Did the Clinton's really steal property from the White house. My sister insists they did. I say she is wrong.

Question

I remember something about them taking a chair they thought was a gift but then returned it after they were criticized for it. She thinks they stole furniture, china, etc.

Answer 1

Not only did they steal furniture, they (or their staff) damaged and destroyed paintings, carpet and furniture. My husband has a friend who worked at the White House. This is true. There were lots of articles written about it. See this link below.

Answer 2

This is mostly false and another conservative-contrived controversy targeting the Clintons.

Also directly speaking about the alleged $200,000 that Hillary "stole", I hate to bring up a few actual true facts:

(1) It s pretty strange to call it "Stolen", when all of the stuff they listed on their form 208 or whatever. It was all documented and reported.

(2) It s been long-standing law that presidents can accept gifts, and they get to keep the gifts. Thew givers can specify that the gift is "to the White House itself" and not to the current occupants, and in that case the stuff is supposed to stay in the White House, but see the next point.

(3) The gifts were never systematically recorded by the Park Service, which is supposed to keep track of the White House. There were like 12 different laws and six Federal departments with partial responsibility for gifts, so you can see how the situation can become muddled.

(4) After a congressional investigation it was determined that a lot of gifts,when they asked the givers, they now said the gift was meant "for the White House", so the Clintons paid back or returned a lot of the gifts.

(5) there was nothing criminal about this, it was mostly lack of administrative oversight and clarity. There were thousands of gifts and I m sure Hillary couldn t recall the exact circumstances of each one s arrival.

(6) Not to put too fine a point on it but the amount in question is under a millionth of one percent of the government budget. It s not even large enough to be a rounding error. And it cost much more in investigations than was ever returned, so it s net loss to the government, thank you Republicans. It would have been cheaper to let Hillary walk off with the silver soup spoon gift, but then the Republicans would not have gotten any political mileage of the situation, as misconstrued.

Answer 3

The Truth:
The final, official report from the Government Accounting Office was released on June 11, 2002. The 220 page document says there was damage, although not as much as some of the early reports had suggested. The GAO says the damage included 62 missing computer keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten antique doorknobs and several presidential medallions and office signs. The damage estimate was about $20,000. Clinton critics say the report proves that the departing Clinton staff members acted recklessly and disrespectfully. Clinton supporters say the report shows that the allegations of vandalism were exaggerated and that there were similar incidents when Clinton took over the White House from the staff of George Bush.

The GAO report concludes that even though damage was verified and that some of it appeared to have been intentional, there was not clear evidence of who was responsible for it.

This has been a subject of contention since President Bush took office. There were reports of vandalism, graffiti, and obscene messages in White House offices by outgoing Clinton staffers. Bush downplayed the reports saying he wanted to move on with the presidency. Clinton supporters, however, charged that the story was not true and that the Bush forces had made up the story to make Bush's staff look better than Clinton's. Former President Clinton offered to pay for any damage and his supporters called for an investigation.

Answer 4

Sadly yes they did. But it's hard to tell what is truth and urban legend at this point, they did 'steal' but it's difficult to find out what was really taken.
Though the funniest part, their staff took all the W keys off each and every keyboard.

Answer 5

Whitehouse Furniture

Answer 6

Excerpts from a newspaper article back in 2001....
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton say they'll be happy to return the fancy sofas, rattan chairs and other furnishings they took from the White House if it turns out that the gifts were meant to dress up the executive mansion for future presidents too.

"All of these items were considered gifts to us," Mrs. Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York, said Monday in Rochester, New York. "That's what the permanent record of the White House showed. ... But if there is a different intent, we will certainly honor the intention of the donor."

The White House curator's office is working with the Clintons to clarify any confusion about whether the items the Clintons took were personal gifts or items that were supposed to stay, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

In a statement, the Clintons said each of the gifts they accepted were identified by the White House gift office as a present to them. They said none of the gifts they took, including some $23,000 worth of household furnishings in question, was on a curator's list of official White House property.

"Gifts did not leave the White House without the approval of the White House usher's and curator's offices," the Clintons said in the statement that addressed the latest sour note to follow the former president and his wife out of the executive mansion. "Of course, if the White House now determines that a cataloging error occurred ... any item in question will be returned."

The Washington Post quoted two donors in Monday's editions as saying the furnishings they gave were intended for the White House, not the Clintons. They were Steve Mittman of New York, whose donation was valued at $19,900; and Joy Ficks of Cincinnati, who gave $3,650 worth.

And in its editions Tuesday, the newspaper quoted a former furniture industry executive, Brad Noe, as saying a sofa worth nearly $3,000 that he was supposed to have given to the Clintons wasn't meant for them, but for the White House collection. "I would never give a gift to the Clintons," Noe said.

"Everyone involved, including the White House curator, believed that each item was a gift to the Clintons," said Jim Kennedy, speaking for the Clintons. "Now you have a couple of people saying that they didn't intend for them to go to the Clintons and, of course, we want their wishes to be honored."

The day before they left the White House, the Clintons released a list of $190,000 in gifts they chose to take with them, many of which they could use for their two new homes in Washington and in Chappaqua, New York.

But after criticism erupted, they offered to pay $86,000 for about half the gifts.

Now it's the other half at issue. Some items in this group were on a National Park Service list of donations for the 1993 White House redecoration project.

The gift flap is one of several problems dogging Clinton's first weeks as an ex-president and his wife's first weeks as a senator.


Critics also questioned Clinton's decision to rent an office in New York City that would have cost taxpayers more than $600,000 a year. Last week, he said his foundation would pay half the cost.

Answer 7

Do you have ay idea how idiotic these kinds of questions make you look? I'm wondering if GW took a towel, or maybe a pen. Give it up.

Answer 8

Indeed they did, hundreds of items including valuable furniture and other items. The government ordered them to return it.

Answer 9

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/10/news/mn-23723

Answer 10

Define "steal".