Judicial Watch to Sue over Clinton Home "Purchase"

Judicial Watch, the government watchdog group, is going to investigate the loan scheme being used by the Clintons to "purchase" their new home in New York.

In a statement, Judicial Watch said:

"First, the 1.35 million dollar 'loan guarantee' by Chinagate fund-raiser Terence McAuliffe is nothing less than an outright gratuity to the president personally, which is illegal under government ethics and bribery laws. Federal court testimony in Judicial Watchs Chinagate case has already shown that McAuliffe was involved in illegal fund-raising and influence peddling; this seems more of the same. Judicial Watch also questions why the White House Counsels Office, which 'approved' the loan scheme, is giving the Clintons personal legal advice at taxpayer expense.

"Second, there is no legal or ethical way for a bank such as Bankers Trust Co., which reports indicate is foreign owned, to give a million-dollar mortgage to a couple who professes to be $5 million in debt. Also, no bank can use an illegal 'guarantee' from a Clinton fund-raiser as collateral for any loan."

"This loan scheme blatantly violates government ethics and banking laws. Bill and Hillary should be subject to the same standards for mortgage as every other American couple," said Judicial Watch chairman Larry Klayman.

Judicial Watch will immediately investigate and challenge the loan scheme, and warned that any bank making improper loans to the Clintons could be subject to severe criminal and/or civil liabilities. Judicial Watch notes that there is an ethical way for the Clintons to buy a home -- liquidate their million-dollar trust and use those proceeds to buy a modest house outright.

"Based on their history, laws against bank fraud and bribery seem of no importance to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They continue to think they are above the law. We are committed to reminding them that they are not," stated Klayman.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=1999/9/3/120150

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 04, 1999

Answers

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUEDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1999 21:35:05 ET XXXXX

PAPER REVEALS CLINTON LOAN DETAILS; ETHICISTS CRY FOUL

According to publishing sources, the WASHINGTON POST is fronting a detailed look into the Clinton's unorthodox loan arrangement with "fundraiser extraordinaire" Terry McAuliffe -- a deal in which the Clinton supporter deposits $1.35 million cash into an account on the Clinton's behalf.

The POST'S Ruth Marcus reports that McAullife, a 42-year-old real estate developer and entrepreneur, reached an arrangement with the Clintons a week after the President played golf with him, and later visited McAullife's ailing mother in a New York hospital after she had hip surgery.

The paper is reporting that the McAuliffe deal was made only after former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles refused to guarantee the loan at the last minute.

The terms of the deal show that McAuliffe -- who is known around Washington as "The Macker" -- "will deposit $1.35 million in cash -- the full amount of their mortgage -- with Bankers Trust for the five- year term... The Clintons will put up $350,000 and pay an adjustable rate mortgage set at one point over the London Interbank Offered Rate, a bank lending rate now 5.52 percent."

The Center for Public Integrity's Charles R. Lewis tells Marcus:

"It's not a legal issue, it's a perception issue. I am always uncomfortable when people who give money or raise money are personally involved with a public official financially... It's worrisome for a sitting president to be this dependent on any one person financially."

Another critic of the loan agreement, a private lawyer, tells Marcus: "It's hard to imagine how it isn't a gift. It's not that he wrote him a letter commending his character. He's put $1.3 million in cash out and doesn't have the use of that for the period of the balloon clause... There's no way of seeing it as something not of value to the Clintons."

McAullife, who has also been a major fundraiser for Dick Gephardt and Tom Harkin, celebrated his 42nd birthday at the White House in February during the height of the impeachment debate. McAullife is also a contemporary of Gore

This is not the first time that political supporters have helped secure a home for an outgoing President, the paper points out.

In 1988 eighteen friends pitched in $2.5 million to purchase the Reagan's home in Bel Air -- a home the Reagans eventually bought for themselves.

MORE...

The NEW YORK TIMES is also going into front page McAullife details in Saturday editions.

The paper quotes Ellen Miller, executive director of Public Campaign:

"Probably no one has more and longer tentacles into the worlds of money and politics than Terry McAuliffe. It's an unhealthy relationship for anyone to have to the president and first lady. In a way, he has incredible power over them and incredible power through them as well."

The paper also reports that "several of his business dealings have come under legal scrutiny."

Among them: "Two years ago federal prosecutors examined McAuliffe's role in helping Prudential Insurance Co. lease a building to a Government agency. Prudential paid McAuliffe $375,000 for helping to insure that the deal was not derailed by any last-minute opposition and was later charged with falsely certifying that it had not paid anyone to influence the bidding."

"Prudential settled the case without admitting wrongdoing, and McAuliffe was never charged."

The paper also reports that McAuliffe, who is represented by Richard Ben Veniste, was also investigated for his involvement in the 1996 presidential campaign controversy involving then Teamster president Ron Carey, as well as being investigated by the Labor Department in 1991 for a union pension fund/Florida land deal.

Developing...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 04, 1999.

Andy ol' bud,

Since there seems to be no subject which you deem inappropriate for posting here, why don't I send you our local newspaper's police report -- just in case you run out of material.

Some guy thought he saw a bear the other day -- or it could have been a Sasquatch. You should have a field day with that.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), September 04, 1999.

Don't pay any attention, Andy. I think I speak for the overwhelming majority on this forum when I say that your postings - all of them - are by far the most informative and intelligent discussion of Y2K. I also think you and Ray etc., have done a good job of stomping out the pseudo intellectualism obfuscation of Flint and Hoffmeister.

It was good to see BigDog recently defending your right to draw the dots as you see fit.

Keep up the good work, there are many people preparing today who would have ignored the issue and ridiculed its proponents, were it not for your efforts.

-- Dot_joiner (Andy_for_president@wh.gov), September 04, 1999.

Chicken - you were simply looking in the mirror.

Good day Sir.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 04, 1999.

Judicial Watch is nothing but a right wing anti-clinton legal team. They do nothing but hound the Clintons, their friends and Clinton Administration. Likewise the only people they stand up for is anyone who is against Clinton or who has legal troubles with the current administration.

-- truth (truth@theready.now), September 04, 1999.

truth - you are correct.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 04, 1999.

Gawrsh Andy!

Congrats, Ol' Bud. I see you've succeeded in Mr. Ed's Tinfoil MLM!

Kudos dude. Spread the Doom word. Keep the faith. There's one born every minute, according to P.T. Barnum, so you've got plenty of prospects.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), September 04, 1999.

parenthetical --

um.....Dot.....preparing for WHAT, exactly??

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebored.net), September 04, 1999.

whoopsie meant to say this too, to Dot....

Dot, you say to Andy that you "speak for the overwhelming majority on this forum when I say that your postings - all of them - are by far the most informative and intelligent discussion of Y2K. I also think you and Ray etc., have done a good job of stomping out the pseudo intellectualism obfuscation of Flint and Hoffmeister."

Do you realize that the "overwhelming majority" on this forum is comprised of people who represent the thinking of maybe 1% of the American population? And maybe 5% of all people in the U.S. who even give a hoot about Y2k?

There's a verse in Proverbs: "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." -- Proverbs 11:14

Maybe you should think about that. The phrase "fringe extremists" comes to mind. Andy's picture should be next to that phrase in Webster's, as its current definition. Maybe yours too, if you agree with him so much.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), September 04, 1999.

Andy,

It's called "creative financing"!

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

I have been following this forum for almost two years. I rarely feel the need to post a message - I prefer to stay out of the arguments.However feel I must step foward and say THANK YOU ANDY !!!I realize it must take an enormous amout of dedication and resolve to continue finding and posting these articles especially under constant critisism.I for one am especially grateful and thankful for the time you spend posting on this forum. That goes for all the dedicated people, Gayla, Diane,Linkmeister,Bigdog,etc.., who take their personal time to find this information for us. I fail to understand the tension of this forum whenever an "OT" item is presented.In a world as connected as this one I fail to see how anything is really OT.Everything that Clinton or anyone with enormous power does affects us sooner or later, either directly of indirectly.IMHO, I feel it is not only wise to question our leaders it is our responsibilitiy as American citizens. Once again thank you Andy, you dedication is greatly appreciated here in South Carolina

-- (BigDog001@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Chick, perhaps you might wonder why this thread survives. i t survives because it is a didtilation of several published reports suggesting, once again, that the person who will be making some hard choices in a few months is showing and has shown a more than marginal propensity to do things form a ME FIRST point of view. This person has NOT shown ANY thoughts of For the Good of the Country in his tenure.

When presented with hard decisions, he has consistently chosen the personal gain road as opposed to the Good of Country road, if the two were offered.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 04, 1999.

Nope Chuck,

I don't wonder at all.

I just used to see people holler mercilessly about OT posts on here, so figgered I'd join in; especially since it gave me an opportunity to poke at Andy. Which I'm wont to do, if you haven't noticed, and he returns the favor! (as in, moi being opportunistic.....but which vocal poster hasn't done that at least once or twice or 200 times in the course of this long argument...that would be a very short list)

If things have changed to where OT posts are OK on here now, so be it. You guys make the rules. This is ya'll's forum, not mine. (i.e. I'm part of the opposition, y'know...and don't visit here as much as formerly, so reckon I'm not up-to-date on house rules and customs).

As far as the White House First Fornicator is concerned, we probably all agree as to his qualifications (the lack thereof). At least I hope we do.

I still want to smack Andy across the jaw sometimes though, and it's reciprocal I'm sure. It's almost become comedy. (^_^)

I know I say things that a lot of you disagree with, very strongly. But the reverse is also true, y'know. My opinion is no less valid than anybody else's. And I never say anything that I don't believe 100%. Unless the joke/sarcasm intent is made obvious.

Andy, and some others, stick in my craw BIG at times; but 'I'll defend to the death his right to say it', to paraphrase a great thinker; and I hope I get the same respect in return.

CL

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), September 04, 1999.

Aside from the fact I can't seem to get the rented fingers to spell "distilation", y'all missed the point. This is not per se off topic because it provides yet more info on the matrix in which whatever hapens in a few months will happen.

At least that was my take on it.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 04, 1999.

tanx for the nice acknowledgement, there, Chuckie. My best attempt at being civil on here in quite a while. Guess any attempts at that from a "non-believer" don't matter, eh.

OK. Back to the regular stuff.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), September 04, 1999.

Thanks Andy. You are a free thinker. If we had more like you, this country wouldn't *need* to investigate every turd that drops. TPTB wouldn't attempt such obvious crimes and would fear the consequences of the covert crimes.

Thank goodness for you and the Larry Klaymans of this world. BTW, the front page of the Hutchinson, KS paper had a bold headline stating, "No Income, No Credit, No Problem". That's the truth, 'truth'!

(you really should consider changing your handle to 'blind')

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), September 04, 1999.

Ok---

More about the good king wimpy willie!!

Excuse me, but---if any of you give me money to purchase a house it would be called---((((GIFT)))) money!!! Right or Wrong.

I was under the impression that their was a limit on the dollar amount the pres. could receive for gift money. Something in the order of $25.00.

IMHO---- this sick,twisted,immoral,weak,indulgent,mean,self- centered,money-crazed,drugged,did I say spineless,lying Pres. is just a reflection of the Majority. How else could he possibly be getting away with the cavalier, -in your F**king face- conservatives,-- attitude!?

I did'nt shut the gov. down I did'nt have ------ with that woman I did'nt rape broderick I did'nt grope willy I did'nt lie to the grand jury I did'nt except china money I did'nt show up at every disaster site for a photo op. I did'nt veto a tax cut I did'nt inhale I did'nt have an affair with whats her name I did'nt pull my pant{ies} down in front of paula I did'nt tie up air traffic getting a hair cut on airforce one Well hey---- the man is doing a good job--- rotflmao I did'nt---- god---arent you sick enough of this SOB??? Thank god Al invented the internet and the subsequent tech boom when he did!!

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Dear Chicken Little, in reading your latest post I just had to answer! you state"I never say anything I don't believe 100%" So how about a little semantical clarification---Beliefs are assumptions of unknown quality or unproven data---or to paraphrase an old military adage--assumptions are the mothers of all f*** ups! Now Wisdom is born of verifiable proofs--it gets very dicey here--Blue sky is what we call it but that is only the name agreed or held collectivly--it is a shared belief but not nessessarily true---Old Confucius spent a lifetime in the attempt to make the names fit--He failed! For both sides of a issue, belief is NO proof of anything.When one does not know one can only cloud the issue with belief! this is great fun but by no means factual--apply this dictum to all issues,y2k or matters of faith and you'll find those who know don't say and those say don't know! But one way or another we may soon find out as change is the great revealer.

-- Fats Kissinger (draconion solutions@uselesseaters.com), September 04, 1999.

Gee, why don't someone lend ME (or guarantee for me) a loan of $1.35 million? My balance sheet is a hell of a lot better than the Klintons' appears to be. Maybe it's because I can't show projected income from the Communist Chinese?

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 04, 1999.

Chuck - delete my post. I was being ironic. Chicken - what's with you? BigDog - is that really you? Chuck, what on earth are you doing hanging around a thread like this. Are we all really so bored with this whole Y2K thing? Andy - stop plagiarising Alexander Murdoch's advice column. Look at this example of Murdoch's advice in a recent issue of The Onion (www.theonion.com):

'The whole Kennedy thing is so huge because it's at the center of so many other covert shadow-government operations. Kennedy himself was the smallest part of it, because it was actually a power play between Dulles' CIA, the anti-Castro military, LBJ, the Giancana Mafia, and a bunch of other dirty players. Oswald was a patsy, sure, but he put a gun on Jack. Of course, so did other test-mules from Dulles' MK-Ultra LSD-mind-control experiments. Zapruder was in on it, too: He was a KGB mole from way back. And the whole thing had ripple effects, like Jonestown, which was an assassin training camp that got found out. As for the Warren Commission, that thing was a joke--Dulles himself was on it, and there was only one person on the whole commission who wasn't on the CIA payroll and suspected Oswald didn't act alone. He died in a plane crash, after a young congressional aide named Bill Clinton drove him to the airport. It's all true, but nobody wants to admit it. Nobody.' (http://www.theonion.com/onion3531/ask_conspiracy_theorist.html)

-- Dot_joiner (Andy_for_president@wh.gov), September 04, 1999.

hey Dot,

I've obviously pushed a few of your buttons - hope they're paying you enough pal - pity that the net has no boundaries these days, huh?

game over pal... you lose

-- andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 04, 1999.