The Instigator
ReaganConservative
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
claypigeon
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Hillary Clinton is corrupt.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,682 times Debate No: 2710
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

ReaganConservative

Pro

A number of odd events somewhat undermines the theory that Hillary Clinton was an unwitting cat's paw for McDougal's criminality in Whitewater. First, in 1988, Hillary directed the Rose Law Firm to destroy her files on Castle Grande. This was not illegal, but it was unusual, especially because of the irregular banking practices engaged in by this particular client. In another year, Madison Guaranty's Castle Grande project would itself be the focus of a criminal investigation against James McDougal. The remaining Rose Law Firm records of Hillary's work on Castle Grande vanished from the firm during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, only to materialize in the White House residence four years later.

Also raising questions about the Hillary's self-portrait as an unwitting dupe are her unequivocal denials that she had performed any work on Castle Grande, until her billing records materialized in January 1996. Until the billing records surfaced, the RTC had been completely in the dark about Hillary's involvement with Castle Grande. One RTC officer testified in 1995, for example: "We have no evidence that Mrs. Clinton worked on Castle Grande." This is hardly surprising. On May 24, 1995, Hillary had given a sworn statement to the RTC saying, "I do not believe I knew anything about any of these real estate parcels and projects," specifically including Castle Grande. Indeed, Hillary had stated in two separate federal investigations that she had had absolutely nothing to do with Castle Grande.

It was peculiar that she had been unable to recall her work on Castle Grande. Her billing records revealed that she had been the billing partner for Madison Guaranty generally, and on Castle Grande in particular. She had billed the bulk of her work for Madison Guaranty to Castle Grande. In fact, she had billed more time to Castle Grande than had any other partner at the Rose Law Firm for the period of time leading up to the Castle Grande option. Most significantly, of course, she had drafted the sham option agreement used to defraud the federal regulators in Castle Grande, according to her own billing records.

The FBI tested the billing records for fingerprints in early 1996 and found Hillary's fingerprints on two pages: the page summarizing all her work for Madison, and the page giving a detailed account of her work on Castle Grande exclusively. After her billing records mysteriously surfaced in the White House, about two years after they had been subpoenaed by congressional investigators, she had some explaining to do. Hillary clarified her earlier denials by saying she had known Castle Grande by another name, "IDC." This was the Rose Law Firm's internal billing code for the matter, referring to the company that sold the property to McDougal. Hillary said she believed "Castle Grande" referred exclusively to a trailer park called "Castle Grande Estates" that was to be located on "Castle Grande," or "IDC," in her lexicon, and she had done no work on the trailer park.

There would be no reason, however, for federal officers to be asking Hillary about "Castle Grande Estates," the trailer park. That was not a part of any fraudulent transactions. By contrast, Castle Grande the development had been the focus of James McDougal's first trial in 1990, and would soon form the basis of criminal fraud convictions against the McDougals and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker. Hillary's explanation for previous denials would be on the order of O.J. attempting to revise earlier responses to investigators about a certain "Nicole," on the grounds that he had understood "Nicole" to refer exclusively to his manicurist, not his murdered wife whom he called "Honey." Moreover, if Hillary knew Castle Grande only as "IDC," she was the only person involved in the project who did. Madison's senior loan officer said, "It was known as Castle Grande by everyone that was involved within thirty days of the purchase." The development was referred to as Castle Grande in minutes of a board meeting at Madison. A document prepared in 1986 by government officials from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board described the development as the "Castle Grande project."

Hillary would also have been the only person in all of Little Rock who would not have recognized the Castle Grande development as "Castle Grande." During Jim McDougal's first trial for fraud involving Castle Grande in 1990, news accounts of the trial referred to the devlopment only as "Castle Grande." Even if Hillary drew no connection between the trailer park "Castle Grande Estates" and the "Castle Grande" it was located on, it is difficult to understand how she could not have known that others called the entire development Castle Grande, including "everyone...involved," Arkansas newspapers and government officials. Despite the evidence of Hillary's own entires in the long-lost billing records, Hillary continued to attempt to minimize her role in Castle Grande. Various witnesses, however, directly contradicted her. Hillary testified, for example, that it was not, she, but lawyer Richard Massey, who was responsible for bringing Madison in as a client to the Rose Law Firm. Testifying before the Senate Whitewater Committee, Massey denied Hillary's claims Massey was the rainmaker on the Madison business, he was a first-year associate.

The third piece of evidence establishing either Hillary's criminal intent or her incompetence as a lawyer in the testimony of H. Don Denton, a senior officer at Madison Guaranty. Denton has testified that he specifically warned Hillary about the dubious legality of the option agreement she was drafting. In a deposition taken by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Denton said Hillary had called him to ask for notes when she was drafting the optin agreement. Denton testified that at that time he raised the legal problems of such an option agreement with Hillary, noting that the notes "constituted in effect a parent entity fulfilling the obligation of a subsidiary." Hillary "summarily dismissed" his concerns, he told investigators. He recalled that she said something to the effect that "he would take care of savings and loan matters, and she would take care of legal matters." She was, after all, one of the country's top one hundred lawyers. As she had once denied performing any work on Castle Grande, Hillary denied having any such conversations with Mr. Denton. Perhaps she knew him by a different name.

The White House immediately questioned Mr. Denton's motives, fingering him as a political enemy of the White House. But, as the New York Times has noted, this "was the first time a figure not under threat of indictment or imprisonment had given such damaging information" against the Clintons. As such, the article observed, it was a "further dent" in the White House incompetence defense portraying Hillary as "a mere technical adviser, not an insider in the deal."
claypigeon

Con

I am threadjacking this debate to hopefully convince others to not vote for Hillary. I will even prove that she is MORE corrupt than you say she is.

My argument relies on the "conspiracy theory" a.k.a the BIGGEST election fraud in terms of dollars hidden to ever be perpetrated in the United States. I will then go on to at least cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 5 MILLION dollars Hillary recently donated to her campaign.

For those of you who have seen the smoking gun video ignore this paragraph. Peter Paul is an international lawyer who attended Dartmouth for his undergrad years. He also helped the government in anti castro strings in the 70's. He was a good American. He did serve some time in jail. He became friendly with the Clintons in the early 90's due to representing the FABIO.

In 1998 Peter Paul formed a company with the loveable STAN LEE who created Spiderman and other comics. These guys wanted Bill Clinton to promote their company after his presidency ended so they started donating heavily to the Clintons, hosting events for AL GORE and HILLARY. He hosted the farewell event for Bill and raised over 1 MILLION, charging 25k per couple per plate. In total, 1.5 MILLION was raised for her via these fundraisers.

While doing paperwork Peter Paul realized that Hillary did not report these contributions and Peter went to the Justice Department about this and was even on 20/20. The California Supreme court upheld the lawsuit. The judge who tried the case was appointed by the Clintons and before the case said how Mr. Paul was a "thoroughly corrupt and discredited witness".

The case was resolved through settlement and it was agreed that 721,000 was unreported. It should be noted the legal limit one entity can give is 25k and for FEC purposes this money counted as being from one entity.

The case is ongoing but due to the election Hillary cannot be deposed as of yet.

Most of my info came from http://www.newmediajournal.us...

Other corroborating sites are

http://www.foxnews.com...

http://www.2004dnc.com...

http://www.hillaryproject.com...

http://www.peterfpaul.com...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com...

http://www.hillcap.org...

http://www.sourcewatch.org...

http://www.againsthillary.com...

This info is all documented via video or letters. The media just hasn't picked it up much.

A good video is here but there are others if you want to google them

http://video.google.com...

As a side note. For those who would bring up Tony Reko with Obama, Hillary has deep connections with him too. I am not arguing that Obama is innocent.

http://www.drudgereport.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ReaganConservative

Pro

Well then, I guess this is a waste of a debate. I was wondering why it took longer than usual for someone to accept the challenge. Perhaps because not a lot of people know about this stuff. I guarentee people will still vote against me when the debate is concluded just because my name is ReaganConservative. That's how it usually ends up anyway.
claypigeon

Con

I just wanted to mention that Hillary supported NAFTA when it was being passed. Not only did she support it but she championed it when her hubby tried to pass it. She now says she never supported it.

Whether or not you like NAFTA we can still see that Hillary is a liar too.
Debate Round No. 2
ReaganConservative

Pro

Well, this is the closing argument. Perhaps I'll re-post it, that is, if someone is willing to accept the challenge. Any takers?
claypigeon

Con

Then let us get to the voting stage so people en massecan see this corruption before the March 4th primaries.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by lightingbolt50 3 years ago
lightingbolt50
Ugh, Reagan was one of the worst presidents in america.
Posted by ReaganConservative 9 years ago
ReaganConservative
Bring it, leftist. Hmm, let's see. A horny hick who committed perjury and advocated tax hikes versus an intrepid conservative who defeated the Soviet Union without firing a single shot and cut taxes. Allow me to repeat myself...bring it.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Conservative babble. Let me just give you an inconvenient truth, Clinton was still better than Reagan. And I'd be glad to debate you on it. Just send it over
Posted by ReaganConservative 9 years ago
ReaganConservative
You're absolutely correct.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Nobdy accepted the debate because there's nothing too debate.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Your constructive is so intimidating that I'm going to have to pass. :O

You should have resorted to the two sentence trap. That way, you could have bombarded someone with all of this stuff in round 2.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
ReaganConservativeclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
ReaganConservativeclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
ReaganConservativeclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
ReaganConservativeclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
ReaganConservativeclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by malmal16 9 years ago
malmal16
ReaganConservativeclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
ReaganConservativeclaypigeonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30