American Politics Journal -- On the Radar: Paula and Rudy



Home • Latest • Archive • Search

Twice Exonerated -- But Who Would Know?
The campaign to "get" Hillary Rodham Clinton suffers humiliating defeats on two fronts
by Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

Thursday, June 1, 2000 -- LAS VEGAS (AmpolNS) -- It seems that every time some hard-right group tries to pin some sort of hyperbolic "crimes" on Hillary Rodham Clinton, you can't avoid hearing all about it -- on the nightly news, in the (mostly conservative) op-ed columns, from Internet rumormongers -- in painstaking detail.

But once each of these phony, trumped-up charges -- motivated by the desire for political revenge and having nothing whatsoever to do with anything even remotely resembling a need for justice -- gets shot down, there is nary a word from the establishment press.

Remember how quickly and quietly the outcry over Hillary died when then-Senator Alfonse d'Amato's investigation into allegations of some kind of convoluted chicanery ended in embarrassment for Chairman Al -- a man with more than his share of slick and shady deals in his own background?

Well, The Doc is seeing history repeat itself -- in duplicate.

For example: did you know that two such "calls" for the legalistic lynching of Hillary Rodham Clinton -- whose biggest "crime" seems to be an attempt to make sure that all Americans get some sort of health care when it's needed -- have been shot down in flames?

Well, they have. Here's the scoop.

Case in point number one: two weeks ago, Arkansas' lawyer discipline panel dismissed an ethics complaint against first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton claiming misconduct related the so-called Castle Grande "scandal" -- with no recourse for the ruling to be appealed.

Officially, the complaint, filed in October 1996 by the ultra-right-wing Virginia-based Landmark Legal Foundation, was dropped for "insufficient evidence," and the professional conduct committee's executive director found that the grievance didn't present "a sufficient basis" for the committee to lodge a formal disciplinary complaint against Mrs. Clinton.

Now, The Doc finds it fascinating that the professional complaints against the Clintons within their home state all seem to originate from out of state, from "foundations" funded by a certain neo-fascist billionaire who just hates those wily Arkansans (the complaint which is being used in an attempt to disbar Bill Clinton came from a Georgia-based "foundation").

Does anyone else get the feeling that most of Arkansas is just plain fed up with carpetbagging lawyers ever since Ken Starr started his Sherman's March through the state?

But I digress...

Case in point number two: Yesterday, the Federal Election Commission unceremoniously jettisoned the Conservative Campaign Fund's spurious complaint against Mrs. Clinton concerning her arrangement for a $1.7 million home loan from Terry McAuliffe, a prominent Democratic fund-raiser.

The CCF argued -- incorrectly -- that personal loans and guarantees for personal loans have always been treated the same as campaign contributions and are subject to the same $1,000 limit.

The FEC vigorously disagreed -- and The Doc also suspects that the GOPers on the commission were under pressure to get rid of the complaint as fast as possible lest the preponderance of other controversial "loans" granted to key Republicans by their "owners" become grist for not only the FEC mill but perhaps the DOJ and the courts.

'Nuff said.