Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
During her campaign to be NY State Senator: Was there vote buying?
Edmonton Journal (Alberta)
January 28, 2001 Sunday Final Edition
Scandal creeps up on Hillary Clinton: Pardons for four Hasidic convicts linked to supporters
Daily Telegraph James Langton
Hillary Clinton was forced to lie low this weekend amid a growing storm over allegations that her campaign "bought" Jewish votes in exchange for a White House pardon for four Hasidic men convicted of fraud.
The former First Lady, now a United States Senator, abruptly cancelled a series of public appearances as details began to emerge of the deal struck on the last day of the Clinton presidency.
She captured almost 100 per cent of the votes in the Hasidic community of New Square, 32 km outside of New York, though neighbouring areas went strongly for Rick Lazio, her Republican opponent.
Clinton was given an enthusiastic reception at New Square during the Senate race last summer, with promises that a street would be named in her honour. Republican campaigning in the village stopped after it became clear that the 1,500 votes were locked up for the First Lady.
It emerged last week that representatives for the four men, who were convicted in 1998 of a $40-million swindle in which government funds were channelled into a non-existent religious school, met the Clintons in Washington only weeks before the inauguration of President George W. Bush.
Their names were subsequently added to a list of nearly 200 pardons and sentence commutations released by President Clinton.
The four Hasidic men, serving prison sentences of 30 months to seven years, had their jail terms cut by up to two-thirds. They claimed that the money was used to fund other community projects.
snip
On Jan 16, a member of the prosecution team wrote to the president, saying that a pardon would "send a message to the worldwide community that its pursuit of its own religious customs justified fraud against the government."
The New York Times February 1, 2001 Thursday
The Senator Doth Protest Too Little By JOYCE PURNICK
snip
questions she was asked concerned the pardons, gifts and commutations. She had ample opportunity to thunder or at least show some indignation.
She could have seized the chance to send a strong message that she is not for sale and that nobody had dare get the wrong impression. She did not. She was cool, steely, contained. Her legalistic answers were reminiscent of her husband's infamously careful parsing of language when he was accused of infidelity. ("There is not a sexual relationship" -- emphasis added.)
The senator showed no anger, deflected questions with studied calm, never once drew herself up and said, "I don't make deals and I never will." Instead, Mrs. Clinton denied a connection between that White House meeting and the subsequent commutations of the Hasidic men, said she had no opinion about her husband's decisions, delivered a civics lecture about the powers of the executive branch and referred reporters to Mr. Clinton's transition office.
Asked about the Rich pardon and the reduced sentences of the Hasidic men, who were convicted of inventing a fictitious religious school to attract millions of dollars in government aid, she said: "I have no opinion. I had no opinion before, I had no opinion at the time, and I have no opinion now."
But, persisted a reporter, what about the perception of a quid pro quo?
Said the new senator: "I have to say, I've been around politics for so many years. I have no way of even guessing, let alone controlling, what anyone will say or think. I can only do the best job I can, and that's what I intend to do. There wasn't any connection and, you know, people will have to make their own judgments about it."
They have.
24 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
progressives and "the left" were writing about "the clintons" at least as far back as the late eighties, if not earlier
mainstream/corporate media had a "love-fest" with the arkansas couple and ignored any negative substance. repub's regurgitated but added much refuse thereby defusing legitimate impact from the progressive critique which morphed to the 'right-smear smear' concept
[center]
"A CHART THAT APPEARED IN THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, MAY 1992"[/center]
if you weren't reading physical (yes: printed, in your hands paper-text subscription-based "alternative" media) sources back then, i can understand your comment
please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511471146 for reference
thank you in advance, democrattotheend
