How a New York Senator Can Rag on the Clintons without Risk of Death

Here’s an interesting piece on American Thinker by Michael Nollett.

On November 16, 2017, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) kicked off her run for the 2020 presidency by intoning that Bill Clinton should have resigned (in disgrace?) in 1998 over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Talk sure is cheap, isn’t it?  That’s because the Democrats had in their power to dump Clinton in 1999 and kick him right out of office – and took a pass on it.  They could even have accomplished this with a minority of their Senate membership.  And not only would it have been easy, but it would even have redounded to their benefit, by guaranteeing their continued rule for at least six more years and probably ten.  They would have only benefited from doing so.  And how!

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”   This means that if Vice President Albert Sidney “Al” Gore had succeeded to the Presidency in 1999, he would have been enabled to serve out the time remaining in Clinton’s term – and then two full terms of his own.  Gore would have been on a fast track to become the longest serving president in American history, save only Franklin Roosevelt himself.

We can reasonably infer that if Gore had succeeded to the presidency in 1999, the 2000 election line-up would have been the same in that alternate reality as it was in ours: Gore versus Bush.  But would the outcome have been the same?  Almost certainly not.  The easiest way to win a presidential election is to run as an incumbent.  Even with Gore not running in 2000 as the incumbent president, he gained 500,000 more popular votes than Bush did.  If Gore had been the incumbent, Gore’s winning margin would certainly have been several million popular votes, and Bush would never have been able to win in the Electoral College.  Gore would have had the added advantage of claiming to be the stand-in for the “martyred” President Clinton.  So why not just dump Clinton then and there?

What, exactly, did the Democrats owe Clinton in 1999, anyway?  Exactly nothing.  What had Clinton ever done for them?  Using Dick Morris’s “triangulation” strategy, Clinton had enacted much of Newt Gingrich’s agenda, which was anathema to true-blue Democrats.  Even worse, Clinton’s excesses during his first two years in office had aroused so much disgust among the American people that they sent Republican majorities to both the House and the Senate in the 1994 midterm elections, exactly the way Democrat majorities in both Houses were wiped out in Barack Obama’s own first midterm elections in 2010.

That’s a lot of committee chairmanships lost, not to mention the forced departures of friends and colleagues.  The Democrats should have been seething with rage.  On both occasions, excesses wrought by Democrat presidents cost the Democrats the majority rule that they believe is theirs by birthright.

So the national Democrats had excellent reason to resent Bill Clinton in1999 and every motive to seek revenge.  And the Republicans gave them the golden trigger by which to get that revenge: impeachment and conviction.  All that would have been needed was for at least seventeen of the forty-five Democrat senators to vote to convict Clinton of one of the impeachment charges that had been voted on by the House.  That’s about 40%.

Instead, all forty-five Democrat senators stood, phalanx-like, behind Clinton.

Why did they do this?  He had caused them nothing but electoral losses and loss of power.  Why not just dump him in 1999 and then complain to the public about how unfair it was?  Gore would have been golden for at least six more years and probably ten.  He probably would have had coattails, too, at least in 2000.

Did the Democrats stand by Clinton because they sincerely believed that the Constitution was in peril if the Republicans could get away with getting rid of one of theirs?  That was Clinton’s defense, but the premise is so absurd as to be laughable.

Did they think Clinton could help them recover their fortunes in 2000?  This is likewise laughable, because Gore and the entire Democrat down-ticket in 2000 thought Clinton was so radioactive that they didn’t want him to campaign for them.

So why did the Democrats stand by Clinton in 1999, when it would have been to their advantage to get rid of him then, as well as giving them the chance to wreak their revenge on him?

Only one reason comes to mind: blackmail files.  The Clintons did have those900 FBI raw files.  They also had their own minions of paid hacks.  Does anyone think that only Republicans’ dossiers were contained in those files?  The Clintons must have had dirt on everybody, of both parties.  That’s an obvious reason for the iron hold Clinton was able to wield over them.

And Kirsten Gillibrand?  Why does she act as if she’s free of Clinton blackmail worries?  Simple.  She didn’t enter the House of Representatives until 2007.  The Clintons never assembled blackmail files on her.

Talk sure is cheap.  Sometimes it costs nothing at all.

—oo—

Wonder what those files contain on the fossil McConnell?  What about Jeff Sessions?

~ Hardnox

About Hardnox

Constitutional Conservative that Lefties love to hate.
Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to How a New York Senator Can Rag on the Clintons without Risk of Death

  1. Shar says:

    Good post and comment. Bet there is an encyclopedia of information on Mitch. After all he has been in DC since 1987. It will be interesting to see who the GOP runs against Kirsten.

  2. SafeSpace says:

    Excellent post, and I bet the theory about blackmail files is correct, now that we are learning that about half the men on Capitol Hill are sex predators.

  3. Dynalady says:

    Nox–brilliant analysis. I never thought of it that way. Kind of ironic to think that all these losing Dems took the fall politically for Bill. But, don’t forget, back then times were different.

    Fact is, Dems were absolute bat-sh*t crazy about Clinton. He was charismatic, spoke well & convincingly about working Americans (I feel your pain; People are working harder for less money). At first, he was not a serious candidate even after playing his saxophone on MTV & his youth #’s soared. Not until he partnered in a debate w/Algore who had the gravitas. At the whiff of a possible win & power, Dems went all in for Bill w/o question. And, blackmail files or no, they’ve never really waivered. Dems lost any innocence they may have had, then. (Even Dick Morris still speaks fondly of Bill–his score is vs. Hillary). Exactly the same w/Obama.-Dems heard a mesmerizing voice, saw the promise of power, & nothing else matters.

    The Kirsten female is a team player, don’t be fooled. Crocodile tears about Monica–old news. No mention of current Lefty scandals which could still be brought to court. Notice in ALL the Lefty elite sex scandals they cop to some ‘consensual’ episode, but, look at the media character assassinations, the spies, the absolute lockdown of secrecy. Would all this really be necessary for mutually consensual ‘relationships?’

    P.S.–screw Monica’s #MeToo. Linda Tripp was the best friend she ever had–advising her to keep the blue dress. And they brutalized that woman–her life is ruined to this day. And for what? Telling the truth about the Clintons.

  4. captbogus2 says:

    For years I have been saying this and for years have been ignored as some kind of conspiracy nut.
    Too many times a candidate for office has been elected on his conservative stance but as soon as he reached DC he inexplicably voted for Democrat platforms. And how can a sharp and astute legal mind, conservative in past judicial decisions, make it to Chief Justice of SCOTUS only to uphold a very unconstitutional Obamacare declaring the most glaring portion, “a tax” when every seventh grade civics class teaches taxes don’t arrive without a vote on the taxation? With the Alabama judge, isn’t it strange NO woman accused him of sexual misconduct for 40 years then all of a sudden come forward now? And how about AG Foot Dragging Sessions? What skeletons has he in his closet?
    It has been my contention the Democrat party has a very competent cadre of Private Detectives (for lack of a better tag) that do nothing but dig up dirt on ANY politician of either party whose ambitions are carrying him towards DC.

    • Hardnox says:

      You’re not alone bro. I have always believed the same. Our suspicions are now confirmed.

      I agree. The Dims must have a very competent cadre of private operators.

  5. Bullright says:

    So true. But I have a crazy take. I don’t think she is clear of revenge. Philippe Reines told her “good luck in 2020 primaries. I bet they are digging on her.

  6. Whitetop says:

    700 is the number I recall thrown out at the time with speculation that as many as 2,000 files might be in the hands of the Clintons. Makes one wonder if Trent Lott had a file in that bunch since he was president of the Senate at the time and no republican senators even bothered to look at the supporting documents behind the House impeachment of Bill Clinton. I’m starting to see a pattern here of spineless republicans.

  7. Pingback: The Weekly Headlines-Posted on November 25, 2017 by lafayetteangel – Br Andrew's Muses

Don't be bashful leave a comment and let us know what you think - Please note our Comment Policy (Please keep all comments on topic and relevant to the discussion. Thank You. )