BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Pardon Scandal Still Looms for Sen. Clinton's Brother
January 25, 2007 1:04 PM
A court-appointed bankruptcy trustee asked a federal judge this week to schedule a new court date in a case against Tony Rodham, the brother of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., accused of failing to repay $109,000 in loans from a carnival company whose owners received controversial pardons issued by President Bill Clinton in the last hours of his presidency.
According to documents filed in the case, Rodham received the loans, before and after the pardons were granted, from United Shows of America, Inc., owned by Edgar Gregory and his wife, who had been convicted of defrauding several banks.
See the loans paid to Tony Rodham and the actual checks to Tony Rodham.
A congressional report by the Republican-controlled House Reform Committee concluded Rodham "had tried to sell his access to the White House" and that "but for Tony Rodham's lobbying efforts, the Gregory pardons would not have been granted."
THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS
With the company now in bankruptcy and Gregory dead, the court-appointed federal trustee for United Shows, Michael Collins, has spent two years trying to get Rodham to repay the outstanding loans.
Collins first had Rodham's accounts frozen in 2005 after Rodham failed to respond to an initial complaint filed by Collins.
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
The judge issued a default judgment against Rodham.
Rodham appealed, asking for more time to respond, and the judge unfroze the accounts.
"Now, of course, that's money we're going to have to find all over again," said Collins, the trustee. "I guess he wouldn't leave the money in there."
Rodham has not returned a request seeking comment from ABC News, and a woman answering his home phone in Vienna, Va., said, "He probably won't call you back."
During the investigation of the Clinton pardons, Rodham publicly maintained that he worked as a consultant for the Gregorys to help obtain contracts for the carnival business. He refused to be interviewed by congressional investigators but told Larry King on CNN in March 2001, "The Gregorys are the kind of people that the pardon system is made for."
At the time, the Gregorys said they saw nothing wrong with seeking Rodham's help to get their pardons, which were issued over objections from the Department of Justice.
According to the congressional report, Rodham was paid over $240,000 in consultant fees by United Shows in addition to the loans.
The bankruptcy trustee only seeks the return of the loan money which, with interest, he calculates at over $150,000.
At the urging of President and Mrs. Clinton in February 2001, her other brother, Hugh, promised to return some of the $400,000 he received from individuals who also were granted pardons by President Clinton in other cases.
January 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (106)
If this is all the mud you can find to print about Mrs. Clinton, she has my vote......
Posted by: Claire Smith | Jan 25, 2007 1:25:54 PM
Leave the Clintons alone
Posted by: MIke Gosz | Jan 25, 2007 1:35:07 PM
Why are you posting this story? Who cares? Is this shades of Jimmy Carter's brother's travails.
Shame on you.
Posted by: Evie Soter | Jan 25, 2007 1:38:28 PM
It's a family thing, we just don't understand. O.K. Hillary, let's talk - let's start a dialogue. Baloney.
Posted by: Todd | Jan 25, 2007 1:38:54 PM
Digging up dirt on poor Hillary. Its not her fault her brother is a loser...Lots of families have black sheep. Hillary has my vote!
Posted by: sue | Jan 25, 2007 1:50:04 PM
What does this have to do with the election? Not much. Its her lack of experience that will hurt her in the election...
Posted by: Len | Jan 25, 2007 1:50:39 PM
I'm sure the previous comments were left by people that would have said the same things about W's brother during the Silverado savings scandal....not.
Posted by: Marvin | Jan 25, 2007 1:51:52 PM
Hillery's brother is out of bounds? Funny I don't see any complaints about stories on the Bush daughters.Liberal hypocrisy never disappoints.
Posted by: Henry | Jan 25, 2007 1:53:40 PM
A stupid issue like this wont stop me from voting for her. Anyone who fails to see the political motives behind this has to be very dumb. That trustee was obviously appointed by the Republicans to neutralize clinton, and now is paying off.
We all have black sheeps in our families. Lets not forget Mr. George W. Bush, that received millions of dollars for being the "CONTACT" to the White House during his father's presidency, and after he is out, more dirty laundry is bound to reach the surface.
In my opinion what her brother or any other member of her family does, has nothing to do with her.
Posted by: EJ | Jan 25, 2007 1:56:41 PM
And now the mud slinging starts....two more years of this?
YIKES!
Posted by: martha | Jan 25, 2007 1:59:17 PM
Finally an investigative story covering the other side of the political aisle. But I agree with the other readers, Hillary should not be held accountable for Bill's screw-ups.
Posted by: D Smith | Jan 25, 2007 2:22:28 PM
With the economy in the toilet, our young soldiers dying every day in a senseless war, the middle-class disappearing in this country, and a social security system about to go broke, I can think of more important issues that need to be prioritized. Who cares about Hillary Clinton's loser sibling! Bring our troops home, fix this economy and pray that the next 2 years of this horrible administration go by quickly without more American bloodshed in the Middle East.
Posted by: Alex Ribbens | Jan 25, 2007 2:27:05 PM
Seems like the Republicans are starting early in trying to discredit Democratic candidates....why was this given the priority of "breaking news". Shame on ABC for getting sucked into such a transparent plot.
Posted by: Sheri Lott | Jan 25, 2007 2:29:39 PM
Still not enough for me to change my vote. Hillary has it all the way.
Posted by: Derek Smith | Jan 25, 2007 2:31:15 PM
Pardons for money. Just another sullying of our Presidency by the Clinton's!
Posted by: Jake | Jan 25, 2007 2:34:25 PM
How convenient! A few days after Hillary announces she could be starting a run for the oval office, we read this crap.
What does any of this have to do with her ability to run the country? Nothing.. it's pure mud slinging. Plant the seed of trash and watch it grow in a closed, dark mind. Good luck, right wingers..
Let's focus on the real demons in politics: George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
We could only hope for person of Hillary's caliber in the White House.
Posted by: Morie Burke | Jan 25, 2007 2:43:10 PM
This is just the beginning.. I t will get better.
Posted by: Lori | Jan 25, 2007 2:43:27 PM
I don't understand why this wouldn't be relevant to the character and integrity of the Clintons. This isn't only about Hillary's brother, this is about using influence to gain questionable pardons from the president. Extremely poor judgement, which may come back to haunt Hillary in her bid for the presidency.
Posted by: Julie | Jan 25, 2007 2:50:44 PM
Let's focus on what Hilary can bring to the table as the next President of the US. If it were not for her candidacy this story would never made the news. Stick to the issues. Not digging up dirt or being used by political operatives to plant stories. "We the People" are tired dirty politics.
Posted by: diana | Jan 25, 2007 2:51:27 PM
I THINK YOU WOULD BE REMISS IF YOU DID NOT PRINT THIS STORY. ALL FRAUD SHOULD BE EXPOSED WHY SHOULD THE CLINTONS EXPECT TO BE SHELTERED. IT SEEMS THEY ARE NOT TOO LIBERAL WITH MERCY TOWARDS OTHERS.
Posted by: OPAL VESTAL | Jan 25, 2007 2:57:54 PM
Boy, oh boy, has having a President who was born rich enough to cover up his many pecadillos ever been a boon to our Nation.
Sheesh!
Posted by: Artur Estman | Jan 25, 2007 3:03:21 PM
What were some of the other cases that x-president Clinton pardoned while in office?
Posted by: Ellie | Jan 25, 2007 3:04:18 PM
8 years of a Clinton is ENOUGH!!! Hillary has done absolutly nothing for the State of New York as a Senator. Chuck Shumer has done all the work. Hillary go bake some cookies and stand by your man.
Posted by: Renee Sherwood | Jan 25, 2007 3:08:24 PM
Yeah, I really want a person that sells their soul and integrity for political power in office. Bush is bad enough, too bad there are no candidates so far that have entered the race I would want. People of Hillary's caliber is why we are where we are now.
Posted by: Gary | Jan 25, 2007 3:10:37 PM
I am so sick of listening to liberals crying and whining about Hilary Clinton, get over it, she WILL NEVER be the President, the next President of this country is going to be John McCain!
Posted by: Jeffrey Barnes | Jan 25, 2007 3:12:02 PM
This isn't baloney, nor is it dirty politics. Many of the pardons were undeserved, and arguably the product of influence peddling. They legitimately call into question the Clintons' judgment and integrity. Hillary's role in procuring them is a legitimate subject of inquiry in a presidential campaign.
BTW, I'm a Democrat, and this is one more example of the baggage that makes me leery of Hillary's candidacy.
Posted by: Bruce | Jan 25, 2007 3:20:37 PM
Suddenly the lefties dont want to examine the character of a candidate. Seems rather odd.
Hillary's brother's actions are nothing compared to Her hubris in hiding subpeoned documents while her hubby was busy perjuring himself. I can only hope the dems nomimate her.
Posted by: Les Boomgaarden | Jan 25, 2007 3:21:34 PM
What about the $77,000 that Denise Rich gave to Hillary Clinton in 2000 for her U.S. Senate campaign, the same year her husband - Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich; the largest Tax evader in U.s> history.
Posted by: Ray Kohn | Jan 25, 2007 3:21:35 PM
It just shows that the Clintons have a price! So whats the big deal?
Posted by: Raleigh Horne | Jan 25, 2007 3:23:39 PM
Bush and the Clintons are two peas in pod. They are all alike. John Edwards is leading Hillary in Iowa by a Margin of 10% John Edwards 27%, Hillary 17%, Osama 16%, Vilsak 15%. John Edwards is going to win Iowa and by Feb. 2008 he is going to be the Democratic Candidate. Even is Washington does not like this number they can not do anything about it because it is the people, the delegates in Iowa, New Hamphsire, and all the other states that will be picking the Democratic Candidate and I can assure you it will be John Edwards and he is the only person in the Democrates that can take the south.
Posted by: Sean | Jan 25, 2007 3:32:17 PM
I'm sorry the mud slinging is starting already, it's such a bore. However, any woman who can vote for a woman who keeps a cheat and one who used the White House as a brothel no less, is an enigma to me.
Posted by: Sharon | Jan 25, 2007 3:51:07 PM
As a former resident of upstate New York, 20 miles from the Canadian border I can attest to the good job done by Senator Kennedy. Her efforts of the behalf of the area were greatly appreciated. I regularly called and wrote her office regarding issues and her answers were always specific and included her stance on the matter.
I smell swiftboaters in this reporting. I am with Claire Smith.
this is the best you can come up with? We impeached Bill over a Blue Dress how can you measure that against the lies of George Bush, Dick Cheney and this corrupt administration.
Posted by: B Goetz | Jan 25, 2007 4:00:57 PM
My prayer: Please, God, can you send us an honest politician sometime before I leave this earth? No disrespect intended, Sir, but You really missed the boat with the Clintons.
Love, Your Democratic servant.
Posted by: Pat | Jan 25, 2007 4:02:45 PM
Say what you want, but for 6 years the republicans of all stripes tried to "Get 'em", and failed. 65 Mil spent, it lasted for 4 years after Clinton was out of office, and got 1 conviction. For something a friend did years before Clinton was elected. Look up the convictions of H. W. Bush's cronies and his pardons. I can't wait to see where this Libby trail will lead, and I hope the Dems return the favor of the Clinton Years to the GOP.
Posted by: Ray | Jan 25, 2007 4:06:54 PM
It basically sums up the Clinton White House. Corruption, lies and scandals...It's amazing how people forgot how low class the Clinton's are after 6 years of GWB.
Posted by: Bryan | Jan 25, 2007 4:21:12 PM
It really must be a SLOW news day!!
Posted by: dennis | Jan 25, 2007 5:01:14 PM
Given politics today, pardons are not handed out recklessly. The process is VERY selective with political operatives doing research....Hillary and Bill knew exactly who was getting pardons and why. If they didn't, maybe it was because Bill was on a date and Hillary was busy rampaging through the White House. But let's say they were trusting - afterall it is family, right? The thing is, if they were, just like normal people like us, there are consequences to those actions. Who has not been burned before? I guess if we were talking about George Sr and his son Neil and the S & L news from long ago many of the Clinton defenders posting here would not be so quick to defend. So many American voters tend to forget, what is wrong is wrong and where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
Posted by: DGB | Jan 25, 2007 5:20:25 PM
Given politics today, pardons are not handed out recklessly. The process is VERY selective with political operatives doing research....Hillary and Bill knew exactly who was getting pardons and why. If they didn't, maybe it was because Bill was on a date and Hillary was busy rampaging through the White House. But let's say they were trusting - afterall it is family, right? The thing is, if they were, just like normal people like us, there are consequences to those actions. Who has not been burned before? I guess if we were talking about George Sr and his son Neil and the S & L news from long ago many of the Clinton defenders posting here would not be so quick to defend. So many American voters tend to forget, what is wrong is wrong and where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
Posted by: DGB | Jan 25, 2007 5:24:45 PM
Come on people! Who cares?? I'm a Republican and probably won't vote for Mrs. Clinton, but this is way over the top!
Posted by: Mae | Jan 25, 2007 5:30:48 PM
I don't see what the hype is about Hillary's brother! When President Clinton was in office, yes he made some bad judgements but, who hasn't? What does any of this have to do with Hillary? Focus PEOPLE!Our men and women are dying for nothing!! Let's do what we can to stop the madness and deal with whoever is elected when it happens.This article was a waste of space!!!!!
Posted by: lillia | Jan 25, 2007 5:39:33 PM
If I remember correctly the Clinton's granted quite a few pardons as they left office.
A number of them are quite fishy.
How do spell Marc Rich?
Sooner or letter during Clinton's presidential run - all the dirt that is fit to print will come out.
Posted by: Swamy | Jan 25, 2007 6:00:07 PM
The Clintons are a couple of educated con men who have been scamming money since the day he first got into office. From the donations to charity of his used underwear to the 'missing' billing records conveniently hidden in a White House closet. I can hardly wait for more of their dirt to be dug up again
Posted by: Jody | Jan 25, 2007 6:04:06 PM
Judging from the comments, there are a lot more Clinton relatives out there than I thought
Posted by: chromy | Jan 25, 2007 6:04:50 PM
Oh, and did we ever find out who hired Craig Livingston?
Posted by: Art | Jan 25, 2007 6:06:44 PM
It's not just Hillary's brother. How did these insane pardons get granted in the first place? Her brother certainly didn't have the power to issue them himself (but he had the money to pocket the payolla). Somebody had to have some influence? Now who could that be?
We'll never know will we? Because people are too stupid to care or think. We can elect a liberal but does it have to be one so wholly corrupt? Why isn't Diane Fienstien running or Bill Richardson leading the pack. Because people are sheep and like to follow trends and be caught up in cults of personality, that's why.
Posted by: Devin Michael | Jan 25, 2007 6:06:56 PM
The Clinton's abuse women,loot the American dream, dismantle welfare, push in HMOs ruining the health care system, and allow terrorist attacks. As long as they are Democrats, Democrats support them. We need the equivalent of FDR and FDR could not get air time today because these really terrible people have sucked all of the air out of the media. We have to demand better candidates.
Posted by: Ab | Jan 25, 2007 6:14:31 PM
I wonder what Hillary! and Mr. Hillary! had on Sandy Berger. It must have been pretty bad to get him to steal protected documents? Anything to salvage the "Clinton"s legacy. HaHa
Posted by: joe | Jan 25, 2007 6:26:07 PM
It makes my heart proud to see the Republicans running scared at the thought of another Clinton in the Whitehouse. Despite the fact her husband couldn't keep his pants up he did more to improve this country than any Republican in office. What's worse, a man who can't control his libido or a man who propositions underage boys??? I guess the trash digging had to start some time. Who's next?? Let's see what good juicy trash they can dig up about Barak Obama (pardon the misspelling of his name if it's wrong). The only bright spot is in 2008 we won't have anymore George W and Dick Cheney will have to find another way to line his pockets instead of at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Posted by: Charlie B | Jan 25, 2007 6:30:41 PM
Why should we leave the Clintons alone? They won't leave me alone.
Posted by: Ernest Banks | Jan 25, 2007 6:32:11 PM
"It makes my heart proud to see the Republicans running scared at the thought of another Clinton in the Whitehouse."
That's the problem isn't it? People don't care if a politician is a crook as long as he or she sticks it to the other side. American politics is just a fight between groups on the playground except most that participants are all grown up (at least physically).
Posted by: Devin Michael | Jan 25, 2007 6:52:15 PM
Typical comments by those with a double standard -- it's OK to do if done by a Demo; not OK if done by a Republican, or maybe there's a third option---such people who think it is OK to buy a Presidential Pardon don't have any standards.
Posted by: Sharon Mills | Jan 25, 2007 6:56:56 PM
Why are all of these comments so positive on Hillary? Did anybody read the content in the article or are you just throwing up defenses already? She can't win the White House on her own, let alone with her brother's dirt. Just let it go already.
Posted by: Charles | Jan 25, 2007 7:38:30 PM
Hillary can't help what her brother does/did? SHE and billy were the ones who PARDONED the guys FOR the payoff to brother-oh-hil.
The criminals here are the clintons for Pardoning for Bucks.
Posted by: booboo | Jan 25, 2007 8:24:47 PM
With all her cash,connections and coverup skills I'm susprised this story got past her handlers. More shades of the shady Clintons.
Posted by: Dalpine | Jan 25, 2007 8:43:37 PM
This comment is for Raleigh Horne,
Who wrote the following above:
"Bush and the Clintons are two peas in pod. They are all alike. John Edwards is leading Hillary in Iowa by a Margin of 10% John Edwards 27%, Hillary 17%, Osama 16%, Vilsak 15%."
Shame on you Raleigh Horne for purposely misspelling >>"OBAMA">"OSAMA"<<. I believe you are smart enough Democrat to know that there is no connection,
Posted by: V.K. Jenson | Jan 25, 2007 11:31:09 PM
The same old story. Loans that never get paid back, and enormous "consulting" fees, paid to friends and relatives of the Clintons by shady characters who are feeling the heat from law enforcement. And it works. If the Clintons are in office, the dogs are called off or pardons are issued. The "loans" never get paid pack. Now that the Democrats control Congress again, Hillary's dubious brother Tony, who has been around a bunch of these scams, is probably home free with something like half a million dollars.
Posted by: CJ | Jan 25, 2007 11:39:51 PM
True. This is small stuff. For my money the real scandal was when members of the Clinton White House used the FBI to spy on political opponents and then successfully stonewalled the investigation. There is no one that can possibly believe that both Clintons were not elbow deep in it. If you maintain that George W. Bush was to blame for the actions of some nuts on the night shift at Abu Ghraib 8,000 miles from the White House, then you surely cannot believe that the Clintons didn't know exactly what was being done by their own staff. As long as that incident has not been fully investigated and all the questions answered I cannot support anyone, principal or staff, that worked in that administration.
Posted by: John D | Jan 25, 2007 11:43:43 PM
In August of 1994 Penthouse Magazine described the Clintons perfectly. "You might want to bring your boots because the muck and the mire are getting pretty deep."
Quote from the article:
"In contrast with Hillary's cozy relationship with corporations, Bill projected the image of a muckraking populist."
Posted by: Bildo | Jan 26, 2007 12:33:55 AM
Want to bet who told bill clinton to issue the pardons? That's right, dear old hillary.
Posted by: willy | Jan 26, 2007 12:56:28 AM
OK! Let him pay back the loans he received for his brother-in-laws last minute pardons!
Posted by: Jack laMar | Jan 26, 2007 7:25:49 AM
One word "Shady". What made him so special? Why not pardon everyone in that type of trouble?
Posted by: clare | Jan 26, 2007 8:36:07 AM
Hillary should invest 1000 dollars
in the stock market and she would
have plenty of money to pay back her brothers' loan. I think it was
Tyson stock she made a 100,000
profit in no time. (Just like us
regular folk do)
Posted by: mark | Jan 26, 2007 10:23:13 AM
Judging by the howls of "smear" from Hillary's fans in these comments, the ABC story is right on. They can howl "unfair" but they cannot deny the veracity of Hillary's unsavory past.
"I don't recall." 50 times before a House Investigation Committee. Indeed.
So let's have a chat, huh?
Posted by: Homer Gomez | Jan 26, 2007 10:47:41 AM
Obama is a scandal-free presidential candidate who can usher in a new era of non-partisanship.
If you're tired of corrupt politicians who take secret real estate deals like Whitewater and tired of secret back room pardon deals like Mark Rich and Tony Clinton's, vote for Obama Barack.
Hilary is polarizing and can never win. Barack is a fresh face with fresh ideas.
Posted by: Thats it! I'm Voting for Obama! | Jan 26, 2007 12:52:44 PM
Last time I looked, the US Constitution granted the President the power to grant pardons. It didn't say, "as long as the pardons are acceptable to the public" or "as long as the President doesn't pardon..." It gives the President the unilateral power to pardon anyone. How this is controversial, I have no idea. He obeyed the law and is guilty of nothing legally. I'd be much more concerned about presidents who disobey the law by wiretapping anyone at a whim because the president or his designee has "reason to believe" based on the most remote evidence that the person is a terrorist. One is almost certainly illegal while the other is explicitly legal. The blotter is investigating this, why?!
Posted by: Andrew E | Jan 26, 2007 1:13:50 PM
O.K. now for some really bad news. The Bush and Clinton dynasties are more similar than different.
The Bush base: Oil and military manufaturing mogels.
The Clinton base: Lawyers and real estate mogels.
The only real difference is what expanding the influence of their base does to America.
Why else would profit driven opportunist donate millions to campaigns? Everyone is looking for a return on investment.
Posted by: mark | Jan 26, 2007 1:21:12 PM
Re Claire Smith's cooment "Is this all you have" on the Clintons. No it's not all; it's just today's.
Posted by: Blaise MacLean | Jan 26, 2007 1:24:53 PM
Its all about character, what character do you see in this family? Rodhams or Clintons. I am a Democrat, but I have never voted for a Clinton and never will.
Posted by: MJ | Jan 26, 2007 1:27:19 PM
Well, there they go again making excuses for low life, theiving, lying, back stabbing scum. When people have no one to answer to then the next thing that will happen they will be sticking their hand in YOUR pocket. Then we will see how wonder they are and what song will be sung then. They may all be that way but two wrongs still do not make a right!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want them to answer for what would not be excused if I did it. They would put me so far in jail they would have to pipe sunlight to my behind if I did what they have done!
Posted by: Shari | Jan 26, 2007 1:32:47 PM
DO PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT INFLUENCE PEDDLING. IS THAT OKAY? SHOULDN'T SOMEONE WHO IS TRUSTED WITH GOVERNMENT POLICY BE ACOUNTABLE. DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE SHE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS???? I GUESS FOR A FEW, CORRUPTION IS OKAY!
Posted by: jcm | Jan 26, 2007 1:52:30 PM
Funny how different the SP's/Liberals responses would be, if this story was about Jeb Bush, our former gov and brother of Our President. To this day, the Clinton's, et al, are allowed to constantly violate our laws, and their loyal Socialist following will defend every criminal act they commit. AND, they find a way to blame Bush for everything that THEY do criminally.
Democrats are known for never taking responsibility for their actions.
Posted by: Daniel Smith | Jan 26, 2007 1:58:34 PM
Poster Alex Ribbens said, "With the economy in the toilet..."
Alex, what econony are you refering to? We have had an incredibly strong economy for the last five years. You and the media just choose to ignore the numbers that prove just how strong we are growing, without the 17% inflation Carter gave us. I guess if a Republican is responsible for anything good, we ignore it just as you have chosen to ignore any thing bad done by Democrats such as the questionable last minutenight pardons
Posted by: Fldoctor | Jan 26, 2007 3:21:56 PM
What does this have to do with the election? Well, when a President of the USA grants a pardon for a relative of yours that happens to be a criminal, expect some people to be a little upset about it. This is very different from having an alcoholic brother. Nobody named Clinton was ever a great President, and Nobody named Clinton OR Bush with ever get my vote.
Posted by: Clinton Angels | Jan 26, 2007 3:55:13 PM
There will be more of these if she wins. Good thing he is her brother, or he'd might wind up committing suicide
Posted by: CJ | Jan 26, 2007 4:14:45 PM
WOW!
Bush accused with false documents and all the screamers on this site were calling for his head.... This is a REAL issues that should be looked at and the libs want you to overlook it because of "what she brings to the table" ????? WOW!
Talk about D O U B L E S T A N D A R D !!!!!
Posted by: Brandon | Jan 26, 2007 10:26:41 PM
I guess there is some love between Hillary and the hubby after all-- why else would he bail out the buddies of his wife's brother who hangs out with carnival folk?
Posted by: DRJ | Jan 26, 2007 10:37:17 PM
After all the recent speeches calling Gerald Ford a HERO for pardoning Nixon...
Posted by: megan | Jan 26, 2007 11:23:31 PM
I fail to understand why so many people are trying to minimize this issue by comparing it to something Bush has done. Obviously there are many issues about Bush to be discussed (in other columns). However, FOCUS PEOPLE! This is an issue that may shed some light on the integrity of a presidential candidate and therefore is a legitimate news story.
Posted by: dtm | Jan 27, 2007 2:20:36 AM
I certainly don't want the Clinton's in The White House again and have all their shady dealings repeated. Remember Bill Clinton once said "The American people will forget..."
Posted by: Mimi | Jan 27, 2007 8:07:45 AM
Waco aside let us remember, Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, dark ops. drugs into Mena cover-up, sex scandles aplenty including tales of orgies that both Clinton's attended some jointly, giving away of the economy to China .... they twain shall be one flesh. Yep, what one Clinton did the other was involved in.
Posted by: Patriot820DC | Jan 27, 2007 10:59:52 AM
White Water Real Estate equals some hope of reprieve.
Posted by: Donald | Jan 27, 2007 11:04:06 AM
To expect anything more from that woman(?) and her blood relatives would be unfathomable. She's the one who single handedly took down the Rose Law Firm & has always engaged in this sort of sleaze. Pitiful how the pedants slather after such a trashy crew. Like finds like I suppose.
Posted by: sidwellgrad | Jan 27, 2007 11:06:16 AM
Just more of the same with the Clintons, very astute at getting others to take the fall for them. Will never understand it. No more Clintons or Bushes either. Let's get a new perspective. Guaranteed, more scandals will ensue if she wins....Bill just has to be Bill.
Posted by: Nancy | Jan 27, 2007 12:24:51 PM
To be fair to Sen. H. Clinton, no one should require her to be responsible for the actions of her brother or her husband (who I like).
Posted by: Adam Young | Jan 27, 2007 2:29:20 PM
This just shows what the Clintons are all about.... money... Who do you think told Bill to pardon them for her brother? What was their cut? It was in direct defiance of what the Justice Department recommended. Who else will she sell us out to? Elect her and you'll wish many times over that you hadn't!
Posted by: Harold | Jan 27, 2007 5:04:30 PM
The issue that will stop Hiliary Clinton is that two political families the Bushs and the Clintons have been in the White House for nineteen going on twenty years. Who could justify giving these families another four years. I hope the media beats the drums on this unhealthy and undemocratic monopoly of the Presidency.
Posted by: brian kennedy | Jan 27, 2007 5:14:56 PM
President Clinton brought shame once again to the presidency by pardoning those so 'close to home'. Hillary has the obligation to either tar her husband with acknowledgement of his scandalous deed, or be tarred herself for helping sweep it under the rug.
Posted by: Doug | Jan 27, 2007 5:41:48 PM
Charlie B., you wrote, "What's worse, a man who can't control his libido or a man who propositions underage boys???"
Though it took far too long for Foley to get gone, eventually the right thing happened and he resigned.
I'd say that a man who ACTUALLY HAS SEX with underage boys is worse than either of the examples alluded to by your questions.
Posted by: Dave | Jan 28, 2007 1:19:37 AM
Hillary is a power mongor and swamp scum. Her brother is in the same gene pool so it's a fitting story.
The Liberal ilk is crying foul but it's time to get the story straight and continue the saga of an administration gone wrong.
Posted by: Don | Jan 28, 2007 7:45:44 AM
What does this have to do with the election? Is this the only issue you can dig up against Sen. Clinton? Let's talk policy. Let's talk bring our troops home. Let's talk save Social Security. Let's talk poverty levels amongst the baby boomer generation. Let's talk aid for homeless. Let's talk taking the Billoins to be spent on the war and help our homeless and elderly families. Let's talk health care for all citizens. Let's talk impeach Bush/Cheney.
