Time: Sun Mar 30 14:18:50 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11264;
	Sun, 30 Mar 1997 12:14:12 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA08713;
	Sun, 30 Mar 1997 12:14:06 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 14:05:19 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: C-NEWS: The Sleeze Continues

<snip>
>
>Our Nomination for the best example of "Now the Frustration
>Sets In: How do we get rid of the rats in the White House?"
>
>This appeared in the March 26, 1997 issue of Investor's Business Daily:
>
>The Clinton Money Scam In Perspective
>
>The daily drip of revelations obscures a central fact: To hold the
>White House, the Clinton team didn't just work hard at raising
>funds, it threw ethics overboard.
>
>We may never have hard evidence of actual crimes. Given how
>many legalistic excuses the Clintonites had in place before
>anyone asked a question, it's plain they kept an eye on the laws
>all along.
>
>But no system can work if the only standard is the law. It's not
>enough to know you can waste years fighting someone in court
>if he or she does you wrong. To work together, you need to be
>able to trust others to at least try to perform as promised.
>
>And it's now undeniable that the Clinton-Gore money hunt
>didn't give a darn about the spirit of the laws.
>
>In the '70s, Democrats set up public financing of presidential
>elections in part to limit total spending. President Clinton
>blatantly end-ran this system, by using the Democratic National
>Committee as his political arm through the early part of the long
>'96 campaign, hoarding his ''own'' funds for later.
>
>This didn't just leave the president in better shape than the
>nominee of the GOP, where a horde of candidates used their
>limited money to beat each other up. It also kept other
>Democrats from challenging him. And while a Jesse Jackson,
>Bill Bradley or Dick Gephardt might not have been able to
>knock him off, they might well have helped shape America's
>political debate.
>
>Moreover, the two parties had traditionally saved this ''soft''
>money for the final campaigns. Clinton used it through '95 in a
>direct war on the GOP Congress.
>
>The laws' spending limits don't apply to party money because
>the parties are meant to be independent of candidates. But
>Clinton-Gore '96 and the DNC were just two dogs on the
>president's leash.
>
>Raising the cash required lots of unclean innovations, too.
>Records from Harold Ickes, the hands-on manager for most of
>Clinton's campaign, show that the White House set hard goals
>for how much it would raise from each coffee -and made few
>bones about telling attendees how much it cost to get in.
>
>The White House ditched the Reagan and Bush system for
>vetting guests - and put nothing in its place. No one looked to
>see if a guest was a drug dealer, arms merchant, influence
>peddler or scam artist: So long as they paid, they walked right
>in.
>
>The golden fund-raiser could do no wrong. John Huang, the
>connected man from the Lippo Group, won an exemption from
>normal security checks months before he took a job at the
>Commerce Department. He sat in on briefings that touched his
>old bosses' business, then rang them up.
>
>And after Huang left Commerce to join the Clinton campaign,
>he got to keep his top clearance. (Meanwhile, the White House
>personnel security office was reviewing FBI files on
>Republicans' backgrounds.)
>
>Now the FBI is trying to figure out whether Huang was a
>conscious agent of communist China's drive to buy Washington
>influence.
>
>The hunt for cash even roped in Vice President Al Gore, once
>known as a Mr. Clean. Gore never did fund-raising on
>government property when he was a senator, but he worked the
>phones as a loyal member of the Clinton team. His calls were
>technically legal, it seems, because he wasn't raising cash for
>Clinton- Gore '96, but for that ''entirely different'' entity, the
>DNC.
>
>And it sure looks as if the president's friends found other uses
>for the money spigots. The Clinton circle managed to enrich
>Webb Hubbell by half a million at a crucial time in '94, when
>the Whitewater prosecutors were trying to get him to talk.
>
>There's still no evidence that the White House asked anyone to
>pay off Hubbell, but there's not much proof he worked for the
>money, either. (We know he never finished an article he was
>paid $45,000 to write.) And why hire a lobbyist who's already
>headed to jail?
>
>As The Washington Post wrote this week, ''miracles happen.''
>Maybe Hubbell's windfall ''was a spontaneous occurrence.
>That's what you are asked to believe, and perhaps you do.''
>
>Most Americans still don't see anything special about the
>Clinton scandals: Few of us even try to use the words ''ethics''
>and ''politicians'' in the same sentence any more.
>
>But standards vary by industry; you sometimes talk to
>someone's peers to know if they've really crossed the line. That's
>why, though we normally sneer at Washington's elites, we put
>weight on the fact that the Clinton sleaze shocks the Beltway
>media, as well as other Democrats.
>
>We were upset, back in '92, when President Bush kept insisting
>that our votes should turn on the question of ''trust'': It seemed
>to us that he was avoiding the many issues that divide the two
>parties.
>
>But, as we said above, it's hard to get any business done when
>you know the folks you're supposed to work with will tell any
>lie, break any rule, to get their way.
>
>So long as the Clinton crew leads one side in the debate over
>America's future, the ''vital center'' will be nothing more than a
>sad joke.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> "If you aren't hearing about what's wrong with the Clinton
>    Administration, you must be getting your news from
>                         NBC."
>  -Elefanceros
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  Elephants R Us Home Page
>         http://www.enteract.com/~wdcook/republicans
>                 Home of the Hillary-Ometer
>-------
>To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message
>UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact
>owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions.
>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail