Tag Archives: Clinton impeachment

Ken Starr calls it quits at Baylor

starr

Oh, the irony of it all.

Kenneth Starr has quit his job as a law professor at Baylor University. You’ve heard of him, yes?

He once was a special counsel who was hired by Congress to investigate a real estate deal involving President Clinton and his wife, Hillary Clinton. Then the investigation turned into something quite different. He began sniffing around about allegations of an affair between the president and a young White House intern.

His investigation resulted in the impeachment of the president on grounds that he lied under oath about the affair to a federal grand jury. The Senate acquitted Clinton.

Starr moved on, first to Pepperdine University and then to Baylor.

But … while he served as president of Baylor, the university got caught up — wait for it! — in a sex scandal involving star football players. The school was accused of covering up some serious misbehavior.

It all happened on Starr’s watch.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/20/ken-starr-resigns-as-baylor-law-professor-cuts-ties-with-university.html

The head football coach was fired. The athletic director quit. Starr was demoted from president to chancellor. He kept his classroom job.

Now he’s quit the professor post, severing his ties with the university.

Do you get the irony? Sex propelled Ken Starr to a form of political stardom and sex has caused his fall from grace at a major Texas university.

As the saying goes: Karma’s a bitch, man.

Trump might get his wish after all

cover-chelsea-and-ivanka-600x300

Donald J. Trump says he wishes his daughter Ivanka and Chelsea Clinton weren’t such good friends.

That churning in my gut tells me he might get his wish before this presidential campaign ends.

Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, says he plans to “take gloves off” as he campaigns against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Big surprise, eh? Hardly.

But what about Ivanka and Chelsea? And their husbands, for that matter? The in-laws of the two nominees happen to be friends, too.

I’ve thought this might become one of the more interesting back stories of this campaign as Mom and Dad battle it out to see who voters will elect to become the next president of the United States of America.

I don’t know too much about Ivanka Trump, other than what I’ve read recently about her, that she’s an intelligent and engaging young woman.

As for Chelsea, well, we’ve all sort of watched her grow up before our eyes. She, too, is intelligent and engaging.

My curiosity, though, might be drawn to whether she’s able to compartmentalize her relationships the way her parents so famously have been able to do.

Bill Clinton got impeached by the House and was put on trial in the Senate, which acquitted him of the charges brought by House members. He was able to continue working through the rest of his presidency with the very men and women who voted to impeach and to convict him.

Hillary Clinton then ran for the Senate in 2000, promising to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans who wanted her husband kicked out of office. Who became one of her best friends in the Senate? Republican John McCain, who was among those who voted to convict the president.

Did their daughter inherit that ability to put the nastiness aside to preserve her friendship with the daughter of a famously crass politician who’s shown quite an ability to say just about anything to and about his political foes?

We’re about to find out.

Is karma about to bite Kenneth Starr?

ken starr

Does anyone out there see the irony in reports that Kenneth Starr has been fired as president of Baylor University?

Baylor’s board of regents will announce soon whether reports of Starr’s dismissal are true.

Why all the fuss over Starr? Baylor University has been struggling with a sex scandal on campus and reports that school officials failed to take action when one of the school’s football players was accused of raping a female student. The athlete was convicted and other cases emerged in which Baylor officials allegedly failed to take proper action.

The incident and the ensuing scandal has swallowed up the school.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/24/amid-reports-starrs-firing-baylor-says-expect-anno/

The irony is this …

Kenneth Starr is the very same fellow who more than 20 years ago launched an investigation into President Bill Clinton’s real estate dealings. Congress appointed him as a special prosecutor to probe the Whitewater investment matter.

Then something happened. Starr got wind of an inappropriate relationship that the president was having with a young female White House intern. That scandal grew as well. The investigation into a real estate matter morphed into something quite different, more salacious.

The president was summoned before a federal grand jury, which asked him about the relationship. The president, who swore to tell the truth, didn’t tell the truth and he was impeached for lying under oath.

Sex has this way of engulfing things, if you know what I mean.

I get that the cases are far from similar. Starr hasn’t been accused of doing anything improper here. He might take the fall, though, for others’ actions or inaction. He does run the university and as President Truman’s famous White House desk sign pointed out: The Buck Stops Here.

Still, as the saying goes: Karma can be a real drag, man.

 

When did political spouses deserve the blame?

kennedys

A picture showed up on my Facebook feed with the caption: No one blamed Jackie for what Jack did.

Hmm. Interesting, yes?

Now we’re getting a lot of blame being tossed around at the wife of another president.

Times really have changed.

President John F. Kennedy was a seriously unfaithful husband. During the time he was president — from January 1961 until November 1963 — his transgressions went unreported by the media that knew about it, but kept it secret through an understanding: If it doesn’t affect his performance as president, it doesn’t matter.

Years later, long after JFK had been buried and his wife had remarried, the world knew of what he had done behind his wife’s back.

Have we blamed Jackie for what the president did?

No. Today, the calculus is different.

Republican candidate for president Donald J. Trump is now blaming Hillary Rodham Clinton for being an “enabler.” That’s a reason to vote against her for president, said Trump. Why? Because she was mean to other women who accused her husband, Bill Clinton, of being unfaithful to her.

The House of Representatives impeached President Clinton for lying under oath about his relationship with a young White House intern. The Senate acquitted him in the trail that ensued.

Does any of that have an impact on how Hillary Rodham Clinton would govern the country if she’s elected president this fall? No.

In fact, I saw another social media post that suggested that Hillary Clinton’s response to her husband’s transgression should be saluted, not condemned. The Clinton family stayed together. They worked through their anger and heartbreak.

Of course, none of us knows what they have said to each other in private. Nor should we know. It’s their business exclusively.

Perhaps the most ironic twist of all in this game of blaming a political spouse for her husband’s behavior is the reputation of the individual who’s leveling the blame.

Given his own highly publicized history of marital infidelity, Donald Trump has no standing — zero! — to challenge the moral rectitude of any other human being in public life.

‘We let bygones be bygones’

Perry_presser_photoTT_jpg_800x1000_q100

I generally like the craft of politics and, yes, I like some of those who practice the craft.

One of the aspects of politics, though, is the ease with which politicians can set aside amazingly hurtful comments they make about each other to pursue newfound friendships and alliances.

Take the case of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Donald J. Trump.

I would have bet real American money that the two men truly detested each other after hearing Perry skin Trump alive with comments about the real estate mogul being a “cancer on conservatism.”

Not long after that, Perry dropped out of the GOP primary race and then endorsed the formerly “cancerous” Trump’s bid for president.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/06/perry-defends-trump-endorsement/

According to the Texas Tribune: “We are competitors, and so the rhetoric is in the heat of battle. It’s in the chaos of a presidential bid,” Perry said, also noting his criticism of Mitt Romney during the 2012 presidential campaign. “If no one doesn’t understand that, then they don’t understand how our process of elections work. We compete, and then we let bygones by bygones.”

I guess Perry deserves credit for being a good sport. So, too, does Trump for accepting the Perry endorsement.

The things they say to and about each other, though, do seem to cross some imaginary boundary of decency.

I look back at the 2000 contest for the U.S. Senate seat in New York. The Democratic Party nominee for that seat was none other than first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. I considered it astonishing then that Clinton would want to serve in the legislative body with senators who actually voted to convict her husband of charges brought against him in that impeachment.

It also astounded me, after she won the seat, that Clinton managed to form constructive working relationships with her Republican Senate colleagues, who, you’ll recall, voted to convict President Clinton of the charges brought against him.

I didn’t think she’d run for the Senate seat. Nor did I believe she could ever trust her GOP colleagues as far as she could throw them.

I’m left to ask myself: Could I ever let “bygones be bygones” and throw in with former adversaries?

Umm. No.

 

‘Glass house’ suffers a lot of damage

Former US President Bill Clinton speaks during the 2011 Fiscal Summit by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation at the Mellon Auditorium in Washington, DC, May 25, 2011. AFP PHOTO / Saul LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

An item showed up on my Facebook feed that I must share here.

It points out that three men who were involved with the impeachment of President Clinton have been themselves caught up in sex scandals.

All three were — or presumed to be — speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston and Dennis Hastert? Stand up and take a bow.

Clinton got impeached because he lied to a federal grand jury about a dalliance he was having with a White House intern. Members of the House were so incensed that they just had to impeach the president for “breaking the law.” The impeachment in reality, though, also was about sex.

The Senate saw through it during the trial and acquitted the president of any “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Then the nation learned:

Speaker Newt Gingrich was fooling around with a congressional aide while he was married to another woman. He was doing this while excoriating the president for his own bad behavior.

Bob Livingston, who was supposed to become speaker after Gingrich quit, himself had to bow out because he, too, was having an extramarital affair.

Dennis Hastert, who became speaker after Livingston admitted to his own failings, paid hush money to keep quiet his own misdeeds involving teenage boys many years ago.

What’s that saying about those who reside in glass houses?

 

Hillary says she’ll ask for Bill’s advice . . . duh?

hillary clinton

This might qualify is a dumb question.

It came Sunday night during the Democratic Party presidential debate and the questioner wondered whether Hillary Rodham Clinton would seek the advice of the 42nd president of the United States.

Wow! Do you think?

Why wouldn’t she? Bill Clinton left office in January 2001 with a 65 percent approval rating, and that was after he’d been impeached by the House of Representatives.

I totally understand that the former president had, um, some issues relating to a certain White House intern. I’m also aware of the official reason for the impeachment, that he committed perjury to a federal grand jury that asked him directly about the relationship.

But let’s get real here. Bill Clinton’s presidency was a rousing success. Was it totally free of tragedy? Of course not.

However, if the former first lady/U.S. senator/secretary of state is elected this November as the nation’s 45th president, she’d be stupid beyond belief not to enlist the advice of her husband.

Bill Clinton presided over eight years of superb economic growth in this country. The president — with support from Congress — managed to balance the federal budget and left office with the budget operating in the black for the first time since seemingly forever.

Is the former president’s advice worth obtaining?

Yeah, I kind of think so.

 

Yes, impeachment was about sex

bumpers

Now that Donald Trump has dredged up the Bill Clinton impeachment travesty, it’s good to take a brief moment to remember someone who arguably had the best sound bite of all regarding that tawdry political episode.

Dale Bumpers was a former governor and U.S. senator from Arkansas, President Clinton’s home state. Bumpers died this week at the age of 90.

He once described himself as the “best lawyer in a one-lawyer town.” His self-deprecating wit would be welcome today in an era when too many politicians take themselves as seriously — if not more so — than their public service calling.

Well, it was Bumpers who offered up a fascinating quote regarding the president’s impeachment. You’ll remember that special counsel Kenneth Starr started looking at a real estate deal involving President and Mrs. Clinton. He expanded his probe to include a wide range of issues.

Lo and behold, he discovered that the president had improper relationship with a White House intern. A federal grand jury questioned Clinton about it; the president was less than truthful. Thus, came the ostensible grounds for impeachment.

Bumpers, though, told the truth about it.

“When they say this impeachment isn’t about sex,” Bumpers said, “it’s about sex.”

He was right.

The impeachment itself turned out to be a political travesty of the first order.

The House did its job by impeaching the president. The Senate — which included Bumpers — did its job as well by acquitting him.

 

Is a spouse’s conduct really fair game?

clinton

Maybe I’m a bit slow on the uptake, which wouldn’t be much of a shock, truth be told.

I’m having trouble connecting a few dots, though, between the behavior of a former president of the United States to the current campaign for the White House featuring the former president’s wife.

Bill Clinton messed around with a White House intern in the late 1990s and got impeached because of it. His wife, Hillary Clinton, wants the job Bill used to have.

So, what does she do? She challenges a potential Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, for his attitudes toward women. She calls him a sexist.

Trump’s response? He said Clinton’s husband is among the most sexist men in recent history . . . because of his alleged extramarital affairs and, of course, the dalliance with the intern.

I’m finding myself asking: Why is that relevant to the job that Hillary Clinton might do as president? Why does it matter what Bill Clinton was alleged to have done? I used the term “alleged” relating to the previous accusations because I do not believe any of them has ever been proved.

Hillary Clinton’s assertions about Trump relate to the here and now. They speak to Trump’s statements — which are on the record — about women; they speak to the very issues that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly brought up during that first Republican presidential debate and which garnered Trump all that notoriety.

Trump’s retort is to dredge up a relationship that resulted in a presidential impeachment that occurred more than 17 years ago; let us remember, too, that the U.S. Senate acquitted President Clinton of the charges brought by the House of Representatives.

Oh, my. This is going to be some kind of presidential campaign year.

Here we are on the third day of 2016 and I’m already wishing this year would be over.

 

Sen. Graham shows what’s wrong with GOP

graham_ap_328

Don’t get me wrong.

Sen. Lindsey Graham — himself — is not what is wrong with today’s Republican Party. The South Carolinian’s departure this week from the 2016 presidential race illustrates what’s so troubling about others within the GOP.

Graham represents what — for the time being — appears to be a dying breed of Republican. He’s one of those individuals who works with Democrats, not against ’em.

His reputation, thus, has become of one what hardcore Republicans call RINO, a Republican In Name Only.

Graham isn’t a RINO. The label is undeserved, except for the fact that he has many friends on the other side of the Senate chamber, which I guess has become something of a kiss of death these days among the Republican Party “base.”

He became quite critical during his presidential campaign of much of the rhetoric coming from his fellow candidates. Remember when he called Donald Trump a “jackass”? He became one of the first targets that Trump singled out, reciting Graham’s cell phone number aloud at a public event.

Graham, though, had the bad form — in the eyes of his GOP base — to work with Democrats on such issues as climate change, immigration reform and tax reform. It didn’t matter that the former Air Force lawyer has been a staunch advocate for a strong defense and that he has been at the forefront of calling for more — and pardon my use of the euphemism that I detest — “boots on the ground” in the fight against Islamic terrorists.

Perhaps it was Graham’s vote against articles of impeachment against President Clinton in 1998 — as a member of the House Judiciary Committee — that sealed the deal for the GOP base.

Whatever, this faithful Republican is now out of the presidential race because he isn’t hardcore enough to suit the red-meat Republicans who still see Democrats as “enemies” and not more “opponents.”

That’s too bad.

For Graham and for his Republican Party.