Hillary Clinton and the Trail of Slime

Right From the Start

Right From the Start

Like Oregon’s ubiquitous banana slug, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves a trail of slime on everything she touches. I recognize that this is an unkind cut but the unbroken line of unethical conduct by Ms. Clinton well deserves the reference. And only recently we are treated once again to Ms. Clinton skirting the law by declining to use an official State Department email account while serving as Secretary and choosing instead to use a personal email account AND server so as to avoid transparency and control the retention and distribution of information contained therein.

It would take volumes to detail the many and routine acts of Ms. Clinton that raise questions on her legal and ethical conduct so let’s just highlight a few over her career.

Ms. Clinton worked on the Watergate committee early in her legal career. During the preparation for the impeachment (indictment) of President Nixon she advocated a theory that Mr. Nixon should be denied the right of counsel in the proceedings before the House of Representatives. There was no precedence in favor of her position and there was, in fact, previous decision in the House archives that directly contradicted her position. Ms. Clinton took and withheld those historical files in an effort to prevail – which she did not. Her conduct was so egregious that she was fired for unethical conduct and her then supervisor Jerome Zeifman declared that if that matter occurred before a judicial officer instead of Congress, Ms. Clinton would have been disbarred.

In 1978, while President Bill Clinton was serving as governor of Arkansas, Ms. Clinton turned a $1,000 investment into $100,000 virtually overnight with the assistance of James Blair, an attorney for Tyson Foods – the chicken food giant that had a significant amount of business before Mr. Clinton’s administration. There is no evidence that Ms. Clinton knew anything about commodity trading or that she ever made similar investments before OR AFTER the suspect windfall. The deal stinks as bad the cattle carcasses in which she allegedly speculated.

The Clintons were involved in a land speculation deal (Whitewater) in which allegations were made that the Clintons pressured lenders to provide financing to Jim and Susan McDougall (their partners) for the land development that subsequently failed. Jim and Susan McDougall went to prison as a result of fraud and Mr. Clinton’s successor as governor of Arkansas, Jim Guy Tucker, also went to prison as a part of the Whitewater investigation. Strangely only Mr. and Ms. Clinton avoided indictment, conviction and imprisonment – most likely because by then Mr. Clinton was the sitting President of the United States.

But once is never enough for Ms. Clinton. During the Congressional investigation of Whitewater several critical files involving the Clintons’ involvement disappeared from the Rose Law Firm (where Ms. Clinton had practiced and made partner while Mr. Clinton was governor) files. The files were never found and Ms. Clinton steadfastly denied any knowledge. And she continued to deny any knowledge even when the files suddenly appeared (conveniently after the investigation was over) on a table outside Ms. Clinton’s bedroom suite in the White House. (For point of reference, that table was approximately 1,000 miles from Little Rock, the site of the missing files previous location, and the only things the two locations had in common were Ms. Clinton – and a trail of slime.)

Ms. Clinton was thereafter elected to represent the State of New York in the United States Senate. Not that she was a resident of New York, or had ever been a resident of New York. It was simply that New York was a definitively Blue State and she was the wife of now former President Bill Clinton who continued as the standard bearer for his Democrat Party. During that period of time Ms. Clinton accomplished nothing of significance in the Senate. However, she and Mr. Clinton set up the family charitable foundation that began receiving millions of dollars from foreign governments in order to maintain or garner support from the Clintons. The foundation gave Ms. Clinton a virtual slush fund of money that she could dole out for travel, entertainment, and favors given and received. Because it was a charitable foundation and little of the money was used for overt lobbying, its revenue and expenditures passed with little scrutiny by the public.

Immediately, after completing her resume building service in the Senate, Ms. Clinton sought the Democrat nomination for president – she was the presumptive nominee because she was Mr. Clinton’s spouse. She lost. She lost to an upstart freshman senator from Chicago – Barack Obama. But Mr. Obama needed Mr. Clinton’s support in order to succeed in the general election. That was not an automatic. Mr. Obama, through his campaign, accused Mr. Clinton of “racism” – a tactic oft repeated since then by Mr. Obama. There was and is no love lost between the Obamas and the Clintons.

But a deal was needed and thus a deal was struck. Mr. Clinton would provide his valuable support and in turn Ms. Clinton would become Mr. Obama’s Secretary of State – more resume building. (Suffice it to say that these type of political artifices are the regular diet of politicians – Republican and Democrat alike – and while they are legal they reek of hypocrisy in instances where the parties put on a “happy face” to cover the bitterness of being forced into the deal.) As was the case in her Senate career Ms. Clinton accomplished nothing but miles of travel and photo ops moments.

And meanwhile foreign governments poured additional millions into the Clinton foundations for their discretionary use. Ms. Clinton, as Secretary of State, was in a position to dispense favors to those foreign governments and those instances are now being cataloged by a newly elected Republican Congress.

And finally, the latest revelation is that Ms. Clinton refused the use of a government email account at the State Department and instead chose to conduct all of the government business on her private email accounts. But there is a twist. Ms. Clinton not only used her private email accounts but also established a private server at her home in New York. In doing so she eliminated any government path to the content of those emails. She controlled the preservation of those emails absolutely and the country is now left in the unique position of relying on Ms. Clinton’s honesty as to which emails are private and which emails are government related. More importantly, we are left to rely on Ms. Clinton’s honesty as to whether emails have been destroyed and that she has disclosed all of them. You can search the world for reasons as to why Ms. Clinton would chose to forego a government email service in favor of a private email account and server, but there is only one that is credible. She sought to control access to information that might contradict her public positions or disclose her failures. And that brings us full circle to the reason that she was dismissed from the Watergate committee staff.

But now Ms. Clinton is vulnerable. Vulnerable to Mr. Obama who finds himself in the unique position of destroying her political future by simply telling the truth in unambiguous terms. Ms. Clinton may be about to learn that as Will Smith’s character stated in the movie Independence Day,Payback’s a bitch.”

Remember, without Mr. Clinton, there would be no Hillary Clinton – no former First Lady, no former Senator from New York, no former Secretary of State and most assuredly no former and current candidate for the presidency. Given the literally hundreds of thousands of accomplished women in the United States who made it on their own, it is embarrassing to see Ms. Clinton put forward as the woman to demand that it is “our turn.”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2016 Presidential Election, Ethics, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Scandals | 42 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • IhateLiberals

    It will be laughable for her to talk about women’s rights when the Clinton Foundation has accepted donations from foreign organizations in nations where women are second and third class citizens with few rights.

    • redbean

      Laughable too considering her vicious take-down of any woman who stood in the way of the Bill’s ascension, and there were many.

      The hypocrisy surrounding the Foundation’s foreign donations are the really juicy part – on so many fronts. How fun to be reminded of those swinging 90’s! Remember when Bill got all the credit for being such a devoted friend of the Earth after designating that Utah wilderness area? It prevented the mining of cleaner low-sulfur coal, which opened up business for his foreign billionaire re-election buds to mine it in Indonesia. Always follow the $.

  • Bob Clark

    Well written critique. One other fascinating tid bit is how Ms. Clinton made off with White House dinner ware as the Clintons exodused the White House.

  • A. Harry WoeBelafonte’ Score

    Momma Looka another Clinton boo boo.

  • Granola girl

    To watch her offer the reason for the two accounts…she was standoffish and rude. The same as when she testified about Bengazi. I have both my work, and personal email accounts available on my iphone, not reason to carry two phones!! As a woman, she does NOT represent me! Slimey indeed.

  • Leathermouth

    Slimy, slimy!

  • Larry George

    I watched Hillary’s speech live yesterday and as far as I am concerned, “slime” does not start to describe her. There is no question in my mind that she was speaking to the low information crowd. I am a computer person and her excuse that she wanted the convenience of using only one phone is a pile of you know what. Now she has to know, or at least the people who manage her account knows, that you can have multiple email accounts on one phone. She could have easily had a .gov account and her “.lie” account, or multiple other accounts on the one phone.
    The TOS of posting here prevent me from REALLY saying what I think of this lying sack of manure.

    • TheFrequentPoster

      It us possible to disagree here?

      I’ve read that government rules say that if an employee’s phone has “dot-gov” e-mail access, the same phone cannot be used to access any other e-mail server. Thus, I think she was telling the truth when she claimed that she did what she did so she could carry one phone.

      I can attest from personal experience back when technology was more primitive, that carrying more than one device was a major pain in the rear. At one point, I was carrying a phone, a pager, and a Palm Pilot, and I was forever losing track of them.

      So, if what I read about the no-sharing rule for e-mail on phones with “dot-gov” access is true, then her rationale makes sense to me. Also, amid all the shouting, I still haven’t seen anything definitive about her breaking any laws or rules. To me, this is much ado about very little.

      • Larry George

        TheFrequentPoster, Sorry, but you’re dead wrong on having more than one account on one phone, because I have two accounts on my Android phone right now. Plus, I am a computer engineer, with over 40 years in the business and have more information about Hillary’s testimony being totally bogus. She made a point that her server was protected by Secret Services agents in her house. Is she so ignorant, or think we are, to believe that people need to come into your house to hack into your system? If you will read the news accounts today, hackers have already proven they can get into her server. Nice try at trying to convince us of Hillary’s knowledge and honesty. How long have you been on her team?

        • TheFrequentPoster

          Larry, do you work for the federal government, then?

  • Ardbeg rocks

    Absolutely nobody is following this story. A recent survey said 4% of 17-35 yearolds are following this story. IF somebody can find a damageing email from her then maybe this becomes a real news story. Until then it’s just fodder for idiot bloggers. What I do not understand is the nut job 47 republicans who sent a letter to Iran. Those all white asre aches just committed a FLIPPING FELONY punishable by one year imprisionment, a fine or both. Look up ‘The Logan Act”. Or don’t, ignorance is bliss.

    • Eric Blair

      I wonder if we’ll see a “slime” post from Larry about any Republicans? I hate the posturing and the childish politics that gets played — your candidate is always great, the other candidate is terrible, and no action is too banal or inconsequential to be thrown up as evidence of their perfidy.

      • redbean

        No need for such a post from Mr. Huss – the MSM is all ’bout dat slime when it concerns anyone with an “R” after their name.

        • Eric Blair

          LOL.. Yes, poor R’s, they just can’t ever catch a break like the D’s. Sometimes, ya know, Republicans sound kinda whiny. Always the victim

          • guest

            clEric Blair lacks common sense cojones,
            Butt there again, d’oh bleats sashay at left wing ceremonies.
            So where does diss little ploy blue tome from,
            CSI evidence: Hee hawing PERS say from an Farm Conundrum.

    • redbean

      I guess that makes me an absolute nobody, not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m following the story for entertainment purposes only, watching the self-righteous progs go to great lengths to protect their own is always good for a laugh. Good thing they’re all keeping up with their yoga practice.

      The point is not whether there is anything damaging in her emails. She’s already committed a felony by being a government employee who hid government documents from her employer, max sentence of 3 years in jail and disqualification from serving in public office. She also failed to keep her classified work in a secured digital facility, meaning she risked exposing state secrets to hacking. Of course, one can sympathize with her a bit, knowing what the administration did to Gen. Petraeus when he didn’t follow the company line – guess they knew all about that private gmail account.

      No worries, though, Jail, like taxes, are only for the little people. You know, us nobodies.

      • Eric Blair

        So what are the chances that 47 Republican Senators are gonna be charged with a felony?

        • David from Mill City

          Unfortunately, the chances are very low.

        • redbean

          0% – the Logan Act refers to actions taken without the “authority of the United States,” not just the executive branch, as the State Dept. clarified to Congress in the mid 1970’s. Of course, many people seem to be OK with a dictatorial president, given the support for the current and former holders of the office. Still, the Logan Act was written in 1799, hasn’t been used since the early 1800s, and would not hold up under modern views of free speech. Then again, free speech is on life support, so that could change.

          And if they had committed a felony, it would simply be added to their side of the corruption account log, by which R’s and D’s excuse each other’s transgressions to accumulate leverage. Like I said, jail and taxes are for us little folk. The “too big to jail” crowd are safe until they fail to toe the party line, at which point they will be betrayed by their own party. Witness Sen. Menendez: the Not-So-Fickle Finger of Fate is currently busy with Mr. Menendez, or at least until it finds its way to Mr. Reid and a certain doctor’s suspicious donation to a certain super PAC.

          • Erotica Blair

            Ahhh! You’d best keep your reasonableness on the down low. It’s not appreciated on here. 😉 Usually the meme is.. Democrats bad, Republicans good.

            Free speech, however, has always had limits. Still does. In fact, I doubt free speech is anymore under attack than it ever has. Used to be you couldn’t send birth control information through the mails.

            Are you sure about it not being a felony.. last time I saw, 47 isn’t 2/3s of 100. 😉

          • redbean

            True that…but the name of their game is “I’ll scratch yours, if you scratch mine.”

            Hmmm, I probably shouldn’t be saying that in a reply to your new handle…

          • Erotica Blair

            LOL.. you can blame Guest.. or . or whatever he goes by at the moment. (I assume he’s a he.. and in his mom’s basement).

          • redbean

            I’d assumed he was a “he” as well, but with that nimble word play had pictured him as, uh, not exactly a spring chicken. I applaud your acceptance of your gender transformation at the hands of Dr. “dot”!

          • guest

            Arrive and well, butt naught in your decadent, shilly shally fallow, thou left bling numbskull fookland plowshlarer in the Analmall Pfarm. .

      • David from Mill City

        Redbean—Specifically what criminal statute do you believe Ms Clinton violated? And what is the source of the evidence that shows that all the elements of the statute have been satisfied. In the case of the 47 Senators it is clear from the evidence in the public record, much from their own mouths, that they are in violation of the Logan Act and should be prosecuted.

        • redbean

          Same statute to which Gen. Petraeus has agreed to plead guilty (misdemeanor, fine for each document). Due to her high-level security clearance, she can’t keep classified info outside of secured government channels. She also must return any government documents in her possession when she leaves her position. Destroying those documents would be a felony. Of course, she has designated herself as the one who will decide whether she kept any classified documents. And we’re just supposed to take her word for it, and we will. No worries.

        • redbean

          The only Logan Act indictment was in 1803 for an anonymous article seeking an alliance with France to create a new nation in the western territory/Kentucky.

          Senators George McGovern and John Sparkman were accused but not prosecuted in the 70s for their discussions with Cuban officials. The State Dept. backed up the senators.

          The Logan Act is useful to threaten those who upset the status quo. Reagan thought Jesse Jackson violated it by visiting Cuba and Nicaragua, and bringing back political prisoners. Speaker Jim Wright ran afoul of Reagan regarding the Sandinistas and Contras; there was talk that Wright may have been in violation, just to ruffle his feathers.

          The Logan Act is clearly unconstitutional in terms of the First Amendment, but is useful nonetheless. We all unknowingly commit felonies every day, so it’s important to keep these laws on the books just in case they’re needed to silence troublemakers.

    • David from Mill City

      Ardbeg rocks— The maximum penalty for Logan Act is a fine and 3 years in prison not 1 year.

    • TheFrequentPoster

      I think the Hillary “scandal” is waaaaay overblown, and that the Rs were foolish (at best) with that letter. But this constant trading of accusations of this felony or that felony gets tiresome. Methinks people watch too many lawyer shows.

    • MrBill

      Just because only 4% of 17-35 year olds are following it doesn’t mean it isn’t important. For that matter, just because they are following something doesn’t mean it is important either.

      I gather that you also really don’t disagree w/Mr. Huss’ chronology. Why else would you change the subject?

  • Eric Blair

    Remember, without Mr. Clinton, there would be no Hillary Clinton – no
    former First Lady, no former Senator from New York, no former Secretary
    of State and most assuredly no former and current candidate for the
    presidency.

    You need to rein in your flights of fancy Larry. The assumption that Hillary Clinton couldn’t have made it on her one is just idle conjecture on your part. Laughable – given your penchant for knocking public education, when do we get to see the great insights and thoughtful comment derived from your private education?

    Also consider this.. with out Hillary Clinton, there would have been no Bill Clinton, governor of Arkansas and 42nd President of the United States. Or does your carefully crafted, private education, mind (that was sarcasm for those condemned to believe Larry’s missives) only work in one direction? C’mon Larry, as highly you obviously think of yourself, certainly you could think outside of the box a little?

    • guest

      Erotica Blair, welcome as zits on a ‘cover girl’ or a covert miss like sHillary Ad. .

      • Erotica Blair

        Erotica? I like that! I should change my name. Makes me feel warm and wanted.

      • Erotica Blair

        There.. I think that really works, don’t you?

        • guest

          E.B. Blaring-Snooker, aka, Erotica Blare: Suggest you take a divergence break, like dotty gov Kitzhandler, and get ahold of yourself in sum Ann Southern regions sow of the border in Gumsmokem si si patron barz of markarita-vile for a restart attending your senor trifle.

          • Erotica Blair

            You are really going to have to make up your mind.. Eriotica Blare now? I really don’t want to change my name 3 times a day.

          • guest

            Your ranites paste like LIBrary goo in a red herring chowder serv’n from a firking container of DNC ill gotten tanky panky.

  • redbean

    Mr. Huss, thanks for the stroll down Memory Lane, or maybe “memory hole” is more like it. My favorite part of Whitewater is where Ms. Clinton’s legal services included writing up purchase agreements (they weren’t real mortgages) that exploited the working class people buying the lots, who lost all equity in the property if they were in default more than 30 days. They couldn’t take ownership until the entire amount due was paid off. Given that many of these buyers were close to retirement and not in the best of health, half of them lost their property and what they thought was their equity. Then the scoundrels could take possession, resell the lot and start again. The sub-primers of the early 2000s couldn’t hold a candle to the Clinton-McDougall gang.

    • MrBill

      I forgot about that. It’s surprising people don’t talk much about it.

  • Ardbeg

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) head of the over site committe and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the House’s Select Committee on Benghazi both have and use private emails to conduct official business. But who cares about them? They’re both republicans and neither is running for president. Much more fun to focus on Hillary. She must scare the heck out of old conservative white men (GOP)

    • guest

      You mean HItlary doesn’t shake prattle and troll you? Wow!
      What a near-sighted nimrod skating about in a Buffalo herd, monsieur Aardburgers on the shrill. .

    • redbean

      Killary is a federal employee of the Executive Dept. Congressmen work for their constituents (supposedly, LOL) .

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)