Hillary plays loose with the truth

Amanda Carpenter, author of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Clinton, has tallied up the legions of her operatives who ran afoul of the law, beginning with Clinton herself. In Congressional hearings into Bill and Hillary’s campaign abuses, the First Lady set a record in the number of times she answered “I do not know” in relation to questions dealing with controversies about her personal finances and her husband’s transgressions. A whopping 250 times!

It’s worth remembering that she is the only First Lady to have come under criminal investigation, in both Little Rock and in Washington D.C. The numerous scandals reveal her extraordinary ability to obfuscate, to refuse to answer questions and to avoid scrutiny.

In relation to campaign fundraising irregularities, Ms Carpenter’s account of just how many of Bill and Hillary’s associates pleaded guilty, were indicted, or who fled the United States with the police on their tails is mesmerising. There were 47 individuals and businesses affiliated with the Clintons who pleaded guilty or were convicted of crimes. There were 61 indictments or misdemeanour charges. Another 122 Congressional witnesses took the Fifth Amendment (that is, they refused to answer a question because the response could form self incriminating evidence).

These numbers are more than staggering. They are unprecedented.

"The politics of personal destruction" was a phrase popularised in the 1990s by the Clintons to describe the attacks by the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy". But an incident early in Bill Clinton’s presidency, the Travelgate episode, raises a key question: were the Clintons more conversant with practicing that fine art than being its victim?

Former Washington Times editorial director, Mr Tony Blankley, recounts the Travelgate episode, a winning example of the contempt in which Hillary Clinton holds working Americans and simultaneously highlights the viscousness and the scheming that are bywords for her innate personality.

In 1993, upon settling into the White House, as is the right of every incoming administration, the Clintons could have sacked the head of the White House Travel Office, Mr Billy Dale, in order to shoe horn their lackey, Ms Catherine Cornelius. Twenty-four-year-old Catherine was President Clinton’s third cousin.

But no. Accepted behaviour was beyond the capacity of the Clintons who set to annihilate Mr Dale, by accusing him - with neither witnesses nor evidence - of embezzling $14,000.

The ruthless Mrs Clinton took the lead in butchering the career public servant’s reputation by dragging him to court, where much to her annoyance; the jury took under two hours to find him innocent on all charges. The case was virtually dismissed out of hand, like the rind of an orange, given there was no evidence. While Billy Dale and his staff were indeed vindicated, their lives were ruined.

Three points should be mentioned in relation to Travelgate. First, that a procession of high end White House reporters including Mr Brit Hume and Mr Sam Donaldson volunteered to be character witnesses for Mr Dale. Second, that in its report following the court case, the Office of the Independent Council concluded that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s testimony was “factually incorrect”. And third, that the media was so light on mentioning this incidence they virtually gave her a free pass.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton claims that what sets her apart from her immediate contender Senator Barack Obama, is the experience she has garnered through the indispensable time she spent in the White House as First Lady. Her intimate involvement in her husband’s presidency (as co-presidents perhaps) is what she holds to be the defining difference between her and the senator from Illinois.

But what experience exactly? Is she referring to foreign policy, where she defends Bill Clinton’s idleness in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?