Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Well isn’t this special? Or maybe like a phrase from Rob Lowe as Sam Seaborn in the West Wing, aka the Left Wing, as he met Leo’s daughter while explaining he slept with a prostitute, ‘this is bad on so many levels’. But more like the Church Lady, isn’t this special includes not only a non-ending procession of potentially campaign ending donors, but the author of a piece from The New York Sun, Nicholas Wapshott, may have coined another ‘gate’ word for the Clintons. Pardongate is just a special term. With TravelGate, ChinaGate and the others, Pardongate is either new or was missed earlier. Another gate that may appear in a subsequent edition of the series ‘A Little Clinton History’ offered here rather frequently.

But for now the topic is the piece from the New York Sun. Three more donors for the Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign should pose more difficulty for Senator Clinton. They are recipients of last minute pardons by then President William Jefferson Clinton. As the NYP points out, technically, two are criminals and one was let off the hook by Slick Willie before the DOJ indicted him. Good company to keep if you want to be President. Oddly enough, the one who is not technically a criminal probably did the worst offense of all three. Keeping classified docs on his home computer. He is now a professor at MIT. Does that cause you to lower your opinion of the institution of higher learning? How about the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Here are some excerpts of interest.

As Mr. Clinton argued in a spirited defense of his actions in the New York Times just a month after he left office, presidents are free to pardon whom they wish. “There is only one prohibition: there can be no quid pro quo. And there certainly was not in this or any of the other pardons and commutations I granted,” he wrote.

That’s the whole point former Mr President. The quid pro quo is sort of difficult to deny with the donations. If for no other reason than the appearance of impropriety. Something that honorable people effectively avoid so as not to violate the public trust. Not something you or your associates would ever be accused of. Or more accurately, the only thing you and your associates would never be accused of.

Then there is the most salient point of the report.

It revives a deeply damaging controversy about the ethics of the Clintons at a time when Mrs. Clinton is already fending off accusations that a member of her campaign has been smearing her principal rival, Senator Obama, by suggesting to a top Democrat, according to the columnist Robert Novak, that they are sitting on scandalous information about the Illinois lawmaker that is so damaging, it would stop his campaign in its tracks.

It throws into doubt whether Mr. Clinton is a clear political asset to his wife’s campaign, or whether the prospect of his return to the White House in an as yet unspecified senior capacity might not bring with it a return of the procession of scurrilous accusations that severely hampered his ability to govern.

Between the history of the Clinton clan and the current lack of control the Clintons have for following honorable practices no shortage of reasons for rejecting their pursuit of public office has presented itself. The sheer abundance or quantity of examples of bad behavior displayed by Hillary Rodham and William Jefferson Clinton and their long list of associates is sufficient for the public to withdraw their support. One can only guess that those who support HRC or her husband are either uninformed or of similar character to that of the Clintons. Perhaps they will see the error of their ways before November 2008.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 21st, 2007 at 2:25 pm and is filed under Money Matters, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, Clinton, disclosure, ethics, Law, Justice, hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.