Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Feb. 8, 2001 / 15 Shevat, 5761

Michael Kelly

Michael Kelly
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Oops, they almost converted -- THE WORD "conversion" has a number of definitions, but only one that is legal. In the parlance of the law, a conversion is, as the new edition of the American Heritage Dictionary succinctly puts it, "(a) the unlawful appropriation of another's property; (b) the changing of real property to personal property or vice versa." To convert something is "to appropriate (another's property) without right to one's own use." There is a fine line between converting and stealing. To steal, says the dictionary, is "to take (the property of another) without right or permission."

The only real difference is one of class and manners. A pickpocket steals. A person to whom, by virtue of position, respect is accorded, converts. It's more genteel-like. It's also not necessarily a crime, which is helpful in the gingerly matter of dealing with a light-fingered person of position; one may "convert" property by accident -- for example, if one mistakenly thought that one actually owned the property.

This issue of manners and semantics and intent arose this week in connection with, of course, Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Post reported on Monday that the world's most entertaining former first couple had removed from the White House and taken unto themselves some $28,000 worth of furniture that did not belong to them: two sofas, an easy chair and an ottoman, a kitchen table and four chairs, another sofa, some lamps and a needlepoint rug. All of these items had been donated to the National Park Service as contributions to the 1993 redecoration of the White House residence.

In other words, it seems the Clintons engaged in "the unlawful appropriation of another's property," in this case property that belonged to the U.S. government. They converted it. At least that is how it appears to two former Internal Revenue Service commissioners, who carefully told The Post that, while they were not suggesting criminal wrongdoing, it certainly seemed that the Clinton's takings appeared to be a "conversion of government property." Donald C. Alexander, IRS commissioner under Presidents Nixon and Ford, said the Clintons had "no business taking [the furniture] with them. That is conversion of government property and income to them."

On Monday afternoon, the Clintons, who last week promised to pay for $86,000 in household furnishings they had received from wealthy friends last year, announced that they also would be giving the White House back its furniture. Hillary Clinton spokesman Jim Kennedy said that the Clintons had thought the furniture did belong to them because the items had been listed by the White House gifts office as "gifts to the Clintons that they could keep or leave behind."

This latter claim is more than just the reflexive Clinton response of blaming the help. It is about intent. If the Clintons knew the furniture belonged to the government but took it anyway, that could be adjudged to be "criminal conversion" -- you know, um, stealing. If they thought it was theirs, they are innocent of criminal intent.

Well, of course they should be accorded the benefit of the doubt. And yet, it does seem odd. The 1993 refurbishing of the White House was a big deal, much discussed and written about because it was personally directed by Mrs. Clinton through her chosen designer, Kaki Hockersmith. It is hard to imagine that Mrs. Clinton did not approve the selection of each piece of furniture donated to the government for her big redecoration project.

When the project was completed, the White House put out a four-page summary listing each person who had donated furniture or furnishings as "contributors to the National Park Service." Mr. and Mrs. Lee Ficks, whose kitchen table and four chairs the Clintons converted and are now returning, received a letter from none other than Mrs. Clinton thanking them for their "generous contribution to the White House."

Nah. I believe them.

Michael Kelly is the editor of National Journal. Send your comments to him by clicking here.


02/01/01: Exit the abusers
01/25/01: The monster and the minority
01/11/01: Master money-grubber
01/11/01: Re Bipartisanship: From: The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy To: The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
01/04/01: Faux Commotion
12/21/00: The next Martha Stewart
12/14/00: Democracy rescued
12/06/00: Gore's next task: Face reality
11/15/00: The Great Defender
11/02/00: The Democrats' delusion
10/26/00: Phony Truce
10/19/00: The Talking Cure
10/12/00: Doves' Day of Reckoning
10/05/00: Conan the veep
09/28/00: Dumb vs. Dishonest
09/21/00: Flapping furiously
09/14/00: Down AlGore's Memory Hole
08/24/00: AlGore's Flex-O-Joe
08/17/00: The Joyful Clinton Nation
08/09/00: A Calculated Risk
08/03/00: New Hope for Nice Guys
07/27/00: But What About Dad?
07/20/00: U.S. Handiwork In Sierra Leone
07/13/00: President With a Porpoise
07/06/00: The Importance of Being Earnest
06/29/00: A Press Obsession With the Death Penalty
06/21/00: Gore and the Goodies
06/15/00: Network Snooze
06/01/00: Sunshine on My Shoulders
05/24/00: Last Chance for a Hardened Prevaricator
05/17/00: Cuomo's Thought Police
05/10/00: Hammering DeLay
05/04/00: Some Closing Thoughts
04/28/00: Endangering Elian
04/19/00: Imitation Activism
04/12/00: Why they hate Bubba
04/05/00: Census and nonesense
03/29/00: The Stiffs and Their Statuettes
03/15/00: Anarchy in Kosovo
03/08/00: Reform joke
03/01/00:The Pinhead Factor
03/01/00: The Christian Right: Past Its Prime . . .
02/24/00: McCain's Majority
02/16/00: Sharpton's Supplicants
02/09/00: The GOP Pilgrims' Sad Tale
02/02/00: Fodder For the GOP
01/26/00: Million-Dollar Mediocrity
01/19/00: Campaign Reform: Let's Pretend
01/12/00: Never Again? Oh, Never Mind
01/05/00: Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In
12/22/99: Gore's TV Gambit
12/15/99: Campaigns Do Clarify
12/08/99: Kosovo's Killers
12/01/99: Not Ready for Prime Time?
11/24/99: The Company He Keeps
11/17/99: Republican Illusion
11/10/99: The Know-Nothing Media
11/03/99: Necessary Partisanship
10/27/99: Buchanan's Gift to George W. Bush
10/21/99: Who are the real friends of the poor?
10/14/99: Gore's 'courage'!?
10/08/99: Republican Stunts
09/23/99: Buchanan's folly
09/16/99: Beatty and Buchanan: That's Entertainment!
09/09/99: Puerto Rico Surprise (Cont'd)
09/02/99: Puerto Rico Surprise
08/12/99:The Age of No Class
08/05/99: Assessing Welfare Reform
07/29/99: On the Wrong Side
07/21/99: Mass Sentimentality
07/15/99: Blame Hillary
07/08/99: Guide to the Arts: For Your Summer Reading . . .
06/30/99: A Perfectly Clintonian Doctrine
06/25/99:Smorgasbord by the Sea
06/16/99: A National Calamity
06/09/99: Stumbling Forward
06/02/99: Commencement '90s-Style
05/26/99: Will we ever learn? Clintochio is a lying ...
05/19/99: Comforting Milosevic
05/13/99: Short-Order Strategists
05/06/99: Four Revolting Spectacles

©1999, Washington Post Co.