The Hillary Clinton speech we'd like to hear: Our view

You have touched upon something I've been pondering for a long time. Why must candidates be paragons of virtue, Do we really expect some divine entity to descend and save us all from our sins, some sort of nickle-plated angel who will be without blemish? One of the things I like about Trump is that he's failed. Not often. But he's bounced back. How do we know how a person might handle adversity as President if they've never handled adversity? Yes, I would actually stop and give Hillary a second look if she actually stepped up to the microphone and confessed, "Yes, I've made mistakes and this is what I've learned from them." Sadly, we have enabled her to continue on her misguided path by not indicting her. Those who make excuses for her or cover for her are only enabling her. It's like buying booze for an alcoholic, isn't it?

Hillary is a plague to our nation, our military, and our future. Do your brothers and sisters a favor and don't miss your chance to vote anything but her.... I'm personally a Trump supporter and understand arguments against him, but vote him, vote Johnson, anything to keep tilting the table away from her crooked scandalous administration.

A memo surfaces regarding Hillary Clinton
From Wikipedia.
"On January 5, 1996, a new development thrust the travel office matter again to the forefront. A two-year-old memo from White House director of administration David Watkins surfaced that identified First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as the motivating force behind the firings, with the additional involvement of Vince Foster and Harry Thomason.[39] "Foster regularly informed me that the First Lady was concerned and desired action. The action desired was the firing of the Travel Office staff."[40] Written in fall 1993, apparently intended for McLarty, the Watkins memo also said "we both know that there would be hell to pay" if "we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes."[39] This memo contradicted the First Lady's previous statements in the GAO investigation, that she had played no role in the firings and had not consulted with Thomason beforehand; the White House also found it difficult to explain why the memo was so late in surfacing when all the previous investigations had requested all relevant materials.[40] House committee chair Clinger charged a cover-up was taking place and vowed to pursue new material.[39]
New York Times columnist William Safire had endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, but by 1996 he was Hillary Clinton's most infamous critic and his nose a metaphorical target for Bill Clinton's ire.

These developments, following Hillary Clinton's prior disputed statements about her cattle futures dealings and Whitewater, led to a famous exchange in which high-profile New York Times columnist William Safire, who had endorsed Bill Clinton in the previous election, wrote that many Americans were coming to the "sad realization that our First Lady—a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation—is a congenital liar,"[41] followed by White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry saying that "the President, if he were not the President, would have delivered a more forceful response to that—on the bridge of Mr. Safire's nose."[42][43]

As a result of the discovery of the Watkins memo, and based upon a suggestion from the Office of Independent Counsel, on March 20, 1996, Attorney General Janet Reno requested that Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr expand his inquiry to specifically include the travel office affair, in particular allegations that White House employees had lied about Hillary Clinton's role in the firings,[8] and that David Watkins or Hillary Clinton had made false statements in previous testimony to the GAO, Congress, or the Independent Counsel.[44]

The Congressional investigation continued; on March 21, 1996, Hillary Clinton submitted a deposition under oath to the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, again acknowledging concern about irregularities in the Travel Office but denying a direct role in the firings and expressing a lack of recollection to a number of questions.[26] A battle of wills took place between the legislative and executive branches. On May 9, 1996, President Clinton refused to turn over additional documents related to the matter, claiming executive privilege.[45] House committee chair Clinger threatened a contempt of Congress resolution against the president, and the White House partially backed down on May 30, surrendering 1,000 of the 3,000 documents the committee asked for.[46]

Meanwhile, the seven dismissed employees were back in the picture. In March 1996 the House voted 350–43 to reimburse them for all of their legal expenses;[47] in September 1996, Democratic Senator Harry Reid led an unsuccessful attempt to block this measure.[48] In May 1996, the seven filed a $35 million lawsuit against Harry Thomason and Darnell Martens, alleging unlawful interference with their employment and emotional distress.[49]

On June 5, 1996, Clinger announced that the committee's investigations had discovered that the White House had requested access to Billy Dale's FBI background check report seven months after the terminations, in what Clinger said was an improper effort to justify the firings.[50] It was rapidly discovered that the White House had additionally gotten improper access to hundreds of other FBI background reports, many on former White House employees in Republican administrations; thus was born the Filegate controversy.[51]

The Senator Al D'Amato-chaired Senate Special Whitewater Committee, which had begun the previous year, issued its findings in a majority report on June 18, 1996;[52] it did not investigate Travelgate directly, but did say that "[Hillary] Clinton, upon learning of [Vince] Foster's death, at least realized its connection to [the] Travelgate scandal, and perhaps to the Whitewater matter, and dispatched her trusted lieutenants to contain any potential embarrassment or political damage."[53] Minority Democratic members of the Committee derided these findings as "a legislative travesty," "a witch hunt," and "a political game."[52]

The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee issued its majority report on September 18, 1996, in which it accused the Clinton administration of having obstructed the committee's efforts to investigate the Travelgate scandal.[6] It portrayed Bill Clinton as being heavily involved in the travel office affair,[6] more than any other investigation. The report's chapter titles were lurid: "The White House Stonewalled All Investigations into the White House Travel Office Firings and Related Matters", "The White House Initiated a Full-Scale Campaign of Misinformation in the Aftermath of the Travel Office Firings and President Clinton Led the Misinformation Campaign from the First Days of the Travelgate Debacle", "Foster's Death Shattered a White House Just Recovering from an Abysmal First 6 Months of Administration", and so forth.[54] Democratic members of the Committee walked out in protest over the report, with ranking member Henry Waxman calling it "an embarrassment to you [Chairman Clinger], this committee and this Congress" and "a crassly partisan smear campaign against President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton and this administration."[6] The following month Clinger forwarded the report, along with one on Filegate, to the Independent Counsel, suggesting that the testimony of several witnesses be looked at for possible perjury or obstruction of justice.[8] Democrats said this was politically motivated in an attempt to influence the 1996 presidential election.[8]
Independent Counsel findings
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated President Clinton with respect to Travelgate, but not the First Lady, in late 1998.

Almost two years passed. Independent Counsel Starr continued his investigation. Starr wanted access to notes that Vince Foster's attorney took in a conversation with Foster about the travel office affair shortly before Foster's suicide, but on June 25, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 against Starr in Swidler & Berlin v. United States, stating that attorney–client privilege extends beyond the grave.[55] In September 1998 Independent Counsel Starr released the famous Starr Report, concerning offenses that may have been committed by President Clinton as part of the Lewinsky scandal. It did not mention the travel office matter.[8]

On November 19, 1998, Starr testified before the House Judiciary Committee in connection with the impeachment of Bill Clinton over charges related to the Lewinsky scandal. Here, for the first time, Starr exonerated President Clinton of complicity in the travel office affair, saying that while investigations were not complete, "the president was not involved in our... investigation."[56] (Starr also chose this occasion to clear President Clinton in the Filegate matter, and to say he had not committed impeachable wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter; Democrats on the committee immediately criticized Starr for withholding all these findings until after the 1998 Congressional elections.[57])

Starr explicitly did not exonerate Hillary Clinton, however; her case remained unsettled. More time passed. By 2000, she was a candidate for United States Senator from New York, and Starr had been replaced as Independent Counsel by prosecutor Robert Ray, who once worked for Rudy Giuliani, Clinton's then-opponent in the Senate race.[58] Regardless, Ray vowed his investigation would have "no untoward effect on the political process."[58] Ray was determined to wrap up the case before the end of Bill Clinton's term.[59]

On June 23, 2000, the suspense ended when Ray submitted the final Independent Counsel report on the travel office affair under seal to the judicial panel in charge of the investigation and publicly announced that he would seek no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.[60] Ray said that she had, contrary to her statements, "ultimately influenced" the decision to fire the employees.[60] However, "the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that any of Mrs. Clinton's statements and testimony regarding her involvement in the travel office firings were knowingly false," and thus prosecution was declined.[60] White House press secretary Joe Lockhart was critical of Ray's statement: "By inappropriately characterizing the results of a legally sealed report through innuendo, the Office of Independent Counsel has further politicized an investigation that has dragged on far too long."[60]

Ray's full 243-page report[61] was unsealed and made public on October 18, 2000, three weeks before the Senatorial election. It confirmed that neither Hillary Clinton nor David Watkins would be indicted.[61] It included some new detail, including a somewhat unsubstantiated claim from a friend of Watkins saying that the First Lady had told Watkins to "fire the sons of bitches."[62] Ray cited eight separate conversations between the First Lady and senior staff and concluded: "Mrs. Clinton’s input into the process was significant, if not the significant factor influencing the pace of events in the Travel Office firings and the ultimate decision to fire the employees." Moreover, Ray determined Hillary Clinton had given "factually false" testimony[63] when questioned by the GAO, the Independent Counsel, and Congress[61] about the travel office firings, but reiterated that "the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that she knew her statements were false or understood that they may have prompted the firings.[63]

Immediate reactions to the report differed. David E. Kendall, Hillary Clinton's lawyer, said that Ray's words were "highly unfair and misleading"[63] and that Ray's conclusions were inconsistent, that evidence regarding her innocence had been buried in the document, and that the report confirmed that her fears about financial improprieties in the Travel Office were warranted.[64] On the other hand, Bill Powers, chair of the New York Republican State Committee, said the report "once again makes us question" the believability of Clinton, and Congressman Rick Lazio, her Republican opponent in the Senate election, said "We believe that character counts in public service."[65] New York Times columnist Safire updated his description of Hillary Clinton to "habitual prevaricator", saying "the evidence that she has been lying all along is damning" and comparing her dark side to that of Richard Nixon, in whose White House he had once worked.[66]

Regardless, after 7½ years, Travelgate was finally over."