Hemmings was a slave, she had no legal right to resist any sexual advances from Mr. Jefferson, so it is not too far-fetched to conjecture that it is quite possible that Thomas Jefferson was a rapist as well as a slave-owner.
For Messrs. Washington and Jefferson we are told to ignore the bad and celebrate their contributions to building our country. OK. Fair enough. So why not give President Clinton the same consideration?
Racists, drunks, and womanizers have all occupied the office of the Presidency, so why is Mr. Clinton singled out for his moral transgressions? Please don't give me that "it was a different time" spiel. I do not believe in moral relativism; right is right and wrong is wrong wheter yesterday or 200 years ago.
Remember that our first President was a slave-owner, and our prior President was a lying adulterer. As far as I am concerned, this is moral progress that is nothing short of remarkable.
This superb remark is for people with consciences.....The Clintons don't qualify in that area and, no doubt, will enjoy every stolen item they carried off. They need to be brought to task for their thievery. Why do we allow this crooked behavior to go unpunished?
In answer to the question, NO! They are shameless thieves and belong in jail.
Does anybody know what gifts others have claimed from the White House on a per year basis? Is this a lot more or less? Does anybody know how much the Clinton's donated to the White House? The Clinton's, like other Presidential families, donated items or money to the White House when they left. Does anyone know how much? Hilary donated the royalties from a best-selling book does anyone know how much that was? I wish these profound moralists who get their panties in a wad could at least do their research so we could be better informed.
Relax I'm not defending the Clintons what I am doing is condemning sloppy journalism. Journalist who write incomplete stories or who fail to check their facts show contempt for their readers. They feel that we are not worthy of their efforts to get the story accurate or provide all the necessary facts.
You know, this editorial is from the New York Observer. These are the same people that gave us Joe Conason.
Where were they in 1998-1999? Inquiring minds and all that.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
But, good lying liberal that you are, you forget to mention that George Washington specified in his will that all his slaves were to be freed upon his death.
Stop degrading honest, hard working mobile home owners, who didn't steal the furnishings for their own homes.
I dunno about anyone else, hereabouts -- but I, for one, am fed to the teeth at the way you people treat the Rotten-Cli'tons and their spawn.
"Kleptomaniacs?"
Pathological liars?"
Have you no shame?
Doesn't it bother you at all to dodge the truth about these obscene cretins and to use euphamisms to cover up for them?
Get it right in future, please?
They are PSYCHOPATHS!
They have always known what they're doing.
And just don't care about the impact of their crimes -- and or what you and I think about them!
/SARCASM
<];^)~<
Actually, I do believe that william Jefferson clinton would have done anything for a relationship with Sally Hemmings, especially if she was a good-looking mummy. ;-)
Stow the talking points from Clinton's small army of paid historians, acheeks.
This is a good idea, but it is based on a lie. The IRS did not audit all those conservative groups just because Joe Q. Citizen wrote a letter to the IRS. That's just the policy statement produced for the consumption of suckers.
There is no way the Heritage Foundation, the American Spectator, or the NRA was audited because a liberal like FR's famous MurryMom fired off a note to the IRS. The only way these things get done are through connections and pressure from higher-ups. Clinton (more likely one of his cronies like Blumenthal or Emmanuel) made those audits happen.
Is this true? Have they been made to return this?
But who cares?
I think auditing some of the Clintons and/or the leftist organizations is a VERY NEEDED action but whether or not it will ever be done by the BUsh administration is another question....
I'll bet the Clintons tried to cash the check.
I wonder how Dan Rostenkowski -- who served time for the check kiting scandal in the House in the early 1990s -- feels about this,
Me too...
Duh -- nice try Sparky....Is masquerading as James Carville how you earn your wings with the Democratic Underground?
Baseless slander, oft repeated. But made no more true for the mindless repetition.
Only the last of Sally Hemming's several children, Eston Hemmings, was found through DNA analysis to have Jefferson characteristics.
At the time of Eston's conception, Thomas Jefferson would have been in his mid-60s, a period during which he was quite ill.
Further, the libellous rumors about Jefferson's purported relationship with Hemmings, printed by a political enemy, were published before Eston Hemmings's conception. The children Sally Hemmings bore during this period of calumniation were proved definitively by DNA evidence to have NOT been fathered by Jefferson.
Eston Hemmings's father would far more likely have been one of many Jefferson relatives of a younger generation.
There is no evidence whatsoever of rape, by Jefferson or anyone else.
OK .. Stupid Question Time ...
But why would the Clinton's want a canceled check??
Or is it a canceled check?? ... it doesn't say
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.