HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » If Michelle Obama walks o...

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:13 PM

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, 1423 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply If Michelle Obama walks out of the WH with 141K of unaccountable goods could she run for President? (Original post)
floppyboo Apr 2016 OP
LonePirate Apr 2016 #1
floppyboo Apr 2016 #3
Marrah_G Apr 2016 #2
LyndaG Apr 2016 #4
floppyboo Apr 2016 #7
magical thyme Apr 2016 #42
msongs Apr 2016 #5
egalitegirl Apr 2016 #35
floppyboo Apr 2016 #6
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #8
floppyboo Apr 2016 #9
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #10
floppyboo Apr 2016 #15
nadinbrzezinski Apr 2016 #16
floppyboo Apr 2016 #24
Buzz cook Apr 2016 #29
Avalux Apr 2016 #33
Nonhlanhla Apr 2016 #11
floppyboo Apr 2016 #13
floppyboo Apr 2016 #12
LonePirate Apr 2016 #14
floppyboo Apr 2016 #17
blm Apr 2016 #32
LonePirate Apr 2016 #34
blm Apr 2016 #37
Godhumor Apr 2016 #39
floppyboo Apr 2016 #18
SidDithers Apr 2016 #19
Agschmid Apr 2016 #21
baldguy Apr 2016 #20
catnhatnh Apr 2016 #22
Buzz cook Apr 2016 #23
catnhatnh Apr 2016 #25
Buzz cook Apr 2016 #36
hobbit709 Apr 2016 #26
UMTerp01 Apr 2016 #27
floppyboo Apr 2016 #28
FSogol Apr 2016 #30
floppyboo Apr 2016 #31
Trenzalore Apr 2016 #38
Skwmom Apr 2016 #40
floppyboo Apr 2016 #41

Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:14 PM

1. Are you serious with this? I hope someone has already alerted this garbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:17 PM

3. you mean alert my post? Or alert the world of this small matter? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:15 PM

2. You are on the wrong site

Peddle that RW crap elsewhere

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:17 PM

4. Hmmmm

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LyndaG (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:20 PM

7. not if she was Michelle Obama nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LyndaG (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:51 PM

42. you realize they are good friends with the Bushes, right?

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:18 PM

5. you should post your evidence and call the George W Bush campaign asap nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:15 AM

35. Clintons and Bushes are friends and partners

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:19 PM

6. I found this ABC news report

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:21 PM

8. That was also part of the story of the missing W on all the WH typewriters

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:24 PM

9. I didn't know ABC was owned by W.

So how come the discrediting of this story is hard to find?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:25 PM

10. Because it never happened

 

seriously. There are many issues, some of them are very serious policy, but this one is small potatoes, and not true.

You can let go off it...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:40 PM

15. the article deals with theaft. I only said unaccountable

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:43 PM

16. Read to the end

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:27 PM

24. Read to end. I'm not disputing any of this. You are missing the point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:35 PM

29. It's hard to find cause you're crap at searching.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:54 PM

33. Well they WERE broke, they needed that stuff!

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:26 PM

11. This is disgusting. Please self-delete.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:29 PM

13. Not trying to be naiive here - just asking a question

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:27 PM

12. Just sayin - New York Times

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:30 PM

14. You were not asking about Michelle running for Pres. You were trying to smear Michelle and Hillary.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:43 PM

17. No, I NEVER called Michelle dishonorable.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:51 PM

32. Thanks Lone Pirate - I hate that they come in here posing as if they

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:05 PM

34. I cannot wait until Skinner starts removing all of this trash from DU. He's waited far too long.

Posts like the OP have no place here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 06:57 PM

37. You're right - It's not who WE are.

It's not DU. It's pure RW propaganda pushing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:02 PM

39. I honestly think this came to because Cracked had an article today

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:45 PM

18. Carrying on with this question from another post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:47 PM

19. The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary...

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

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:57 PM

21. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 07:51 PM

20. I heard Clinton staffers took all the "W" keys off the White House compter keyboards, too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:07 PM

22. From a reputable contemporaneous source...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catnhatnh (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:19 PM

23. From the article you link to.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz cook (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:27 PM

25. Read the whole post...

"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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catnhatnh (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:07 PM

36. I did read the whole article. nt

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:28 PM

26. Michele could never hope to be as venal as Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:29 PM

27. Don't drag my beautiful First Lady into some bullshit about Hillary nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:32 PM

28. This hornet's nest was not the point of the OP

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:37 PM

30. Unrec. Accusing the AA 1st lady of stealing because you don't like HRC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:40 PM

31. You so missed the point. I didn't accuse ANYONE of stealing - doh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 06:59 PM

38. It is like I'm on a Republican board and the year is 2000 nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:02 PM

40. I don't see Michelle doing this. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skwmom (Reply #40)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 07:45 PM

41. Nor do I - not in a million years! You earn trust. She's got it going on. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread