I began writing on this page on June 6, 1998, as my answer to all the people out there that believe the scandals plaguing the Clinton administration are much ado about nothing. "Why don't they just leave Clinton alone?" they ask, "None of this has anything to do with how well he's running the country." Furthermore, I'm told, "All these investigations are just costing millions of dollars, money that could be put to better use." Finally, "Everyone just knows that the Republicans are out to get Clinton because they are upset that they couldn't beat him at the polls."
I couldn't disagree more.
Why don't they just leave President Clinton alone? The answer to that is quite simple: Clinton will not let them. No, of course he doesn't want to be the target of investigation after investigation. Rather, he seemingly can't help engaging in shady activities whenever he thinks he can get away with it. The scandals arising from the 1996 campaign demonstrate that. He also is working hard to fend off past charges still under investigation, in the process engaging in something that looks an awful lot like obstruction of justice. There has been no sign that he has decided to turn over a new leaf, and, as a consequence, the charges against him keep mounting.
So none of this has anything to do with how well he's running the country? While this statement may be technically true in regard to some charges (such as whether he engaged in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky), in certainly is not with others, such as the allegations made about America's defense potentially being compromised in exchanged for Chinese money. Besides, do people really accept this as a principle? For example, if Clinton had someone killed and another person complained about it, would he angrily be told that it had nothing to do with how well Clinton was running the country? I doubt it. We would object to the theoretical murder because we do not expect that kind of behavior in our presidents. Similarly, it is legitimate for people to be upset that our married president is fooling around with a 25-year-old intern (though, of course, not as upset as they would be by a presidential murder).
So all these investigations are just costing money that could be spent better? Maybe. Maybe not. It's kind to hard to tell if there is some real fire behind all this smoke. If there isn't, then we can cancel all these wasteful investigations. What shall we do...I know! Let's see if there is anything to these allegations! How can we do that? I know! We'll have an investigation! Hey, wait a second...
The point I am making is that we will never know if there was anything worth looking into unless we look into it. Some serious allegations about Bill Clinton have been made. If even a fraction of those allegations are true, then at the very least they should brought to the attention of the public. Yes, this costs money, but what is the alternative? Should we decide that the president is free to do whatever he wants, no matter how atrocious, because it would cost money to look into the matter? The president of the United States is in a very powerful position. He could potentially take advantage of and endanger the citizens of this country. I do not find that argument that we should not worry about that "because we have better things to do with that money" to be at all convincing.
So are the Republicans just out to get Clinton? I am sure some of them would just love to see Clinton take a fall and are actively working toward that goal. Of that group, most of them probably want Clinton to be punished because they sincerely believes that he deserves to be. Perhaps a small minority -- though I am convinced it is very small -- would like to see Bill Clinton go down regardless of whether or not any of the accusations are true. I have no sympathy for those people, and I do not believe most Republicans do either. In short, I do not believe in Hillary Clinton's "vast ring-wing conspiracy". Most people assisting the investigations into Bill Clinton's behavior want the truth to come out, and, yes, many of them believe the truth is very damaging to Clinton.
In the end, do the motives really matter? An accusation is either true, or it is not true. Whether or not the accuser wants it to be true is irrelevent. The only time it is an issue is when it is only that person's word againt the president's. If, however, legitimate evidence is produced, it does matter how the person producing it feels about Clinton. All accusations should be weighed on their merit.
So that answers all the arguments against investigating the president, right? Well, not quite. I suspect many people that defend Clinton using the above arguments are actually implicitly making this argument: "Bill Clinton is a jerk. I know that. You know that. Everybody knows that. He is a pig around women. He has engaged in many borderline political activities. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Still, we voted him into office, and that economy's doing great. Clinton hasn't hasn't done anything that bad. I'm tired of hearing about all his problems. Yes, he's a scoundrel, but let's just drop the subject already. Enough is enough. Quite frankly, it's an embarrassment to this country. Especially the sexual stuff -- we look like a bunch of prudes getting upset over the Lewinksy situation."
I can certainly sympathize with this argument. I voted for Clinton in 1992. Though I have had Republican leanings since high school, I did not care for George Bush, I thought the country was in a slump, and I thought Bill Clinton had some good ideas for getting us back on track. Though a lot of Clinton's proposals would cost a lot of money, I thought he was a smart guy who knew what he was doing and would make a good president. So unlike a lot of Clinton's critics, I actually had high hopes for him. Unfortunately, he did not live up to them.
Regardless of what we expected of him, should we cut a president slack because the economy's doing well? I don't think so. The state of the economy when something is done (or is brought to the public's attention) generally has no bearing on whether it was right or wrong to do. Except for certain economic issues, to hold a president to different standards in different economic times is hypocrisy. Who is engaging in the worse offense: Those who are disgusted with things Clinton has done that are technically not part of his job? Or those who are not upset by things he has done but would have been upset by those very same things if the economy wasn't humming along nicely?
Should we not talk about our president's faults beause it is embarrassing? Of course not.
Since we voted Bill Clinton into office knowing about many of his problems, should we overlook all of them now? Of course not. I suspect many people joining the "it doesn't matter" chorus would actually fit in better with the "I should have known" group. Regardless, that does not give Bill Clinton the right to do whatever he wants.
Anyone that wishes for the scandals to stop should be wishing for Bill Clinton to stop engaging in scandalous behavior. Period. Wishing for the people bring the scandals to their attention to shut up is tantamont to shooting the messenger.
So now what? Now we look into the specifics of what Bill Clinton has been up to and why the American people should care. This page is a work in progress. There is a mind-boggling number of Clinton scandals at this point, so bear with me as I attempt (perhaps futiley) to get up to date. As I recall them or they are brought to my attention, I will add them to this page. Over time, I will flesh out the details.
One thing I will try to avoid is issues where the only problem I have with Clinton is his politics. I do not have the same political views as he does. My political views are explained on other pages in this site. I will only include things here that are truly scandalous in what I feel is an objective sense.
People in the Clinton administration wrongly and perhaps illegally retrieved the FBI files of people considered threats to them.
Like the Nixon administration, the Clinton people had their own list of unfriendly reporters and other citizens.
Some Clinton friends wanted to increase business through the prestige of running the White House travel office. On Hillary Clinton's orders, the whole office was fired to make room for them.
Then-Governor Clinton, an alleged friend of the feminism, propositions Paula Jones in a lewd manner by dropping his pants and inviting her to perform oral sex on him. Obviously, this says a lot about his true attitude toward women. The Paula Jones case against him was later dropped because Jones could not mean a strict definition of sexual harrassment when she did not show that her job was affected by her refusal to satisfy Governor Clinton. No doubt this came a relief to Clinton, because Jones had gotten a good enough look to be able to describe certain "distinguishing characteristics" that lent credence to her story.
In exchange for political donations, President Clinton issued a record number of waivers into Arlington National Cemetary, a place supposedly reserved for national heroes. The memory of the true heroes was dishonored by such frauds as Larry Lawrence, all so Clinton could pump up campaign funds.
Then-Governor Clinton allegedly used his influence to get help associates get loans for an Arkansas investments. The investments went bust, but not before many people had lined their pockets with a nice amount of cash.
Working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, vice president Al Gore helped collect tons of money from monks that had taken a vow of poverty. It was apparently obvious to everyone but Gore and Clinton that this was a political money-laundering operation -- people that had already given the legal limit funneled additional money through the monks.
No, the Clinton's did not kill him, despite some wacko accusations. As tragic as the suicide was, the real scandal occurred after as his death, as Clinton people, including Hillary, made sure that no incriminating evidence was left in his office or on his computer.
Were key decisions involving national security compromised by money from the Chinese military? One undisputed fact is that money from the the Chinese military was donated to Democratic coffers, including the legal defense fund of Hillary Clinton. Though this money was eventually returned after the scandal was exposed, key decisions about China policy had been made. Among those decisions was a Clinton administration decision to override a recommendation to stop selling China technology that could be used to guide intercontinental missiles -- some of which are aimed at the United States.
President Clinton engaged in a sexual relationship with 25-year-old intern Monica Lewinsky. Nobody seriously disputes that. Although morally objectionable to most people, there was nothing illegal about it. What is illegal is the fact that both Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton lied about their affair under oath when the Paula Jones legal team questioned them about it in an attempt to establish prior relevant behavior on the part of Clinton. Linda Tripp -- whatever one may think of her tape-recording a friend -- finally blew the whistle on them when she was ask to also lie under oath to back up their story.
She on her husband down on their luck, Kathleen Willey tried to use her political connection to Bill Clinton to get a break. Clinton's response? According to Willey, he told her he had had his eye on her, fondled her breast, and placed her hand on his groin.
Although Bill Clinton promised "the most ethical administration" to the American people, most of his cabinet has been indicted on one criminal charge or another.
From the Vietnam draft to marijuana to eating at McDonald's to partial birth abortion, Clinton just cannot seem to tell the truth.
Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Stay tuned to this page for more.
Copyright © 1998 Bob Rusbasan. All rights reserved.