digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Clinton's records vanished after warning

washingtontimes.com — Hillary Rodham Clinton's Rose Law Firm billing records, found in the White House residence in January 1996 two years after they had been subpoenaed by government regulators, disappeared shortly after the first lady was warned that the firm's billing problems were "very serious"....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Hillsfar, on 05/12/2008, -7/+77This needs to be at the fore. Let's digg it up.
    • halleyscomet, on 05/12/2008, -4/+15Dude, it was a MAJOR news story during Bill Clinton's administration. What rock were you under that you didn't already know about the Dan Quayle scale document shredding that was part of the Whitewater cover up?????
      • pnunn, on 05/12/2008, -7/+7I think we all remember- or should- yet somehow we spend our time talking about a certain reverend. These things do need to be brought up as so many Americans seem to be willfully ignorant about not so ancient history.
        • pnunn, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3And whoever is so lame and precious they need to Digg that down... well, maybe it's time for your nap, Mr./Mrs. Crankypants...
        • boot20, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Haven't you noticed digg is the new youtube/4chan???
        • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4Stop being a bitch about the damn reverend who is obviously loving the media attention. Every time you see something bad about your candidate on TV, you complain that it's a sign of a bias, regardless of how much negative news goes against the other candidates. You know what...I watch a hell of a lot of CNN and it's been pretty damn good and they are clearly intentionally trying to not be biased. Just because it's not an Obama circlejerk doesn't mean they hate him.
          And yeah, I used to be all "THERES A NEOCON BIAS IN THE MEDIA WAAAHHH:". It's just not true, and it is in fact childish baby whining to even complain about whether they are biased. It's like one kid arguing that his parents like the other kid more. So, liberals, less being emo, more progress. onward.
          • pnunn, on 05/12/2008, -3/+0Hey- Moron- what are you even talking about? Why don't you stop being such an ass? You are addressing me as though anything you are talking about has to do with me- when really you are just a reactionary prick trolling on the net trying to chastise me for someone else pissing on your views. I don't give a rat's ass how much CNN you watch. Dork. I stated the obvious and you argue with the intangible. Stop being a bitch yourself- go make a point somewhere. Cause you failed to do so in the least here. Did I say ***** you? I meant to. If I have to say anything, it's "There's too many neocon blog trolls on digg! WAAAAHHHH."
      • Hillsfar, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4People forget that it's part of a pattern of lies. We gotta remind them.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -11/+8I buried it as more smearing if thats what you meant by digg it up. I refuse to support this hate-campaign that Obama supporters are running against Hillary and have now begun running against McCain. It's childish, ridiculous, and most of all, it's all preaching to the choir. The worst part is that I like Obama, but have become QUITE disillusioned by the fact that it seems like the plan for his campaign from the start was "Don't openly run a smear campaign, but have my operatives run my smear campaign and get it started on the grassroots level." This is a superficial change to the same political *****, and that pisses me off and to be honest, as someone who was blown away during the 2004 speech and thought to myself, "this guy is gonna run for pres and be DAMN good because of that charisma," I'm pretty let down. That's not to say Hillary hasn't been a letdown, thats frickin obvious, but I expected better from Obama's campaign, and I expected better from the people who supported him.
      • Eezyville, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2So this is now the fault of the Obama campaign? When people digg up stories bashing Clinton its all Obama's fault? Ok...
      • stonewaljacksn, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7yeah it is. its called delegating your Rovian hate campaign to your operatives so as to avoid the mudslinging yourself. Team Obama has cornered the internet hate market. do i need to explain more.
        doesn't even maater. hes not gonna win and it's the fault of people supporting the hate.

        is that good enough?...or was that ok... just a little sarcastic thing to you know, try to get some diggs for being condescending. i can be condescending too, see?
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Wow, your comments are unexpected, but spot on.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Your evidence, please.
        • ehalasey, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2No way! Obama owns thought on the internets! He must be made of MAGIC!
      • darkfires, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1So now Obama himself is seeding a republican news paper? He's moved on, already. He's already won against Clinton and is now concentrating on the bigger picture: the general election and McCain.
  • Macrophage, on 05/12/2008, -11/+37How so VERY NIXONIAN of Her !!!!

    John From Cape Cod, Ma.
    • mediaspree, on 05/12/2008, -9/+1go scmooze it up with the Kennedys
    • Nougat, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9I was thinking Arthur Anderson and/or Ollie North myself.
      • twiztidsinz, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4It's gon' rain.

        Oh that's Ollie Williams
        • 11oops, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Tom: And now to our weatherman Ollie Williams for the Blackie-Weather Forecast, Ollie?
          Olie: IT'S RAININ' SIDEWAYS!
          Tom: Don't you have an umbrella?
          Olie: USED TO!
          Tom: Where is it now?
          Olie: INSIDE OUT TWO MILES AWAY!
          Tom: Is there anything we can do for you?
          Olie: BRING ME SOME SOUP!
          Tom: What kind?
          Olie: CHUNKY!
          Tom: Thanks, Ollie. Up next, a pig that refuses to eat Jews. After this.
          • twiztidsinz, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Isn't it "Black-u-Weather Forecast"?
    • halleyscomet, on 05/12/2008, -4/+10And to those of us who were paying attention o the news during Bill Clinton's administration, VERY old news.

      What's the average age of Digg users? 16??? Do any of you even REMEMBER when Bill Clinton was actually president???
      • altgeeky1, on 05/12/2008, -5/+4"And to those of us who were paying attention o the news during Bill Clinton's administration, VERY old news. What's the average age of Digg users? 16??? "

        I'm not sure if the answer matters to you, since you first a) change the argument to be one of reader age, and b) then disparage your assumed result. That's a classic O"Reilly combination, btw.

        If your question was sincere (and the red herring was unintentional...) then I think you MEANT to ask... "This is very old - so how is it relevant now/today?" For which the answer is obvious... she's running for highest office. YES some people are voting for the first time, and it does help to get information "up in front" of people (and YES in a perfect world, no one would need reminders and the new kids could just Google this..)

        I'm 38, and remember this but only after seeing this reminder (I had plenty of reasons not to prefer Hillary in this election... didn't need to search for more really).

        That said... WASHINGTONTIMES? not to be confused with NY Times or Washington Post.

        Washington Times is not a legitimate news source... it's on the same level as News of The World, or Paranoia Weekly.
      • darkciti2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3I'm 32 and I read digg. I'm old enough to remember Bill Clinton's administration and the good times before Bush. I was just out of college back then and opportunities were everywhere. I feel bad for the college crowd after 8 years of Bush - particularly the guys that will be looking for work within the next few years.
        It's going to take a long time to recover from Bush.
    • spwpi10, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I wish I lived in Vacationland too.
  • bitfreak, on 05/12/2008, -6/+57Would someone please throw some Holy Water on the Clintons, and bust out some garlic?
    • Aerandir, on 05/12/2008, -1/+11and bring James Woods so he can finish them?
    • Arch83, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2BARACK-O WINS! LAWFUL VICTORY! DYNASTALITY!
    • czeman, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6It's gonna take a lot more than that for the highly concentrated evil we call the Clintons.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Yeah, this dude is spot on. Turns out almost more than a generation of unwavering support despite glaringly obvious criminal and unethical behavior makes people arrogant about their power and image? Who knew??!!
    • gwyrth, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1We need an old priest and a young priest...
    • yingjai, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1http://www.anecdotoff.com/2008/03/12/holy-*****-and ...

      i say throw some holy *****
  • TexasJulie, on 05/12/2008, -3/+48I guess the Clinton's are never to be held accountable for their many nefarious deals. H. Clinton was fired from the Water Gate Commission for her lies and unethical behavior (go to the Zeifman website, he's the one who headed up the commission). Then there's the fraud case in California. www.LASUPERIORCOURT.org. Case file number BC304174. The list goes on.
    • darkciti2, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Who cares?
      • earthmansurfer, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Great point and that's a bit of the problem in America. Not enough people care, but that is starting to change.
        Make a difference and look into our so called leaders.
  • hayzeus, on 05/12/2008, -2/+20So I guess the Rev. Moon isn't a big Hillary fan, eh?
    • Barackalypse, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2Given Obama's history with loony religious leaders, I'd say he's an Obama man.
      • neognostic, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6If you had a clue, he is a McCain man.
        • Barackalypse, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0HA, the guy who doesn't recognize sarcasm is lecturing me about having a clue.
        • darkciti2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Pastor Hagee for the win (FTW).
          (awesome nick, btw)
  • overtoke, on 05/12/2008, -7/+1google arkancide also: http://www.hawkscafe.com/107.html
  • rowlodge, on 05/12/2008, -1/+13she has everything on special flash paper, all you do is put a lit cigarette to it and " poof ! " burns just like that.
    • Qumahlin, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Funny but true story, when I was 16 my friend thought he found some rolling papers in his parents bedroom. Turned out his dad was a bookie of sorts and kept flash paper on hand. Needless to say the joint we rolled lasted all of .2 seconds.
  • JMellissa, on 05/12/2008, -1/+25All the more reason to keep her out of the White House!
  • bradbaxter, on 05/12/2008, -3/+27Again, Conservatives have been talking about this for years. Why is it suddenly a news items just because you guys finally start paying attention?
    • halleyscomet, on 05/12/2008, -4/+11Hell, the MSM news made a major story out of this during Clinton's administration. It's as if most Digg users are so young that all they know about Clinton's administration are lingering Monica jokes.
      • bradbaxter, on 05/12/2008, -7/+12Exactly -- too young to know the facts, yet they act like they know it all.

        Most likely, they just started learning a few things about politics in High School or College, and it is getting interesting for them... their teachers rant about Liberals=Good / Conservatives=Bad ... so, this is how they filter everything. Until they grow up, learn a few things and can actually think for themselves.
        • halleyscomet, on 05/12/2008, -6/+7Or, if they went to the schools I did, their teachers rant about Liberals=Satan's Servants / Conservatives=God's Wariors ... so, this is how they filter everything. Until they grow up, learn a few things and can actually think for themselves.
          • bradbaxter, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3You must've went to a private Christian school. I'm talking about public schools, in general... if you are speaking of a public school, it is certainly in the minority.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Yeah, you definitely did not go to a public school in CA, that's for damn sure.
        • theOster, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1halley - what school did you go to? religious?
        • cerejota, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I am in my early thirties, you ageist prick...

          It might be old news, but it is still true and unanswered for.
        • DyceFreak, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2people think age gives them wisdom enough to be single minded. Go dig a grave and decay if you love being old so much.
          • bradbaxter, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I'm old enough to know that your response is stupid.
        • phyx726, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Do you know what I ate for breakfast as well?
      • czeman, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7All they think, as a result, is,"Cool! He got a blowjob in the oval office?" They don't realize just how much more to ***** there was to the Clinton Administration. Most politicians are evil and corrupt, but people just don't seem to care about everything the Clintons did.
        • jgzman, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1I am learning. Overwhelmingly, however, during Clinton I, there was no general sense that we were being lead by a retarded monkey-child, and therefor there was no need to supervise so closely. If Bush ever did a good thing, he showed America why you need to keep an eye on the bastards.
      • SocialPoison, on 05/12/2008, -3/+8"It's as if most Digg users are so young that all they know about Clinton's administration are lingering Monica jokes."

        I hate to say it, but "This." Let's keep in mind... a Clinton hasn't been in office for about 7 years and some change now. So if you're in your mid-20s, you were in the middle of high school when you might have noticed something like this. Perhaps even more pressing though is a Clinton hasn't been in an election cycle for nearly 12 years. Well... now you're starting to throw back to when a lot of digg users were in middle or elementary school.

        So yeah, as a mid-20s digg user, sorry I didn't start to build a political knowledge base when I was still playing kick ball.

        Also think about it, even though I was in high school when the whole monica thing was going on, I remember hearing nothing about fraud and tax evasion. MSM was all Monica all the time.

        Your high horse, get off of it.
        • cerejota, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I like your sentiment, but not how you expressed it.
        • bradbaxter, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4High horse? You just made my point. You are a newcomer... your playing catch-up to what we've known all along... but many in your same age-range are riding a "high horse" of their own, without warrant, even though they are largely ignorant newbies.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+512 years? She moved to New York, wore Yankee hats for a few months, and was elected to the NY senate, and it wasn't 12 years ago.

          More to the point is the left just didn't care until Obama came around. Part of that is because of youth in his support base sure, but the other more significant part is political convenience.
        • czeman, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Well of course. A high school student is more likely to notice the reports of Bill getting blown in the oval office while sticking a cigar up a Monica's coochie than all the other stuff that was going on. Besides, it didn't all happen at the same time.
    • topgigmedia, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8The same reason why many conservatives will not look at Rush a for what he really is. You don't eat your own until it is advantageous or even more appealing to boost someone else (Obama).
      • Metman, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8I have several "Conservative" friends, none of whom listen to Rush. Conversely, I have several "Liberal" friends who are constantly rambling about what Rush said the day before. I am starting to wonder if the only thing keeping Rush on the air is the other side? *shrugs* I think most political commentators are blow-hards.
        • theOster, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1i thought rush was interesting in teh early 90s - then i took a hiatus for college and checked him out in teh later 90s and he was a complete ass.
        • bradbaxter, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I am a conservative. I listen to Rush maybe once a week... I'm not ashamed to admit it. More than any other pundit, Rush has shaped the political landscape in America. During the Clinton years, who was the second most powerful player in American politics? Rush Limbaugh. If it wasn't for him, there wouldn't have been a successful "Contract With America" leading to the so-called "Republican Revolution". If there was no Rush Limbaugh, Bush would not have won against Gore... hell, Hillary wouldn't have won in Indiana. So, others can lie and say they don't listen, but many are listening.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5I used to be able to listen to Rush, primarily in the Clinton presidency. But I realized he, like Hannity, support pro-republican anything no matter how hard the republicans sell us out. Doesn't matter that they've basically turned into democrats in fiscal ideaology. If those ***** were really conservative they would have campaiged for Ron Paul every day of the week instead of dismissing him outright.
          • bradbaxter, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1If Rush was just supporting "Republican anything", as you say, he would be actively supporting McCain. He isn't. And he's always said he puts conservative philosophy (not exactly the same as Libertarian philosophy) above any political party. Now, even during the Clinton years, if he wanted to 100% conservative, he could've backed the Conservative Party... but would he have been as influential in the 90's had he done that? No. He was influential because he focused his show on those he felt could change things... like Newt... the Republican Congress (there wasn't a Conservative Party Congress, after all)... therefore, same applies today... this is why he didn't support Ron Paul. And also, because Ron Paul doesn't share Rush's beliefs regarding Iraq.... But I'm telling ya, he is not a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.
    • davidlow, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8"Why is it suddenly a news items just because you guys finally start paying attention?"
      Because that's what news is. It's when people pay attention, not when something happens.
      • bradbaxter, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Yes, when I read a news paper or watch the nightly news, I fully expect to see a re-hash of news from 10 years ago. No... news is new information. Not old information (unless there is something new pertaining to an old event). Just because you just started reading about Churchill, doesn't make him news... he's history.... just like this story.
        • davidlow, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2True. Strictly speaking, news is "a report of recent events", according to the dictionary. I was focusing on the reporting but, you're right, it also needs to be current.
    • birdly, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1The Republican Revolution, Bush beating Gore, Hillary winning Indiana, all thanks to a blowhard in search of ratings, and getting them from ignorant listeners like you. Thanks for helping to run our once-great country into the ground.
      • bradbaxter, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1That's the problem with people like you... you like to say stupid things like "our once-great country".

        You list "Hillary winning Indiana" as one of the things that has "run our once-great country into the ground"??? You complained about Rush for 8 years when he criticized the Clintons, now you think our country is ruined because Rush helped her win Indiana?

        What makes you think he is "in search of ratings"? You mean, he is willing to sacrifice his beliefs in order to get ratings? If so, what do you mean? When has he done this? Or do you mean, he is searching for ratings because this is a bad thing for a person on radio or tv to do? If so, why? Maybe AIR AMERICA should start searching for ratings... but Rush Limbaugh, he isn't exactly suffering in the ratings.
  • Plantagenet, on 05/12/2008, -3/+11Good to see the Clinton's criminal behavior during the 1990s finally being exposed.
    • halleyscomet, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7Jesus, it was the leads story for MONTHS on just about every news network during Clinton's administration. Did ANYONE watch the news during the Clinton years, or were most Digg users watching Sesame Street at the time???
      • noahhoward, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7It was the lead story for months nearly a ***** decade ago, it needs to be put right back out there for as long as she continues to screw around with our elections.
        • halleyscomet, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6What I find amazing is so many people are reacting as if this is NEW data.
          • noahhoward, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2For some of them it probably is. I for one was 12.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1@noahhoward
            Thanks for admitting that, I didn't follow politics much when I was 12 either, and on a seperate note, this is no joke a fraction of the seriously shady unethical ***** that went down. Another great and very vivid example of that decade, look up his pardon lists (especially 2000), the names and what they were convicted for, and their links to the Clintons.... it's mind boggling how they got away with it.
      • clclark33, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Yet no charges were ever brought against her, even though the "lost" documents were in the white house with her and she claimed she didn't know about them for years.
      • guyincognitoo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Hey, I still watch Sesame Street.
    • Plantagenet, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3You don't get it. Nobody gave a ***** back then because it was being used in Rethuglican attacks. Now Hillary is trying to smear Obama, so it is OK to bring up her own past.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4finally being exposed? That's retarded.... finally being acknowledged as unethical and sleazy by the left
      • Tracon, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Or the monies started making ***** up again.
  • CaveDog, on 05/12/2008, -1/+25Just more of her "experience".
  • thirdcoastborn, on 05/12/2008, -5/+17Anyone in West Virginia planning on voting for this scandalous woman should really think twice. If you're not sure of Obama yet, just stay home. Can you really vote for a candidate who is involved in so much dirt?
    • Enochrewt, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2The Clintons may be dirty, but is Obama's complete lack of experience in everything besides preaching to the choir really any better? I don't think either (or McCain) are the right choice.
      • evilregis, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Because 'experienced' politics has done WONDERS for the U.S. economy and world standing.
        • pnunn, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Experience in politics just creates policymakers with the same defeatist attitude as old burned out musicians who never made it. Gotta love people who's whole political views are shaped by the key phrases from commercials they see during prime time!
    • Qumahlin, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Quite frankly I don't think anyone short of the VP can claim having any experience at being the president of the united states. So anytime this "he isn't experienced" ***** gets brought up I like to think to myself how many people with "no experience" have gone on to excel at their jobs.

      As long as Obama listens to the people of this country and not the companies that run it, I could care less how much supposed experience he does or does not have.
  • BesideYouInTime, on 05/12/2008, -11/+21The Washington Times is a right-wing rag owned by the moonies. Look it up on wikipedia if you don't believe me.
    • Smiths, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4I don't know why you're getting dugg down...? The Washington Times is where journalists go to watch their careers die.
    • altgeeky1, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3This is true. Your comment is buried, and without just cause.

      (Please don't bury accurate statements folks. The Washington Times IS run by a UFO worshipping right-wing cultist. As wild as that statement sounds.. it's true... just Google for "Reverend Moon" quotes and hear his OWN words. Mr. Moon is one of those nutters who longs for Armageddon in his lifetime...)
      • ImperatorSices, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Last I checked, there has been no mention of UFOs in any of his speeches that I've read. Then again who knows? I may just come across such a statement one day.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1George Soros anybody?
    • Qumahlin, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1h
  • trumpcard, on 05/12/2008, -10/+8No washingtontimes articles please ,i prefer the washingtonpost.
    • Enochrewt, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1That's like saying you prefer the Enquirer for your hard news.
  • absurdist, on 05/12/2008, -4/+13Buried for the Washington Times. I have as many problems with Hillary as anyone, but c'mon, guys. This is Mr. (I refuse to call him Reverend anything) Moon's propaganda rag we're talking about here.
    • Metman, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2and HuffingtonPost and RawStory and ...
    • pnunn, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0If you disagree with the publication- why not verify it, rather than just talking ***** about a magazine and skirting the issue?
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/12/2008, -25/+6Now now, when has any terrorist in the terrorist United States Government ever been held accountable?

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    Where's the evidence that kerosene fires melted steel?
    How did the huge molten pools of metal get under the twin towers and building 7?
    9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

    The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!

    Terrorist United States Government mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.
    • czeman, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5Put your aluminum foil hat back on and take your meds.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Ahhhh man, thank you for my daily reminder that the freedom of speech comes with consequences.
  • ErikHarrison, on 05/12/2008, -3/+9I REALLY wish stupidity hurt.
    • xedd, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1That's a funny thought.

      Okay, I am a bit strange, but your thought leads me to this thought:
      It's unfortunate however that the old saying "the truth hurts" applies for so many people and their search-for-pleasure/flight-from-pain instinct very often leads to general self-denial and a lack of effort expended on hard, critical self-analysis of their own behavior and opinions.
  • tierpinho, on 05/12/2008, -6/+4interesting clinton movie about rose firm et al
    google "clinton chronicles"
    • spratt0928, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0Lots of reasons to keep her out of the white house there
  • sonaboy, on 05/12/2008, -7/+2so, from the sound of it - if Hillary's dealings as former first lady are to be looked into, that must mean that the wife of a senator who's also a presidential candidate should probably just open the books up for the press too, right? mmhmm. Just let me know when that gets moving...
    • noahhoward, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7What? Where the hell is the logic in that? Obama's wife is not a ***** presidential candidate, Hillary is. She counts her dealings as former first 'lady' as proof that she is fit to lead this nation.
      • sonaboy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I wasn't speaking of Obama's wife.
        • noahhoward, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1"the wife of a senator who's also a presidential candidate should probably just open the books up for the press too, right?"

          You weren't? Sure as hell looked like it, but even if you weren't the wife of any presidential candidate is still not a candidate.
  • alphex, on 05/12/2008, -5/+17Washington Times ... jesus people. I don't care how much you don't want Clinton to be the next president... DO NOT ENDORSE the Wash. Times. its probably the single WORST news paper on the planet. Amazingly biased, owned and operated by a religious nut case. openly conservative to the point of lying and manipulating..... ugh, please stop using them as a source.

    • jaymzdean, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I get what you're saying, but wouldn't it be more effective to attack the message, THEN discredit the messenger? Attacking the messenger first always makes me think someone's got an agenda.
      • Smiths, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1If the messenger is already a very well known liar and manipulator of truth, why look at the message? Seriously, your time would be better spent reading about the craziness that is the Washington Times than any of the articles contained in it.
  • jaymzdean, on 05/12/2008, -0/+11Sometimes you just have to take a step back and look at today's political discourse and wonder if we're ever going to make it out of this ***** hole.
  • maddogz433, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4god, this is exactly what we don't need...
  • jonnyboy1544, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14Newsflash... the Clintons are corrupt and very clever. Yet, people still vote for them.
    • sliksta, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Well, sheeple do. If "we the people" includes folks that vote for trash like this, count me out or count them out.

  • ScoobyNew, on 05/12/2008, -8/+6Her behavior is so... Republican!
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5or... republican behavior is so democrat
    • sliksta, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Republican, democrat. Crooks all the same.
  • draculthemad, on 05/12/2008, -4/+17Allow me to be blunt for those of you who evidently slept through the latter part of the 90s.

    The republican party spent millions and millions of taxpayer dollars investigating every sordid detail they could about Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary. Despite all of that, and every stretch they could make to try to find something that would stick, nothing did. They appointed a special prosecutor. They subpoenaed every damned thing that could be conceivably be relevant.

    They found nothing but a stained dress, and even that was from someone recording a conversation.
    No charges were filed. No serious breach of conduct were found, aside from questions regarding his affair.They accused them of everything from fraud, to being closet homosexuals in a sham marriage, to outright murder. Not a single shred of solid evidence was found.

    If there was anything seriously off in her past, it would have come to light by now.
    She has already been investigated quite thoroughly.
    • headzoo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3You have a good point. One detail to keep in mind though, is B. Clinton was the president of The United States. The ramifications of convicting the president, or his wife, are huge. I'm sure the prosecutors had immense hurdles to jump over in their investigation, and people from all political backgrounds were probably standing in their way.

      Had the Clintons been some random couple from Arkansas, things might have turned out different.
    • Plantagenet, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Not a single shred of evidence? Gosh...did you sleep for 3 years straight? Don't you remember? Clinton's "DNA" was on the dress....isn't that evidence that his sworn statement that he never had sex with Monica involved perjury (i.e. he lied under oath). As a result, Bill Clinton was impeached. Then Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas and banned from appearing at the US Supreme Court and ultimately forced to pay about a million bucks in damages to settle his sleazy sexual harassment suit.

      Do you really think DNA evidence isn't evidence? Hello?
      • Qumahlin, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2"isn't that evidence that his sworn statement that he never had sex with Monica involved perjury"

        No, because DNA on a dress means he ejaculated on her dress, or that she wiped her hand on her dress, or hell that it dribbled out of her mouth. I don't know about you, but I, as well as every other male I know does not constitute a handjob or a blowjob as "sex when asked the question "did you have sex with her, or how many people have you had sex with"

        If someone asked you how many people you had sex with, would you respond with the amount of people who you had intercourse with, or the amount of people who have touched your genitals at all?
      • darkciti2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1And even if it was, WHO GIVES A ***** ABOUT Clinton's personal/sexual life?

        George W. Bush LIED about Iraq's WMDs and FOUR THOUSAND US Families have been devastated to hear that their son / daughter was KILLED in Iraq.

        That doesn't even take into account the TWENTY THOUSAND US Troops that have lost arms, legs, eyesight, etc. Nor am I counting the 800,000+ Iraqi people that have been KILLED.
        A Nuclear weapon would have caused less damage, for *****'s sake.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2That's all legal game playing, why lawyers get the big bucks. His pardon lists alone should have been enough bring about criminal charges. No charges files were not an attribute to them having a clean record, the clintons and their cronies were as crafty as the starr team was inept.
    • unyuzyall, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3"No serious breach of conduct found". Um, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED, so, yeah, a serious breach of conduct was found, sir.
      • darkciti2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1At least Democrat Clinton achieved something (passing the BAR).
        Republican Bush failed at _everything_ he was ever responsible for.
  • JointVenture, on 05/12/2008, -5/+13Do Democrats realize how ridiculous they now ATTACK the Clinton's with the very same issues they deflected with ITS A RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY?

    Ive been laughing my ass off for months now, and I'm not a Republican.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3The stupidity of assuming that everyone who is a democrat now on Digg, concerned with this issue, was a Clinton supporter a ***** decade ago way back in the mists of time, is pretty staggering.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4The staggering assumption is that democrats now on digg followed politics at all in the 90's.

        Are you a teenager?.... or coincidentally are you a true legit rare instance of a 1 out of a million democrat who didn't defend the Clinton's to the death in the 90's? It's not a staggering assumption whatsoever.... if you were politically aware back then.
        • pnunn, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Getting pretty close to time for you to take a nap- says a 32 year old digger voting dem this year who thinks your brand of "age=elitism" is rubbish and has yet to see word one from you that is anything other than offensive baiting. Do you think you are swaying people by being such an ass and beating your rant into people's head? How about your offensive name? We get it dude- YOU WERE THERE. YOU REMEMBER. SO WAS I AND IT HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH ANYTHING- the point is these things are relevant to us- and we care- and we're deciding on our candidate. Get the ***** out of here. GO find some other sociopaths and you guys can yell at the wall together. The point is that these things need to re-surface for the good of the democratic nomination- not be held off to undo the party during the election itself. I can't help but imagine you know that- since you have such insight and all.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I'm 29!... and I guarantee if I said the Clintons are pieces of garbage in 1999, with solid merit I might add, you would have been howling at me just like every other democrat back then did.

            No I'm not going to get out of here, as long as I see this fad of articles about Clinton wrongdoings and "racism" followed by long comment sections where liberals scream how jacked up it is, I'll be here reminding you fools that your definition of integrity obviously changes as needed for political convenienence. You wouldn't have this election situation if democrats had the balls to tell the Clintons they're no longer welcome after 2000... or 1996 for that matter, as should be told to anybody that unethical. Democrats created the Clinton cancer, fed it and nurtured it for years.

            PS As long as people are coming to my tech site digging articles about stifling economic freedom, my right to make a living for myself, and over the top anti-american garbage in general, you'll see more. what you call "offensive," comments.
          • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3Hey *****, Hillary ran for office a couple of years ago and people brought all this up and the DEMOCRATS defended her. ie. not the 1990's

            *****.
          • mrtrevin, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1RANDOM caps are not THE answer.
        • pnunn, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4And you'll be boring, pathetic, predictable, a cliché and you still don't have any reason to talk. Us fools are not swayed by you morons. You are an ass. I don't give a damn how old you are it just sucks to have to entertain such uselessness when you clearly are just here to be a dick. If you regard what you just said as a threat to me- realize I was merely outlining strategies for better things you could do with your time. Explain to me how all this reflects on your integrity...? How about the fact that you keep lambasting everyone with ill defined broad generalizations? My point about your age is that your behavior does not justify your false sense of superiority. Hang out all you want- Digg is getting lamer every second you do- but these aren't problems for me. You entire justification for what you are saying has little to do with anything actually confirmed. You make insulting assumptions about why this is being brought up now as though it has something to do with political awareness of an entire party. Then again- that's what most campaigns on your side look like to those of us not running around beating people over the head with an outdated premise. Keep it up. Way to go. Seriously- you are awesome. I know I am impressed. Get ready to lose this year and just be a pissy blowhard with an embarrassing track record of mean spirited "integrity."




          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2I am here to be a dick. As long as I keep seeing socialist/populist garbage clogging this site I will remain, making this site lamer. Unlike yourself I'm not going to just turn away and go to some website where everyone agrees with me.

            Maybe if the articles on digg weren't so outrageous my comments wouldn't be. I live in CA, it's the most beautiful land in the world, I've seen the Democrats run this place into the ground, and I'm tired of this site trying to suggest otherwise.
          • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Hey *****, why are you ignoring the fact that Hillary ran for office 2? 3? years ago and the DEMOCRATS voted for her. They DEFENDED her whenever she was attacked on the very same issues you ***** keep posting.

            have a nice day
          • pnunn, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0Hey dimwitted right wing half-wit puppet *****- I am not ignoring anything- we aren't even talking about that- douchebag and apparently you too keep getting confused as though I am the whole party. My point is actually that Hilary is a bad candidate and you guys are idiots who have no real contribution to make save for stupid negative party slandering nonsense.

            Who the ***** is this "They" you keep lumping me in with? Did you ever think, maybe, just MAYBE there is an individual portion of politics you overlook to say the dumbest ***** I have ever heard. Moreover, she didn't run for office in a place I could or would have voted for her. Your comment is simultaneously pointless, irrelevant and offensive- and that doesn't even get into "Hey *****." ***** you you dimwit *****. Feel good about yourself yet?

            And Nonleftist- you don't know the first thing about me- save for the fact that I am pissing you off- and how do you figure that with digg overrun with morons like yourself that I am "at a website where everyone agrees with me?" You guys are too stupid to let anything go and I know that tonight I can look forward to seeing where you've come back to keep it going and I will gladly keep going because I am eager to know at what point either of you might say anything relevant or not speak in broad generalized stereotypes. The whole reason I am even dealing with you is because I saw your multiple threads of nonsense and wanted to piss all over your rhetoric you keep borrowing from your dad you pathetic ***** loser.

            Yeah, dudes- you've really got me pegged. Dorks...

            "have a nice day"- (oh that is just too clever)
          • pnunn, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0"The stupidity of assuming that everyone who is a democrat now on Digg, concerned with this issue, was a Clinton supporter a ***** decade ago way back in the mists of time, is pretty staggering."

            Hey dorks- that's the statement from the top of this thread- the one you are feeding on. Do you even remember that or are you just having one of those right wing rages?
          • Apophis574, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1@pnunn
            First you say, "You are an ass. I don't give a damn how old you are it just sucks to have to entertain such uselessness when you clearly are just here to be a dick."
            Then you say, "The whole reason I am even dealing with you is because I saw your multiple threads of nonsense and wanted to piss all over your rhetoric you keep borrowing from your dad you pathetic ***** loser."
            lol...
          • pnunn, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0touché. I guess... not really, but whatever...


        • birdly, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1If you voted for Bush (and I'd be surprised if you didn't) you have no claim to integrity.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4No ***** man, the past 6 months on digg and the media in general have blown my mind, these people were Gods that couldn't do anything wrong up to a year ago. Nothing stuck them, now, the bible worth of criminal and unethical events they were involved in that pissed a lot of us off 7-15 years ago, is being stuck to them hardcore by their own party that made a science out of ignoring it in the past!
      • birdly, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1The Dems are trying to elevate their party above unethical behavior. What are the Republicans doing? Unethical business as usual.....
    • darkciti2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Name one.
      • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1All of them.

        Are that ***** stupid that you think this is NEW?
  • uselessexpert, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Why can the Clintons just disappear like those documents did?...
  • eibborjames, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2She's done anyway.
    Who gives a *****!
  • trixterIreland, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I heard that those billing records only involved sexual encounters with interns so really what we are talking about is blowjobs (that is the only thing bad that clinton did during his term right? and presumably his wife never did anything bad right?).

    This is why it bothers me a little when people present the "blow job defense" ignoring all of the other stuff (somewhat intentionally) that went on, such as the witnesses against the clintons in their loan fraud stuff (whitewatergate, remember that?) all killed themselves while in protective custody of the federal government. I believe it was 3 separate witnesses at different times.

    There is a lot of shady things that occured, some felony convictions even, and some people refuse to accept that saying it was just about a blowjob.
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I like to compare it to Al Capone. He was so good at covering up his connections with mob hits and racketeering that the only thing they could nab him for was tax evasion.
      In the same vein, the only thing they could get Clinton for was lying about an affair.
      Just as Capone was a career criminal, so too are the Clintons.
  • ScumSucker, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3That's why she can afford to loan her campaign millions of dollars to compensate for the donations she's not getting -- she's had her hand in the cookie jar for years.
  • niradg, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5BURIED as innacurate. I am no Hillary Clinton fan, but the Washington Times is no more truthful than the Weekly World News
  • Plantagenet, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6Bill Clinton testified under oath that he never had sex with his intern, but his DNA matched dried semen on his intern's dress. Bill's perjury led to his impeachment by the Congress, his legal disbarment, him being banned from appearing before the US Supreme Court, and to Bill paying about a million bucks to settle the sexual harassment claim against him. But Hillary says thats all just her personal business.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3you forgot being disbarred in AK
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1You're forgetting the testimony from Bill's state trooper escorts in Arkansas.
  • dibling, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I'm a pretty large Obama fan, but i'm getting really bored of all these "Hillary is evil" stories. Duh. Let's post something interesting.
  • Balks, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3The longer people hang around politicians, the more corrupt they become. That's why I'm voting for Obama.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Are you all 18 years old, or did you just not care when this came out in the 90's? They magically showed up on some random out in the open table, out of the blue, years after these documents were asked for. It was on the news. I'm glad the left is finally realizing the Clintons are unethical scum bags, but I'm frustrated it's been so belated, these people were water walking gods up to the beginning of 2008, and undeservingly so.
  • GuinnyIre, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4It's beautiful how all the Obama supporters attackin the Clintons are the same Clinton supporters of the 90s who were screaming Republican persecution when this was news.
  • MrFurious2k, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Let me get this straight - the Democrats were fine with news back when Clinton administration was running the show, but now the Clintons are demons and must be drug into the sunlight, staked, beheaded, and burned? What changed? It appears to me that only the Candidate did. What is more humorous is that many of these Obama supporters are quick to point their fingers at the Republicans and scream about how "unethical" they are. Can’t we just eject all the politicians and start over?

    Sadly, we should be holding our politicians to a higher standard than the populace. I found the Clinton supporters arguments (back in the 90's) to be laughable when they told us that ethics and morals didn't matter. Apparently that is coming back to bite them in the ass in a big way.
    • birdly, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Correction - it already DID come back to bite them (and the rest of the nation) in the ass in a big way - during the Bush regime. We've already seen how low we can go. Now we're trying to make sure we don't go back there.
  • asiantoast, on 05/12/2008, -2/+0is this really what we need for our future? I'm getting tired of the dirty Clinton's. i just ordered this shirt:

    http://www.clintonfatigue.us/

    i cant wait to get it and show everyone how tired of Hillary i am. Obama all the way.
  • GorfTron, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1The snipers took them
  • wowsah156, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1Today my most favourite sexual fantasy is me shoving my tight big fist up Hilary's ass giving her a vigourous fisting has someone ***** in her open gaping mouth. Yes take all the chocolate watch Hilary!!
  • MrESaulved, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I hope you enthusiasts have enough energy to go after the corrupt people who are actually...you know, in power right now.

    /obligatory "Not a Clinton supporter" disclaimer.
  • junkwheel, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1You can have nothing to hide and hide things, it's two different things. - Hillary Clinton
  • eco57, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Buried - consider the source, please.

    The Washington Times is a radical right-wing propagandist publication similar to Fox News. See the section entitled "Political Leanings" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times.

    I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm not going to trash Hillary when she gets blasted by some trumped up story from the far-right. Think for yourselves, peeps!

    eCo
  • bhod, on 05/12/2008, -3/+0sure, they vanished, yeah right. she probably ate them, that bitch... gobama!
  • anubis2night, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1If you guys are really interested in this there was a great frontline documentary on this subject around 97 or 98 that really shed's some light on this topic. Funny how someone like Michael Moore never does a doc on this kind of stuff huh? Anyways there's a lot more to this than just the missing doc's though that should be all the evidence someone needs to see the Clintons culpability. There's also a great documentary about the major drug trafficking that went on thru Arkansas while Clinton was Governor and the drug raid that netted his brother, there's a scene where they have him on tape bragging about his connections and how he can get away with anything, now mind you this was only when Bill was Governor, so imagine what was going on when he became president. Of course we all know about the presidential pardons for money at the end but who knows what else we missed. Now imagine what a few years of Hillary in office would be like?
    • darkciti2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Michael Moore is a Democrat. He's never said he wasn't.
      You're a dolt. Perhaps you continue telling everyone.
  • username484767, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2what a *****
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1She is not a human. Get answers: http://digg.com/politics/What_is_that_in_Hillary_r ...
  • dddavid, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1I love the quote: "This is a baseless accusation which was looked into over a decade ago in an investigation that took $71.5 million and eight years to determine there was no case," at the very bottom of the article. There was no case because it appears you destroyed evidence. So because of that we should forget it? I don't think so.

  • dafunkmonster, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Alright, glad to see this stuff finally catching the public eye.

    If you're interested in more Clinton information, google ADFA, Barry Seal, Don Tyson, Dan Lasater, and Vince Foster.
    • darkciti2, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1More importantly, if you're interested in relevant information from the current century, google: Bush, Cheney, Failure, Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, Torture, Corruption, Jeff Gannon, Dennis Hastert, Ted Haggart, Corruption, House of Saud, Valerie Plame, Hurricane Katrina, "Heckuva Job Brownie", Iraq, "Record Oil Profits", "13 of 19 Hijaackers", "No Child Left Behind expulsion rate", Patriot Act.

      Did I miss any?
  • smotpoker1, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2actually I'm more interested in bush's ***** lies and criminal activity.Don't care to much about hillary and mccain is brain dead as bush is we need someone else and so far only one left is obama.I hope obama has bush and cheney arrested and haliburton and oil companies stripped of all ill gotten gains.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.