Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:13 PM Apr 2016

If Michelle Obama walks out of the WH with 141K of unaccountable goods could she run for President?

Like Hillary and Bill did. I seriously don't know why this isn't a bigger issue. They knew those items were registered as belonging to the Union.
If Michelle Obama returned them later would she nonetheless be called a thief?

Hell - wouldn't anyone be called a thief?

42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Michelle Obama walks out of the WH with 141K of unaccountable goods could she run for President? (Original Post) floppyboo Apr 2016 OP
Are you serious with this? I hope someone has already alerted this garbage. LonePirate Apr 2016 #1
you mean alert my post? Or alert the world of this small matter? nt floppyboo Apr 2016 #3
You are on the wrong site Marrah_G Apr 2016 #2
Hmmmm LyndaG Apr 2016 #4
not if she was Michelle Obama nt floppyboo Apr 2016 #7
you realize they are good friends with the Bushes, right? magical thyme Apr 2016 #42
you should post your evidence and call the George W Bush campaign asap nt msongs Apr 2016 #5
Clintons and Bushes are friends and partners egalitegirl Apr 2016 #35
I found this ABC news report floppyboo Apr 2016 #6
That was also part of the story of the missing W on all the WH typewriters nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #8
I didn't know ABC was owned by W. floppyboo Apr 2016 #9
Because it never happened nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #10
the article deals with theaft. I only said unaccountable floppyboo Apr 2016 #15
Read to the end nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #16
Read to end. I'm not disputing any of this. You are missing the point. nt floppyboo Apr 2016 #24
It's hard to find cause you're crap at searching. Buzz cook Apr 2016 #29
Well they WERE broke, they needed that stuff! Avalux Apr 2016 #33
This is disgusting. Please self-delete. Nonhlanhla Apr 2016 #11
Not trying to be naiive here - just asking a question floppyboo Apr 2016 #13
Just sayin - New York Times floppyboo Apr 2016 #12
You were not asking about Michelle running for Pres. You were trying to smear Michelle and Hillary. LonePirate Apr 2016 #14
No, I NEVER called Michelle dishonorable. floppyboo Apr 2016 #17
Thanks Lone Pirate - I hate that they come in here posing as if they blm Apr 2016 #32
I cannot wait until Skinner starts removing all of this trash from DU. He's waited far too long. LonePirate Apr 2016 #34
You're right - It's not who WE are. blm Apr 2016 #37
I honestly think this came to because Cracked had an article today Godhumor Apr 2016 #39
Carrying on with this question from another post floppyboo Apr 2016 #18
The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary... SidDithers Apr 2016 #19
Yup. Agschmid Apr 2016 #21
I heard Clinton staffers took all the "W" keys off the White House compter keyboards, too. baldguy Apr 2016 #20
From a reputable contemporaneous source... catnhatnh Apr 2016 #22
From the article you link to. Buzz cook Apr 2016 #23
Read the whole post... catnhatnh Apr 2016 #25
I did read the whole article. nt Buzz cook Apr 2016 #36
Michele could never hope to be as venal as Hillary. hobbit709 Apr 2016 #26
Don't drag my beautiful First Lady into some bullshit about Hillary nt UMTerp01 Apr 2016 #27
This hornet's nest was not the point of the OP floppyboo Apr 2016 #28
Unrec. Accusing the AA 1st lady of stealing because you don't like HRC? FSogol Apr 2016 #30
You so missed the point. I didn't accuse ANYONE of stealing - doh. floppyboo Apr 2016 #31
It is like I'm on a Republican board and the year is 2000 nt. Trenzalore Apr 2016 #38
I don't see Michelle doing this. n/t Skwmom Apr 2016 #40
Nor do I - not in a million years! You earn trust. She's got it going on. nt floppyboo Apr 2016 #41

LyndaG

(683 posts)
4. Hmmmm
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:17 PM
Apr 2016

Do you think she could be elected Senator twice and confirmed as Secretary of State if this were true? Even W said the story about the Clintons taking things was untrue.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
42. you realize they are good friends with the Bushes, right?
Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:51 PM
Apr 2016

And that W is a drunk and a liar, right?

 

egalitegirl

(362 posts)
35. Clintons and Bushes are friends and partners
Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:15 AM
Apr 2016

I am surprised that many people keep talking of the Bushes as though they are on the opposite side of Hillary Clinton. The Bush family and Clinton family are allies on various issues such as in foreign policy and also work together outside politics.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
6. I found this ABC news report
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:19 PM
Apr 2016
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856
After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
8. That was also part of the story of the missing W on all the WH typewriters
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:21 PM
Apr 2016

they still used them back then.

It was debunked a long time ago, but remains a perennial favorite of some RW sites.

And while I might not like politicians at times at a policy level... this kind of smear is far from policy, it is a straight out lie.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
15. the article deals with theaft. I only said unaccountable
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:40 PM
Apr 2016

I'm just asking - and the article also says the claims of theft - which I did not say - are 'mostly false' - Why is this so contentious to ask how anyone else would be treated?

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
16. Read to the end
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:43 PM
Apr 2016
Accusations of stealing are serious and require a high threshold of evidence, unmet by the charges in this over-the-top graphic. We rate the claim Mostly False.


And the only reason they are not calling it completely false is because of the gullible. By the way, they mentioned Reagan, but Senior and Junior had the same issues as well... just since Reagan.

So you can continue to gnaw on that bone, but the marrow is mostly gone. But do enjoy.

Buzz cook

(2,471 posts)
29. It's hard to find cause you're crap at searching.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:35 PM
Apr 2016
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h021701_1.shtml


CALMES AND KUNTZ: A look at recent years' reports of presidential gifts indicates the Clintons' overall take during their term isn't greatly out of line with the two previous administrations.

Say what? What about the way they "stuffed everything in their pockets?" What about the "plunder" we'd heard described? Jackie and Phil did the numbers:

CALMES AND KUNTZ: President George H.W. Bush, Mr. Clinton's immediate predecessor, kept an average $39,614 worth of personal gifts a year in inflation adjusted dollars during his four years in office. Mr. Clinton took gifts valued at an average of $38,838 a year, adjusted for inflation: both took more than President Ronald Reagan.

So Bush took slightly more than Clinton—once someone did some reporting. We know of nothing wrong with that, but it sure did kill the impression we'd gotten from two solid weeks of Big Spinnin'. Maureen Dowd, for example, had done some Big Pimpin'—"Bill and Hill took enough loot to fill a small hotel," she wrote. Salon's Eric Boehlert has done excellent work about Dowd's endless factual errors. But we thought the info in the Journal added a little more context.

So here's our question, boys and girls. Ten days have passed since Calmes and Kuntz laid out the figures on the Clinton/Bush gifts. And can we make a simple guess, dear friends? Can we guess that you have never seen those facts cited anywhere else?


The Daily Howler is the go to site for Clinton/Gore "scandals"


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB981416081588941982

Presidents must report personal gifts annually, and there is no limit on the value. The National Parks Service oversees gifts for the White House, and an office in the White House handles gifts for the family. Many gifts from foreign dignitaries and private citizens during a president's tenure end up in their libraries or museums. If it were determined that the Clintons took what amounted to government property, they would owe federal income taxes on the value of that property.

Avalux

(35,015 posts)
33. Well they WERE broke, they needed that stuff!
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:54 PM
Apr 2016

The Clintons didn't have a penny to their name and they didn't think the American people would mind helping them out.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
11. This is disgusting. Please self-delete.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:26 PM
Apr 2016

If you want to peddle right wing lies, the road to Free Republic is easy to find: just take a right turn.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
13. Not trying to be naiive here - just asking a question
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:29 PM
Apr 2016

And wondering why it hasn't been mentioned. I have apparently stumbled on some verboten territory. Je m'ecuse.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
12. Just sayin - New York Times
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:27 PM
Apr 2016
WASHINGTON, Feb. 5— Former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton received authorization to take certain household furnishings to their new homes as gifts but will return any items that are found to be White House property, a spokesman said today.


And so, the question of my OP - would Michelle be able to run for President?

LonePirate

(13,424 posts)
14. You were not asking about Michelle running for Pres. You were trying to smear Michelle and Hillary.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:30 PM
Apr 2016

It's disgusting that you were essentially calling our honorable First Lady a criminal. Is the FR server down and you were bored so you ventured over to DU to post this crap?

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
17. No, I NEVER called Michelle dishonorable.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:43 PM
Apr 2016

It was a response to another post. Maybe that'll get shut down too.
It was speculation about privilege.

blm

(113,061 posts)
32. Thanks Lone Pirate - I hate that they come in here posing as if they
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:51 PM
Apr 2016

are supporting Sanders. None of my fellow Sanders supporters talk and act like this here in NC - not one. IMO, they think we are stupid and can be easily led into turning our backs on the entire party.

LonePirate

(13,424 posts)
34. I cannot wait until Skinner starts removing all of this trash from DU. He's waited far too long.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:05 PM
Apr 2016

Posts like the OP have no place here on DU.

Godhumor

(6,437 posts)
39. I honestly think this came to because Cracked had an article today
Sat Apr 16, 2016, 08:02 PM
Apr 2016

Repeating these old claims, including the W on the keyboard ones.

And you're right, we as a collective whole are better than this.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
19. The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary...
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:47 PM
Apr 2016

And they're getting harder and harder to tell apart.

Sid

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
22. From a reputable contemporaneous source...
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:07 PM
Apr 2016
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/10/news/mn-23723

WASHINGTON — President Clinton and his wife started shipping White House furniture to the Clintons' newly purchased home in New York more than a year ago, despite questions at the time by the White House chief usher about whether they were entitled to remove the items.

Personal property brought to the White House by an incoming president does not have to be disclosed on financial reports. As a result of the counsel's determination, the furnishings were sent on to the Clinton's new home in Chappaqua, N.Y.


However, government records show that the gifts that concerned Walters did not arrive at the White House until after the Clintons moved in. At least one of these items, a Ficks-Reed wicker table, was logged in at the White House on Feb. 8, 1993. The widow of the manufacturer, Joy Ficks, said last week that it was meant for the White House, not the Clintons.

Bowing to such criticism, the Clintons decided Feb. 2 to pay for $86,000 worth of gifts given them in 2000. This week, they agreed to return another set of gifts, including the four items questioned by Walters, and $28,500 more in furnishings identified by the Washington Post this week as having been legally designated as White House property by the National Park Service.

I won't characterize their actions-draw your own conclusions.

Buzz cook

(2,471 posts)
23. From the article you link to.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:19 PM
Apr 2016
Payne said, "No item, nothing, was removed without the approval of the usher's and curator's office."


So the Clinton's took the item with express permission and then returned items when that permission was withdrawn.

You may wonder why Hillary Clinton supporters seem impervious to attacks by Sanders supporters. It's because we've seen these types of attacks over and over again, and each time the attacks were proven to be false.
So the default position is any such attack is false and bears a very high position of proof.

Attacks such as the one by the OP are just a case in point.

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
25. Read the whole post...
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:27 PM
Apr 2016

"But Walters was told by the White House counsel's office that the items he asked about--which included an iron-and-glass coffee table, a painted TV armoire, a custom wood gaming table and a wicker table with wood top--were "personal gifts received by the Clintons prior to President Clinton assuming office."

Personal property brought to the White House by an incoming president does not have to be disclosed on financial reports. As a result of the counsel's determination, the furnishings were sent on to the Clinton's new home in Chappaqua, N.Y."

"However, government records show that the gifts that concerned Walters did not arrive at the White House until after the Clintons moved in. At least one of these items, a Ficks-Reed wicker table, was logged in at the White House on Feb. 8, 1993. The widow of the manufacturer, Joy Ficks, said last week that it was meant for the White House, not the Clintons.

This week, the Clintons returned the four items to the White House, along with other furnishings, after questions were raised about whether they actually belonged to the Clintons. All the furnishings had been designated official White House property by the Park Service in 1993."

Seems someone was "mistaken" about when the gifts were given...

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
28. This hornet's nest was not the point of the OP
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:32 PM
Apr 2016

I was re-iterating a point. That issue was settled - not a crime - OK, fine. But it does point to some weird entitlement that very many are fed up with. Call us right, call us left. Whatever. Truth is the elastic band is about to snap.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»If Michelle Obama walks o...