Hillary Still in the Dark

There's another AP report about the Culture of Corruption, only this time what Terry Moran calls "the stench of corruption" surrounds Hillary Clinton, not the Bush Administration or Republicans.

This story hasn't received a lot of attention, what with the libs and their media propaganda partners drooling over Jack Abramoff.

Notice that the AP account takes pains to distance Hillary from the actions of New York Senate 2000, the "campaign fundraising group" that worked for her campaign.

Apparently, Hillary was not held accountable for how she raised money for her 2000 Senate run.

Where does the buck stop? Obviously, not with Hillary.

There is such a double standard here. Think about it. President Bush is held directly responsible for Iraqi prisoners being put on a leash, yet Hillary is considered an innocent bystander in her fundraising scandal.

Scandals seem to plague Hill, don't they?

When Bill was in office, she had to deal with the consequences of his infidelities and lies. I guess you could say that then Hillary was caught up in a Culture of Eruption, in addition to being deeply embedded in Bill's Culture of Corruption.

I really think it's important to remember that Bill's soiling of the Oval Office with a Culture of Eruption was his choice. He chose to lie in an attempt to undermine the integrity of the legal system. It was not a "vast right-wing conspiracy," not a witch hunt, not a private matter when he lied under oath.

To be sure, Bill has struggled to wipe the stains of his impeachment and the other penalties he received for his public offenses off of his presidential legacy, but what's done is done. The realities of his punishments will never disappear. The mainstream media and the libs will spin and excuse and ignore, but the indelible mess is still there.

Let's go back to October 1, 2001--
WASHINGTON (AP) –– The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.

The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.

In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.

There are no fines associated with the Supreme Court action. Most lawyers who are admitted to the Supreme Court bar never actually argue a case there, but the right to do so is considered an honor.

Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but fines and disbarrment aren't usually signs of vindication, are they?

I bring this up as a reminder that Bill's violations were real, not political exaggerations. They resulted in real punishments.

But enough about Bill. Back to Hillary.

From AP's story:
A campaign fundraising group for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has agreed to a $35,000 fine for underreporting hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a Hollywood fundraiser in 2000.

The organization, New York Senate 2000, agreed to a federal finding that it failed to report $721,895 spent on the fundraiser to boost the former first lady's campaign for the Senate, according to paperwork provided by Peter F. Paul, who helped finance the star-studded gala that drew Cher, Diana Ross, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston.

Three-quarters of a million dollars isn't chump change. That's a major omission. The $35,000 fine is significant as well.
New York Senate 2000 lawyer Marc Elias said the agreement ends the investigation and includes a letter from the FEC stating that Clinton did not violate the law.

So part of the deal was a letter from the FEC stating that Hillary's hands were clean in this matter.

While I think it's conceivable that Hillary was unaware that New York Senate 2000 was playing dirty, I do think that if this scandal involved campaign fundraising for a Republican Senator's campaign, the Left would be all over it, screaming that mantra -- Culture of Corruption, Culture of Corruption.
"It's a kind of vindication, but this is only one battle," said Paul, who bankrolled the gala and is suing Sen. Clinton and her husband, Bill Clinton, contending he was led to believe the former president would later work for him in a private business venture.

As part of the agreement, New York Senate 2000 maintains it "implemented and enforced reasonable processes to collect and report information regarding event expenses," the document said.

The Hollywood fundraiser was the subject of a criminal trial of Clinton's former national finance director, David F. Rosen. Rosen was acquitted in May 2004 of lying to the FEC about the event.

Paul has contended the event cost more than $1.9 million, though campaign reports at the time put it at about $500,000. As part of the agreement, the cost is put at $1.2 million, with almost $400,000 listed as unreported for the cost of producing the concert and nearly $100,000 unreported for travel and lodging.

What's lost in the legal wrangling is the simple reality that Hillary Clinton benefited from the dirty dealings of a group that raised funds for her 2000 Senate campaign.

Is it possible that this took place unbeknownst to her?

Because it involves such a large sum of money, it's unlikely that Hillary was in the dark, but it's possible.

Still, imagine the spin that the mainstream media would put on this matter if the beneficiary of the ill-gotten gain were someone other than Hillary Clinton.

The mind reels.