Hill & Bill have made million$ - so what?

[Click for larger image]

I have to give GOP hack Matt Drudge credit for one thing - he's brilliant at coming up with new reasons for totally despising him.

Splashed across his site when I got home tonight - the above headline - which probably marks the 988th time he's taken the GOP lead in attacking the Clintons. If I could get good enough odds from a sucker, I'd bet a few c-notes that this dominates the news over the weekend, especially the Sunday morning talk shows.

After I saw this headline, I got into 1990s mode all over again - frothing at the mouth with partisan outrage. Both Hillary and President Clinton have disappointed me immensely and on more than one occasion during this presidential campaign, but I have no problem at all with this and I really wonder what the big deal is.

Why? Well, first of all, all modern presidents get rich when they leave office. Reagan certainly did. Bush Sr. hasn't been hurting for cash, that's for sure. Neither has Clinton. Quickly now, look into your crystal ball - how many millions do you think Dubya and Laura will be worth? Each successive president cashes in, and Clinton is no exception.

I remember a time not so long ago that people were outraged and outright LIVID that President Clinton raised in the neighborhood of $500 million for his presidential library in Little Rock, Arkansas. His political opponents to this day are furious that the list of donors have not been disclosed, and they do have a point. I don't like the fact that outgoing presidents can do all sorts of favors (ahem, pardons) in return for a fat wad of cash for the monument under construction to himself, i.e., the presidential library.

But guess what?

President Bush hasn't disclosed the hundreds, if not thousands of donors to his presidential library. Current estimates have the cost of his self-serving monument costing in the neighborhood of $1 billion. When the day comes that Bush discloses all of his donors and how much they have given, I will be the first to condemn President Clinton and give kudos to Bush on this Website. Guess what? It's not gonna happen. No, let me rephrase that - look right - THAT'S when Bush will come clean with all of his political favors.

I'm not happy about political favors in exchange for money or political donations on the part of any politician in our country. But, it happens, and it's been part of the system for so long, it's impossible to single out any politician for particular scorn, unless it's a hugely corrupt politician or a very special case.

The bottom line is that our Natural Embarrassment, the clown currently in the Oval Office, is the most secretive president since at least Nixon, and I'd make the case the most secretive ever. We probably won't even ever know the extent to his secrecy and under-handed dealings, but I do know this - Kenneth Lay, before the rape and pillage fall of Enron, donated hundreds of thousands to Bush's inaugural ball in January 2001. Following 9-11, guess which company got tens of millions in tax breaks? C'mon, I don't really need to write it, do I?

Here's another cheerful thought - the Clintons were millions and millions in debt when they left office due to legal bills from the GOP witch hunt to get them at all costs. And by the way, Drudge played no small part in that.

One final thought - I wonder if Mitt Romney or America's Profiteer, Rudy Giuliani, would be getting this kind of financial scrutiny if they were still in the presidential race? In a word, no.

I can only hope and pray that McSame will be stupid enough to pick Romney or Giuliani as his running mate. Please, God, PLEASE.

Update:
It's already starting. I don't expect HuffPo to be as blatantly partisan as Drudge is, but really, Arianna?

Presidents MUST disclose library donors

One of the biggest problems in our government is money – in campaigns, in lobbying, in securing favors, and even presidential pardons, a controversy that arises every four or eight years. I recently read a WaPo editorial about the amount of money presidents raise for their libraries, and the amounts run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. What's worse - presidents are free to raise this money while still in power.

It doesn’t take a genius to see where the problem lies here. If you write President George W. Bush a check for $5 million for his library, wouldn’t you expect at least a small favor in return? Of course you would it's only human to expect quid pro quo – something for something.

As the editorial stated, Presidents Reagan and Clinton both took in very large contributions for their libraries, and virtually every donor expects something in return. In Clinton’s case, that favor was the granting of a presidential pardon(s). (At left, the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas)

This absurdity must be stopped. And it’s not a partisan issue – any president, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, should have to disclose the identities of large donors. It’s rumored that President Bush will be raising upward of $500 million for his presidential library. Fine, if companies from the oil and gas lobby aren’t putting up $50 million apiece, looking for return favors. (And don’t think for a second that scenario is unlikely with this administration.)

For this reason, I urge you to write both of your U.S. Senators and your U.S. House Representative. In 2002, a bill passed the House that required Bush and all future presidents to disclose the identity of donors over $200. Of course, at the time, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The bill died a slow death. It’s time for Congress to revisit this issue, now, before President Bush begins raising half a billion for his monument to himself.

Here is a sample letter that I wrote to one of my Senators – Arlen Specter. Feel free to copy/paste the text and adapt it into a letter of your own. If you don’t know the name(s) and address(es) of your elected representatives, check the upper right-hand side of my blog, where you can find them quickly and easily. I will let all of you know any responses I get from anyone I write to about this issue.

##

R.J.C.
Philadelphia, PA 19130


March 16, 2007

Hon. Senator Arlen Specter
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3802

Dear Senator Specter:
A recent Washington Post editorial highlighted a problem that I strongly feel requires immediate attention by all members of Congress.

According to the article, presidents currently are not required to disclose the identities of donors for their presidential libraries. This totally unacceptable and indefensible loophole must be closed, now.

It’s no stretch to image the possibility of a corporation or individual donating hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to outgoing presidents for their libraries. It’s only natural to assume that donors of large amounts of cash expect a favor in return, which might take the form of favorable legislation, government contracts, ambassadorships, or even a presidential pardon. (In fact, reports of this likely scenario surfaced after President Clinton left office, but I’m sure he’s not the only one.)

With the costs of presidential libraries skyrocketing, the potential for quid pro quo situations will only increase with each successive presidency. (I’ve read that President Bush’s presidential library will cost in the neighborhood of $500 million.) While I realize the historic value of presidential libraries, I strongly feel the overriding concern ought to be the potential harm from allowing opaque donations to continue.

I’m strongly in favor of placing a limit of $200 limit on anonymous donations to presidential libraries, as originally proposed in 2002 by reps. Henry A. Waxman, Rahm Emanuel, William Lacy Clay, Todd R. Platts and John J. Duncan Jr. Their proposal would mandate disclosure of library contributions greater than $200, not only during a president's term but for four years thereafter. In short, all donations over $200 should be transparent and open to the public, without equivocation and with no exceptions.

As you know, the federal government limits the amount of money individuals and businesses can donate to a candidate for office for many reasons, and one is to avoid undue influence that generous donors may receive; our government should implement the same safeguards for donors of our presidential libraries.

In short, I would like to know what you plan to do about this unfortunate and inexcusable loophole. For your convenience, I’ve enclosed the Washington Post editorial for your perusal. I’ve also written Senator Casey, Representative Robert A. Brady, and the leadership of both Houses of Congress.

Thanks very much for your time and attention in this important matter, Senator Specter. I look forward to hearing from you.

Warm regards,

RJ

cc:
file
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
House Minority Leader John Boehner
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Senator Robert Casey
U.S. Representative Robert A. Brady

##

The The Washington Post editorial follows, which ran this past Tuesday, March 13.

. . . And Library Donors, Too

President Bush, and his successors, should be required to say who's footing the bill.

The Washington Post
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

IMAGINE THAT a sitting president solicits millions of dollars in contributions for a pet project. The money, in six- and seven-figure checks, can come from companies that may be seeking government contracts or trying to loosen regulations, from foreign governments that may be trying to curry favor with the president, from wealthy individuals who may want ambassadorial appointments or other government action. Or the donations may be motivated by unselfish support for the president - there is no way to tell, because the money can be collected in secret, with no limits on amounts or sources, and no requirement for public disclosure.

This is not some far-fetched scenario - it is an appalling, legal and bipartisan norm of conduct in the final years of any second-term administration as the incumbent president begins to prepare for life out of office and to make plans for a presidential library.

Libraries cost money - and that money is, somehow, easier to raise while you are still president. Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan before him, amassed millions in pledges this way - including, as it turned out in Mr. Clinton's case, from donors who then lobbied for, and secured, presidential pardons. Now, President Bush is starting the process for his presidential library, with a reported price tag of $500 million. Mr. Bush, too, may collect the checks in secret; a library spokesman says no decision has been made.

Presidential libraries are not ordinary charities, and the ordinary concerns about preserving the privacy of charitable contributions do not apply to them. They are hybrid institutions, built and endowed with private funds but ultimately public property run by the National Archives. There is an easy remedy for this inexcusable loophole, pushed by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), Todd R. Platts (R-Pa.) and John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.).

Their proposal would mandate disclosure of library contributions greater than $200 - not only during a president's term but for four years thereafter. An earlier version passed the House once, in 2002, only to languish in the Senate.

Now, having been approved by Mr. Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a bill is again headed to the House floor.

The Senate has already signaled its understanding of the importance of revealing such donations. Its version of lobbying reform would require registered lobbyists to report library gifts. But history teaches that broader disclosure is necessary: The Senate rule, for example, wouldn't have revealed the gifts relevant to Mr. Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

It is imperative, this time around, that the measure be passed and signed into law - by the first president whose fundraising it would bring into the sunlight.

My Libby crystal ball

It's been a pretty memorable week in the world of Washington politics. But, the more I think about it, we can add "sad" and "injustice" to the never ending list of adjectives that should be applied to the Scooter Libby trial.

I won't hold the suspense - my prediction is that Libby never spends a day in jail. It's already obvious that his attorneys are planning to drag this out as long as possible. I'm not begrudging Libby that - it's his constitutional right to an appeal. But, I've read on some sites that Libby's final fate may not be determined until October 2008. Like that would be a surprise. Just like it was a huge surprise that the reading of the verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial was moved up to the Sunday before the election in November 2006.

Following the November 2008 election, President Bush has nothing to lose, and neither will has party, regardless of election results. Much like the president's father did on his way out of office with six Iran-Contra figures, Dubya may simply pardon Libby.

More on a potential pardon in a bit.

There are several tragedies in this case. First and foremost is Valerie Plame (right, with her husband, former Iraq Ambassador Joseph Wilson), who did her duty as a civil servant for 20 years for the Central Intelligence Agency. She was outed by senior members of the Bush administration including Libby, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, in retaliation for her husband's op-ed column in The New York Times. Wilson's column blasted the Bush administration for its wanton desire to go to war in Iraq.

[Quick aside: Wilson was sent by the Bush administration to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought Uranium yellowcake there for its alleged nuclear weapons program. It took Wilson about five minutes to discover that the allegations were based on forged documents and were unequivocally inaccurate. Despite Wilson's findings, Bush used the now infamous 16 words in his January 2003 State of the Union Address: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Bush said these words against the advice of Wilson, the CIA, the State Department and numerous other agencies and individuals. When Wilson's column appeared in the New York Times, the Bush administration was determined to not let him get away with it. So, revenge was taken on Wilson by conservative columnist Robert Novak's public revelation of Plame as a CIA agent. We now know that Novak was fed this information by Rove and Libby. Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is a felony. For more reading on the Plame Affair, go Here.]

Testimony in this case revealed in intricate detail that Rove and Cheney were behind Plame's outing. However, the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald (above), has announced that he doesn't plan to pursue any other charges in the case, despite the revelations that Cheney and Rove were right in the heart of the decision to smear Wilson and Plame.

I only have one word for Fitzgerald's decision to not pursue the matter further: Why?

Fitzgerald is a colossal disappointment, to say the least. I won't call him a failure, because he did win a conviction of Libby (above, with his wife, Harriet Grant).

I have a hard time believing that Fitzgerald is not taking marching orders from someone, somewhere. How else can one explain his failure to pursue chargers against Cheney and Rove? I'm not hoping for a political witch hunt here, (c. 1998), but what I do hope for is justice. Cheney and Rove broke the law. So, why aren't charges being filed?

There's now a big movement afoot on the 'Net, most notably on right-wing blogs and even some nationally respected publications, such as the National Review, to pardon Libby. The people who are hoping for a Libby pardon are short on memory and long on hypocrisy.

I'm not without sympathy for Libby on some levels, but he still deserves to be punished. I have no doubt that Libby is being hung out to dry and is being used as a scapegoat for this incident.

Libby should be punished because he was a willing participant in outing Plame, period. It should be noted that Libby wasn't convicted of outing Plame, he was convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury. Without the testimony from various witnesses that revealed the activities of Cheney and Rove, Libby would never have been convicted. This isn't nuclear astrophysics, people.

Didn't we impeach a president for perjury once? Many Republicans thought that trying to politically lynch President Clinton was a grand idea in 1998. And Clinton's perjury was only over a blowjob, a private matter. Now, when national security and the lives of CIA agents are at the heart of a perjury conviction, a pardon is a terrific idea?!? Clinton may not have inhaled, but it's pretty obvious that some Libby supporters have.

The only hope that cases may be brought against Rove and Cheney will be at Libby's sentencing. If the judge throws the book at him, then perhaps Libby might have some very interesting things to say to federal prosecutors.

But, even that may not happen, if there's been a sweetheart deal between Libby and his former superiors. [Read: Someone from the administration blowing in Libby's ear: "Hey Scooter! If you are found guilty and are sentenced to prison, you'll be pardoned. Now keep your mouth shut."]

If Bush pardons Libby, there may not be any legal recourse, other than voters doing something about it by making the Republican Party suffer... in 2010! The president has the Constitutional right to pardon whomever he likes, and every president has done it. But, there are questions - can he or should he pardon someone who was a senior administration official? Of course, that didn't stop President George H.W. Bush from pardoning Iran-Contra figures Caspar Weinberger, John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams. So, who knows how a pardon or potential pardon could play out?

My favorite part about a pardon for Libby is this - right-wingers who work for Fox State TV like Sean Hannity won't be able to spin a Libby pardon by getting on TV and blabbering something along the lines of, "I don't mean to bring up Clinton, but Marc Rich..."

Why? Because Libby was an attorney for Rich, and he worked for a time behind the scenes to get Rich exonerated following his conviction in 1983 on income tax evasion. (Incidentally, I'm sick to death of hearing about the Marc Rich pardon. Yes, Clinton pardoned him, but it was for tax evasion. A serious crime, but many presidents have pardoned many people for far worse. See the paragraph above, or read about the Nixon pardon. And Clinton did make a condition of the pardon that Rich pay a $100 million fine, and it's not like he doesn't have the money. I've read he's worth well over $1 billion. Oh, and all of those Clinton pardons? Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress appointed Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White to investigate. Just like Kenneth W. Starr before her, she found nothing amiss about the Clintons.)

There's also a strong possibility that there's some PR at work here, too. It's one of the oldest PR and political tricks in the book, and it goes something like this: Leak a controversial idea to the media, let the outrage come forth, and it will die down by the time we actually do what's being proposed.

The media is dropping the ball on this one - everyone is already acting like a Libby pardon is a inevitability. It cannot be, should not be, and if it does happen, the American public shouldn't take it sitting down. But, only time will tell.

Circle November, 5, 2008, on your '08 calendar when you get one. That's the day after the election, and if the election is decided by the next morning (!), the countdown will be on until the end of the Bush Presidency. (Wait, we already are counting down - 683 days left in this administration!) The countdown will also then be on until the Bush pardons, too.

Fitzgerald photo and one beneath it - AP
Bottom Image "The Counts" - Wonkette