Tag Archives: Clinton impeachment

legal news, State news

Texas AG faces possible indictment

This one seems cut-and-dried, but it’s probably not going to be determined that way.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has actually admitted to securities fraud. He was elected anyway in 2014 as the state’s top lawyer, its chief litigator. He should be above reproach. Isn’t that correct?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/28/grand-jury-looming-paxtons-team-and-prosecutors-sp/

He’ll be investigated by a Collin County grand jury, which will get evidence presented by the Texas Rangers, the elite investigative arm of the Department of Public Safety.

Cut-and-dried?

The Republican attorney general admits to soliciting investment clients for a friend without notifying the state in accordance with state law.

So, is Paxton guilty as charged?

Let’s walk back a few years to around 1998.

President Bill Clinton took an oath to tell the truth while testifying before a federal grand jury. The panel asked the president some questions relating to his relationship with a young White House intern. The president didn’t tell the truth about that relationship.

What did the House of Representatives do? It impeached President Clinton.

Ostensibly, the impeachment really wasn’t about the inappropriate affair with the intern. It was about whether the president followed the law. The House said his lying to the grand jury constituted an impeachable offense.

The Senate, though, acquitted the president of the counts brought against him.

So, when a state constitutional officer — the attorney general — admits to breaking state securities law, does that constitute an indictable offense?

Cut … and … dried. Maybe.

national news, political news

In a word, the Hillary email story is about 'trust'

You can sum up the difficulty that is building around Hillary Rodham Clinton’s probable presidential campaign in a single five-letter word: trust.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-press-conference-115989.html?hp=b3_r1#.VQaz71J0yt8

Can she be trusted to tell us the truth all the time?

The Politico story attached here talks about the history she and her husband, the former 42nd president, Bill Clinton, had in using the English language to wiggle their way out of difficulty.

President Clinton sought to tell Americans that he “did not have sexual relations” with the young White House intern. It turned out that likely did have what almost anyone describe as a sexual relationship with her — but not in the way he defined it.

Does anyone recall how the president defined the word “is”?

Hillary Clinton’s email mess, on its face, likely isn’t a huge story. It’s becoming one, though, because of her own seemingly slippery use of language to define what she did and when she did it.

The Politico essay refers to her talking about “not saving” email communications. What happened to the word “delete”? Did she delete the messages, send them to the trash bin on purpose?

It’s that kind of imprecise language that seems to be getting the former secretary of state/U.S. senator/first lady into a bit of a jam as she ramps up her 2016 presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton once seemed like the inevitable 45th president of the United States. She remains the prohibitive favorite to become the Democrats’ next nominee for the office.

That aura of White House inevitability, however, suddenly is needs some major repair.

Straight talk would help build some much-needed trust.

 

political news

Now it's Sen. Graham thinking about '16 bid

Oh boy, I can hardly contain my enthusiasm for the upcoming presidential campaign.

The potential Republican field just got another name to ponder: Lindsey Graham, the senior U.S. senator from South Carolina.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/lindsey-graham-2016-elections-south-carolina-114362.html

Why is this such an interesting development?

Graham is a noted conservative from a deeply conservative state. He and fellow Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona take turns bashing the dickens out of President Obama, particularly on foreign policy — which is understandable, given that the domestic economy is starting to rock along. Heck, sometimes Graham and McCain are singing together.

However, Graham has had this annoying tendency — if you’re a Republican — to say nice things about some of the appointees the president puts forward to fill key administration posts. While many other GOP senators were slamming Loretta Lynch as the next attorney general, Graham said she’s a solid pick, highly qualified and he indicated his intentions to vote to confirm her when the time comes.

This is the kind of thing that’s going to make him a target among other GOP White House contenders when they line up to debate — if Graham decides to run, of course.

He’s a sharp lawyer. Remember when, as a member of the House, he managed the Republicans’ successful effort at impeaching President Clinton? Well, the Senate decided correctly to acquit the president of those “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

So, as he told “Meet the Press” today, he’s thinking seriously about a presidential bid. He told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he has “set up a testing-the-waters committee under the IRS code that will allow me to look beyond South Carolina as to whether or not a guy like Lindsey Graham has a viable path.”

Just one request, Sen. Graham, if you take the plunge: Stop referring to yourself in the third person.

Uncategorized

Monica's back; now, just go away

She’s back.

Monica Lewinsky is now 40 and she’s written a book. She has returned to the public eye apparently to sell a few copies of her book, to make some money and to set the record straight on what happened between her and the 42nd president of the United States.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-return-of-monica-lewinsky-106507.html?hp=r16#.U22Y5FJOWt8

Count me as one American who doesn’t care what she has to say.

Lewinsky’s role in the impeachment of President Clinton has been covered, dissected, micro-examined and analyzed to the hilt. It’s all been revealed.

She now wants to “move on,” and wants to “burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” You remember the blue dress, right? The one with the president’s, um, DNA that proved he did something naughty with the then 20-something White House intern.

He had denied doing it in testimony before a federal grand jury. Yes, he told a lie under oath and that became — officially — the reason the House of Representatives impeached him. The Senate put the president on trial, but he was acquitted.

The question perhaps always will remain, in my mind at least: How did a special prosecutor’s investigation into a real estate deal — which we called “Whitewater” — then involve what the president was doing after hours with a young woman?

I smelled a witch hunt at the time and I believe the prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, was motivated to find something, anything, to pin to the president. He found it when he discovered Monica Lewinsky.

She’s back, telling her side of the story. She believes she was scapegoated by the president and first lady — and their allies. Fine. She’s entitled to say it.

I’m already hoping she’ll now move back to private life and doing whatever she’s been doing since her moment of notoriety flamed out.

Uncategorized

Do as I say, not do

Vance McAllister is a Louisiana Republican member of Congress who campaigned in 2012 for an office while touting his deep Christian faith, his devotion to his wife and children and his vow to make Washington a more moral place.

Then he got caught in a lengthy and reportedly passionate kiss with a female (who’s also married) member of his staff.

The stuff, shall we say, is hitting the fan down yonder in Louisiana.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caught-kissing-staffer-rep-vance-mcallister-asks-for-forgiveness/

This is what happens when you campaign as one thing and perform in another manner.

It happened to former U.S. Sen. and one-time Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, who professed his devotion to his wife, Elizabeth, while producing a child with another woman.

It also happened when former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich was among the leaders in the impeach Bill Clinton movement during the president’s scandal over an affair of his own. Then we learned that as Gingrich was blasting Clinton to smithereens over his conduct, the speaker was having actual sex with a House staff member.

The bipartisan list of moral hypocrites is too long to list here. Those two jumped immediately to mind.

Rep. McAllister has some explaining to do to (a) his wife and (b) the good folks of Louisiana who elected him thinking they were getting someone with the record of a Boy Scout.

How he handles the trouble with his wife will be his business alone. How he settles it with the people who are paying his salary is quite another.

“There’s no doubt I’ve fallen short and I’m asking for forgiveness. I’m asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve,” McAllister said in a statement. “Trust is something I know has to be earned whether you’re a husband, a father, or a congressman. I promise to do everything I can to earn back the trust of everyone I’ve disappointed.”

How’s he going to make good with his constituents? Will he vow never to do it again? If so, can he be believed?

Good luck, congressman.

Uncategorized

Hey, Sen. Paul, Bill Clinton’s not running for president

Rand Paul needs to break out his copy of the U.S. Constitution and turn to the 22nd Amendment.

It says that no person can serve more than two full terms as president of the United States. Were he to read it again — I’m sure he knows what it says — then he might be brought back to Earth in his budding campaign to become the 45th president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/07/rand-paul-keeps-attacking-bill-clinton-why/

The Kentucky Republican U.S. senator keeps mentioning the 42nd president’s scandalous relationship with a White House intern in the late 1990s, which led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives. He says Democrats cannot claim the mantle of being the Party of the Woman because the president committed a terrible act of sexual harassment against that intern.

Paul also is urging those who took money raised by Clinton should give it back.

Oh, did I mention that Bill Clinton isn’t running for the presidency, that the Constitution forbids the former two-term president from seeking the office?

I also haven’t mentioned — yet — that the ex-president’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is a possible candidate for the high office in 2016.

Do you get it? Sen. Paul is seeking to link Hillary Clinton to the misdeeds of her husband — even though Bill Clinton’s popularity has soared into the stratosphere in recent years because of his great work on all kinds of worldwide issues.

Rand Paul is sounding like a fool if he intends to smear the former secretary of state and ex-U.S. senator with that kind of defamatory rhetoric.

Uncategorized

Is Bill Clinton going to run as well in 2016?

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., may be considering a run for the presidency in 2016, which is partly why he appeared today on “Meet the Press.”

As a potential GOP candidate, therefore, the conversation turned to — who else? — Hillary Rodham Clinton, a possible (if not probable) Democratic candidate for president.

Paul then dropped this little nugget: If the former secretary of state runs, the impeachment of her husband, the former president, could become an issue.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-women-have-already-won

Interesting, yes?

It’s also a bit of a stretch for those of us who want to judge the former first lady, U.S. senator and chief diplomat on her own merits. Paul sees it differently, which is no surprise. He and those in his party are going to seek every possible advantage they can find — even if they make things up — against the Hillary Juggernaut that could await them in 2016.

Paul said Democrats’ assertion that they are the party that cares about women doesn’t hold true, given President Clinton’s dalliance with a young female intern that led to his impeachment and Senate trial.

“Meet the Press” host David Gregory asked: “Is it something that Hillary Clinton should be judged on if she were a candidate in 2016?” Paul’s response: “Yeah – no, I’m not saying that. This is with regard to the Clintons, and sometimes it’s hard to separate one from the other. But I would say that, with regard to his place in history, that it certainly is a discussion.”

OK, he said “no” after he said “yeah,” meaning that it is an issue.

I would beg to differ. Hillary Clinton has made her mark on U.S. history, first as a U.S. senator from New York who distinguished herself in the eight years she served in that body. Then came her unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2008 in which she gave eventual nominee Barack Obama all he could handle. Then she got the call to become secretary of state in the Obama administration, and she distinguished herself in that service.

She’s a player and a big hitter all on her own.

Whatever her husband did to warrant impeachment should have no little if any bearing on a possible second run for the presidency. She’ll have her own record to defend.

However, as NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd noted, her task will be to run as “Hillary” not as a “Clinton.” I’m guessing Hillary is going figure it out.