politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Reporter Who Exposed Hillary’s Secret Intel Operation: Who Authorized & Financed It?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... on-who-authorized-financed-it/
Published: Mar 29, 2015
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2015-03-29 23:27:47 by out damned spot
Keywords: Intel, operation, Hillary
Views: 99311
Comments: 168
One of the reporters who exposed what appears to have been former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s clandestine and rogue intelligence service said that there are more questions than answers regarding the operation, which was exposed in the hacked emails of Clinton’s longtime confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Appearing on Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125, Jeff Gerth, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, told host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon that he still wanted to know “who authorized or tasked this network to do what they did” and “who was paying for this?” Gerth, the former New York Times reporter who now works for ProPublica, co- authored the report on Clinton’s rogue intelligence operation with Gawker’s Sam Biddle. He said the intelligence operation revealed in the Blumenthal emails reminds him of the Ed Wilson scandal in Libya and the Iran-Contra scandal. He noted that in both cases people were sent to jail or convicted of various crimes. “You don’t just pick this stuff up from the Internet,” he said, noting “there were human intelligence sources inside of Libya that were gathering this information” and relaying it to Blumenthal, who then forwarded the accounts to Clinton’s private email account. Gerth emphasized that the Blumenthal emails are “just a minor tiny percentage of what was going on here.” He said “we got a few pieces but don’t have anywhere near the full puzzle” because journalists have to work “with what the hacker chose to download” and take screenshots of two years ago. According to the Gawker/ProPublica report, “starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer.” Blumenthal’s emails “include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as events in other nations” and they came to light when a Hacker called Guccifer posted them in 2013. On August 23, 2012, less than three weeks before the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, an email, according to the report, cites “‘an extremely sensitive source’ who highlighted a string of bombings and kidnappings of foreign diplomats and aid workers in Tripoli, Benghazi and Misrata, suggesting they were the work of people loyal to late Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi.” As the report points out, Hillary Clinton claimed “that U.S. intelligence officials didn’t have advance knowledge” of security threats in Benghazi, but Blumenthal’s email “portrays a deteriorating security climate” even if the memo, according to Gawker, “doesn’t rise to the level of a warning about the safety of U.S. diplomats.” On the day after the Benghazi attacks, Blumenthal reportedly sent an email sent an email saying a “sensitive source” said that interim Libyan president Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf “was told by a senior security officer” that the Benghazi attacks were “inspired by an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S,” which was the Obama administration’s preferred spin. The next day, though, Blumenthal reportedly sent an email that “said Libyan security officials believed an Islamist radical group called the Ansa al Sharia brigade had prepared the attack a month in advance and ‘took advantage of the cover’ provided by the demonstrations against the video.” Another email in October of 2012 notes “that Magariaf and the Libyan army chief of staff agree that the ‘situation in the country is becoming increasingly dangerous and unmanageable’ and ‘far worse’ than Western leaders realize.” The report notes that though the intelligence notes were sent under Blumenthal’s name, they “appear to have been gathered and prepared by Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA’s clandestine service in Europe who left the agency in 2005.” He has since reportedly established a consulting firm– Tyler Drumheller, LLC. The emails also show that “Cody Shearer, a longtime Clinton family operative,” was also in “close contact with Blumenthal.” Blumenthal’s hacked emails also show that “he and his associates worked to help the Libyan opposition, and even plotted to insert operatives on the ground using a private contractor.” The emails reveal that Blumenthal and Shearer were negotiating with former Army General David Grange “to place send four operatives on a week-long mission to Tunis, Tunisia, and ‘to the border and back.'” Grange, “a major general in the Army who ran a secret Pentagon special operations unit before retiring in 1999,” according to the report, “subsequently founded Osprey Global Solutions, a consulting firm and government contractor that offers logistics, intelligence, security training, armament sales, and other services.” The Libyan National Transition Council and Grange’s Osprey Global Solutions, according to documents, agreed that Osprey would “‘assist in the resumption of access to its assets and operations in country’ and train Libyan forces in intelligence, weaponry, and ‘rule-of-land warfare.'” Another email reportedly shows that Drumheller appealed to “then-Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan offering the services of Tyler Drumheller LLC, ‘to develop a program that will provide discreet confidential information allowing the appropriate entities in Libya to address any regional and international challenges.'” In addition to intelligence information from Libya, the Blumenthal memos, according to the report, “cover a wide array of subjects in extreme detail, from German Prime Minister Angela Merkel’s conversations with her finance minister about French president Francois Hollande–marked ‘THIS INFORMATION COMES FROM AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCE’—to the composition of the newly elected South Korean president’s transition team.” A Clinton spokesman reportedly told the outlets that the Blumenthal emails were part of the nearly 33,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. As the report notes, “Blumenthal, a New Yorker staff writer in the 1990s, became a top aide to President Bill Clinton and worked closely with Hillary Clinton during the fallout from the Whitewater investigation into the Clinton family.” Hillary Clinton even reportedly “tried to hire him when she joined President Obama’s cabinet in 2009, but White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly nixed the idea” because of Blumenthal’s attacks on Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary. On Breitbart News Sunday, Gerth also reminded listeners how close Blumenthal is to the Clintons–he was the last person, for instance, Hillary Clinton spoke to before she went on the Today show during the Monica Lewinsky affair to allege a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against the Clintons. The emails raise more questions about whether all of the more than 30,000 emails that Clinton deemed to be “personal” were really not “work-related.” Clinton refused to turn her email server over to a third party and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who chairs the House Select Benghazi Committee, revealed on Friday that Clinton had wiped her email server “clean.” Gowdy, citing “huge gaps” in the emails that his committee has received, has indicated that there may be many relevant emails regarding Libya that Clinton may not have turned over, which is why he has indicated that the House may take legal action to get access to Clinton’s email server. “There are gaps of months and months and months. And if you think to that iconic picture of her on a C-17 flying to Libya, she has sunglasses on and she has her handheld device in her hand, we have no e-mails from that day. In fact, we have no e-mails from that trip, Gowdy said on a recent appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “So, it’s strange credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy that there’s not a single document that has been turned over to Congress. So, there are huge gaps. And with respect to the president, it’s not up to Secretary Clinton to decide what is a public record and what’s not.” Gerth pointed out that “these things these usually have layers to them” and there is a lot more that needs to be unearthed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-64) not displayed.
.
.
.
#65. To: nolu chan (#64)
What was the evidence you recall Hillary Clinton manufactured against Nixon? Who do you recall caught Hillary Clinton hiding evidence favorable to Nixon? What do you recall was the evidence Hillary Clinton hid that was favorable to Nixon? What do you recall Nixon claimed was his legal defense? You must be the world champion of dead horse flogging. How many freaking times do I have to explain to you that I was relying on memory of news reports from the time. Unlike YOU,I am neither anal nor obsessed with protecting Bubbette! Clinton,so I don't have 1,000 saved links. Frankly,I just don't care that much about her. She is a evil,stupid,vain,and corrupt bitch,and that's all I really need to know about her.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
What news reports? At what time? The bullshit you posted has never been a news report. There are Jerry Zeifman's discredited claims and emails and blogs with their urban myths. Righhhht. You had no source but your memory and you remember various crimes and misdeeds of Bill and Hillary but have no recollection whatsoever of the alleged crimes or misdeeds you write about. Of course, you did not just lift your nonsense from some viral email garbage or idiot website. You have no recollection of where your information came from. You have no clue what the purported Nixon defense, allegedly thwarted by Hillary Rodham, was. Let me help. The Richard Nixon Defense At one point in the interview, Nixon explained the basis of his defense: Jerry Zeifman, Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot, Introduction by John Dean, First Edition, First Printing, 1995, Thunders Mouth Press, pp. 211-212. Maybe that will assist your sketchy memory.
Blah,blah,blah. Stick it up your ass and rotate.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Thank you for confirming my claim a proving that you are the shithead.
Now you are quoting yourself and attributing it to me? No wonder you think Bubbette! is honest.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You know I do believe that's the first time I've ever heard you say that. You didn't happen to make a wrong turn and get stuck on a one way street that ended up in a "Homohood" yesterday did you?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Excerpted from EO-History: The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Why? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation. Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross- examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro. The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception. The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970. “As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said. The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do? “Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred. The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. This is pretty long so keep reading at this site... http://www.eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htm
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Thanks,and nolu chan is going to continue to tap dance around the fact that I remembered all the important details,except for the identity of the man that fired her. He is on a desperate disinformation quest. Deny and focus on ONE wrong fact in an attempt to convince people all the other facts are also wrong.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
He'll spam you to death if you aren't careful. Plus, he always has to get in the last word.
He is either a dysfunctional anal Austistic,or a Dim lawyer. Or am I repeating myself?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You know I do believe that's the first time I've ever heard you say that. Yup, that's a new one for Pete. Dunno if it's helped win any argument, but pretty funny. And oddly, I have heard a variant of it... For reference sake, it was suggested I "Rotate-on-this" by my clever HS baseball coach when I'd asked, "Am I in the pitching rotation??" "Rotation" or "Ro" subsequently became a nick of mine for years.
Lol..."Homohood"? Is Pete still crusading? Pete, are you willing to concede that you've been conned into supporting the pro-homo jihad (which has suddenly promoted Totalitarianism)? Or have you changed you mind yet on your misguided crusade? We both recall queers merely demanding the "right" to sodomize each other silly "in the privacy of the bedroom." Now it's evolved into homo's "right" to violate a Christian's 1st Amendment Right as well as their 14th Amendment right. Still onboard their agenda?
The whole "law professor" thing is a popular scam by the DNC to park future candidates until they can find a spot for them where they will have influence. Bubbette! got the law professor job PURELY because of his connection to Bubba and because she couldn't do anything else other than be the "bag lady" for Bubba. Now I guess you are going to tell us all it was her vast experience as a successful entrepreneur that got her the board seat at Wal-Mart? Well, Pete is totally spot on in these brief assessments of the Klintoons. I don't know if it's germane to your debate. That said, can one (or both of you) of you please succinctly explain the actual gist or contention of your respective debate? A lot of energy and thought has been expended. Thanks...
LOL. Well I'm sure you could pitch. I get the younsters always saying "I wanna pitch coach, I wanna pitch coach." Like I'm their parents holding back some ice cream at bedtime. This year I tried a different approach. I let the ones who thought they could pitch (note these are 9 and 10 year old boys and some are more devoloped than others physically) toss around 15 pitches until they realized it takes time to devolop into a pitcher. So the "lemmie pitch" cries have gone down a bit this year:) Then there is the big kid who looks like he's 14 who has no interest in pitching and just slamming the ball. Spent an hour with that kid on the mound last night. Boy can he bring in the heat and has a natural break on the ball. Good kid he asked "coach am I pitching?" I said "yes." He said "do I have to?" I said "You BETCHA.":) I'm a softie so I sweetened the deal by telling him that he will bat clean up on opening day. He was happy, so I guess we have 'an accord.'
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
- - - Because you do not know what your own supposed recollection is about, it is a moral imperative that I tell you for the first time what your supposed "recollection" was about. It is another bloviation of Jerry Zeifman that was exaggerated in an urban legend. Jerry Zeifman, Hillary's Pursuit of Power, Xlibris, 2006. Chapter 11 is entitled "Hillary's Secret Book." At page 47, Zeifman explains that, At page 48-49, Zeifman goes on to bloviate, Hillary had been assigned to work with Yale professor C. Van Woodward—who was a colleague of Burke Marshall—to help him and a small group of Yale professors prepare a sanitized account of past abuses of presidential power that did not disclose the crimes committed during the Kennedy administration with the help of the Mafia. … Albert Jenner, Doar's Republican counterpart on the impeachment inquiry staff, was to say of the report, "We've kept it top secret." Without the permission of Rodino and after Nixon's resignation the secret sanitized report was eventually published commercially. You see, not giving this information to Nixon somehow equates to hiding evidence from him. And Hillary was fired by Archibald Cox for doing that dastardly deed. The "small group" was fairly sizable. "Eventually published" means 1974 with an Editor's Note dated August 14th, 1974. On October 3, 1974, Peter Rodino wrote a letter in which he stated: In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case. As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment. What was this bombshell with the JFK scandals suppressed? What was the assignment and who wrote it? It was published in 1974 by Dell Publishing Co., Inc. It was entitled, RESPONSES OF THE PRESIDENTS TO CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT, Edited with an added Introduction by C. Vann Woodward, Sterling Professor of History, Yale University, Director of the Study. C. Vann Woodward, Editor and Director Merrill D. Peterson, Supervisor of the period from 1789 to 1861 William S. McFeely, Supervisor of the period from 1861 to 1901 William E. Leuchtenburg, Supervisor of the period from 1901 to 1969 And there are the "Editor's Acknowledgements." C. V. W. New Haven, Conn., It was not evidence. It was not written by Hillary Rodham in Washington. It was not written by lawyers, but by a group of historians in Connecticut. In the introduction at xxvi, C. Vann Woodward writes, On page xxvii, "The Scope of the Study," one finds, It was an historical study, written by historians. Junior attorney Hillary Rodham was their go-fer in Washington. The section on JFK, 1961-1963, begins on page 319 and reports on Secretary Udall and Political Contributions, Billy Sol Estes, and TFX Fighter-Bombers. How would it make Nixon innocent? After the smoking gun tape came out and another showed an 18½ minute deletion, nothing could make Nixon innocent. He resigned almost immediately. He had no defense. A history study, written by historians, would not give him one. John Doar was the Special Counsel. He told his staff not to tell anyone about the study. Hillary Rodham was on Doar's staff. She did not tell Zeifman about the study. Zeifman could have said that over twenty years later, but that wouldn't sell books for him. It also wouldn't provide much fodder to build an Urban legend. The list of things Hillary actually got up to is almost endless. Scandals abound, even in the 21st century. And you pick a 1970's Urban Legend to run with. Way to go. But just think on the bright side, now you know what your vivid recollection of "hidden evidence" was about, and why it was never in news reports.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Repeating the bullshit in an URBAN MYTH does not make it true. Hillary Rodham was hired by and worked for the Special Counsel, John Doar and assigned by him to Bernard Nussbaum. Jerry Zeifman was not on the Special Counsel staff. Hillary Rodham was not fired. Zeifman lacked authority to fire Hillary Rodham had he wanted to. The notion that Hillary was fired at all goes back to the creative writing of Dan Calabrese link. Zeifman didn't say that and he stated he did not have the power to do it. Copy of Sacramento Bee Article, 11/4/1998 (PDF) Sacramento Bee [Excerpt] http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality." Origins: Former First Lady Hillary Clinton is no stranger to political scandal and controversy, and a specific accusation concerning her work as a young lawyer on the Watergate investigation has dogged her political career for more than a decade. The claim originated with Jerry Zeifman, under whom Clinton worked in 1974 as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff for the House Committee on the Judiciary during the course of the scandal. The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim? By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her: Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed: Following Zeifman's 2008 interview with Boortz, a column by Dan Calabrese ("FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON FIRED FROM WATERGATE INVESTIGATION FOR 'LYING, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR'") cemented the belief that Hillary Clinton had been "fired" from the Watergate investigation in political lore: However, one need only go back to the source of the rumor and Zeifman's own statement that he did not have the power to fire Hillary Clinton to discount that now common version of political lore: the evidence indicates that, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Clinton's behavior, she was let go from the Watergate committee because she was one of a number of people who were no longer needed as the investigation wound down (and Nixon's resignation made the issue moot), not because she was "fired" over ethical issues. Last updated: 21 October 2014
Well you got the identity wrong and she wasn't fired. Most all your details are bullshit and sourced from Dan Calabrese's bullshit. Tap dance around this – Zeifman said he did not have the power to fire Hillary. Copy of Sacramento Bee Article, 11/4/1998 (PDF) Sacramento Bee [Excerpt]
Hillary’s Crocodile Tears in Connecticut Jerry Zeifman — February 5, 2008 21 Comments | Printer Friendly I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears. Hillary Clinton crying My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations. Hillary as I knew her in 1974 At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham—who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House. During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book, Without Honor, and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library. After President Nixon’s resignation, a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel—as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following: John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics]. Labovitz said, ‘That came from Yale.’ I said, ‘You mean Burke Marshall’ [Senator Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, ‘Yes.’ His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition. At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust. Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After becoming a Yale professor, he also became Senator Ted Kennedy’s lawyer at the time of Chappaquidick—as well as Kennedy’s chief political strategist. As a result, some of his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the Camelot government in exile. In addition to getting Hillary a job on the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, Kennedy and Marshall had also persuaded Peter Rodino (D-NJ), then-Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to place two other close friends of Marshall in top positions on our staff. One was John Doar; who had been Marshall’s deputy in the Justice Department—whom Rodino appointed to head the impeachment inquiry staff. The other was Bernard Nussbaum, who had served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York—who was placed in charge of conducting the actual investigation of Nixon’s malfeasance. Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976, they hoped to keep Nixon in office “twisting in the wind” for as long as possible. This would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and restoring moral authority to the Republican Party. As was later quoted in the biography of Tip O’Neill (by John Farrell), a liberal Democrat would have become a “shoe-in for the presidency in 1976" if Nixon had been kept in office until the end of his term. However, both Tip O’Neill and I—as well as most Democrats—regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon with Ford as soon as possible. As a result, as described by O’Neill, we coordinated our efforts to “keep Rodino’s feet to the fire.” A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon’s effort to “cover up” the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance). In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo. After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.” Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff—where they were no longer accessible to the public. Hillary had also made other ethically flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with—or take depositions of—any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department’s special Watergate prosecutor. Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary’s recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment-inquiry staffers. It was not until two months after Nixon’s resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into “a troubling set of events.” That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked “that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.” And, while “no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use,” Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted—at committee expense—by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings. The report was kept secret from members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote: “I am especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course of our investigation.” He was also concerned that staff members may have unlawfully received royalties from the book’s publisher. On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: “Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form.” No effort was ever made to ascertain whether or not Hillary or any other person on the committee staff received royalties. Two decades later Bill Clinton became President. As was later to be described in The Wall Street Journal by Henry Ruth—the lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor—“The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party.” http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut/
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
You mean other than dodging the draft and visiting Russia,where he was wined and dined by prominent communists,including one lady in Moscow that worked for Stalin during the Revolution? Bubba Bill even slept at her apartment,and admitted this when he visited Moscow as president and invited her to a dinner party he threw and introducted her as one of his hosts during his commie tour. He also visited the North Korean embassy in Moscow. What do you recall Hillary Rodham Clinton did in her college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort? You mean other than working with some of the leaders in the CPUSA,and supporting them?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Just how obsessed with homosexuality are you?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No. Not wanting to burn them at the stake is NOT the same thing as supporting them. For the record,I DO insist that homosexuals have the same Constitutional Rights as any other American citizen. If this weren't true,this wouldn't be America.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Obsessed or disgusted with? The way I see it they should keep it to themselves in their own closet and not out for the whole world to see, laugh at and be disgusted by. Something they need to be reminded of on a daily basis or it will only get worse. You hate what this country is becoming so why can't you see what one of the reasons for that is?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Oh BTW you should know that by now that I don't discriminate, I give just as much schitt to Leftards, Moderates and Faux Conservatives as I do Homos.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
IMHO,the prime reason our country is turning fascist is because the globalists have been successful in their efforts to turn us all against each other that we spend all our time fighting each other instead of uniting to fight the bastards taking over our country. What two or more consenting adults do in privacy is none of my,or your, business,and I don't even want to hear about it. What IS my business,as well as the business of every other American that values individual rights and freedoms,is the global conspiracy by the international bankers to destroy our form of government and take away all our individual freedoms. IF you and others,including the homosexuals, could set aside your emotional bigotry for a moment and look at the facts alone,you would all realize that homosexuals as a group should be our biggest allies because history proves they will be the first groups to be led to the gulags. It boils down to the fact that in the final analysis we are all in the same boat,and the damn boat is sinking while people keep screaming about which direction to row it instead of getting together to bail the damn thing out. It's all about "Me,ME,ME,DAMMIT!",and nobody seems to give a damn about the pending death of the greatest country that has ever existed.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Most people don't even know what a Globalist is hence it's easy to distract them. But globalists are only one piece of the puzzle so exterminating them will only get you so far, it's a good start but not the end game.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
So in your twisted alleged mind....Christians -- whose livelihoods, culture, and faith are now being spit upon by homfascists and a Constititution that no longer applies to them -- are wanting burn who "at the stake"?? Is it the medication are you really that detached from reality? For the record,I DO insist that homosexuals have the same Constitutional Rights as any other American citizen. If this weren't true,this wouldn't be America. For the record, your "Constitution" is THE same exact fake USCON in play at the ACLU, SPLC, and LBQT headquarters. Homos indeed have MORE "rights" than either straight/normal citizens or Christians. Tell me why there are special laws like "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crimes" for queers if you're so d*mned committed to "same constitutional rights"?
Man, your fixation on any and all things homosexual has got to stop. Get help.
Yeah -- apparently repulsion over the homosexual fascism is ok with Pete. Why be disgusted just because young children are being taught and brainwashed in elementary school that sodomy is "normal" as well as "gay marriage"?? You see -- "enlightened" people like Pete -- who believe they are human "rights" crusaders -- are enablers of this insanity as well as helping spearhead the homofascist agenda. They share one thing in common: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend": Christians. The way I see it they should keep it to themselves in their own closet and not out for the whole world to see, laugh at and be disgusted by. Something they need to be reminded of on a daily basis or it will only get worse. Reminding queers of their open faggotry? That's why "Hate speech" laws are now in effect where people get fired from their jobs, businesses get shut down, or people arrested. Convenient, eh? So you JUST want "constitutional rights" for gays, eh Pete? Which ones? The 1st Amendment? The 14th? Chyeah, right. This nonsense and insanity will only get worse as long as long as the idiots who buy into this "Gays be victums of bigotry" BS and keep on supporting it. And...It's NOT the nature of Queers to just...be. They must be flamboyant about EVERYTHING, mustn't they? And no, they aren't interested in Constitutional parity, but in garnering even MORE special rights above and beyond. NO different than those other militant" victumhood" champs -- "aggrieved" blacks.
14 words. One sentence. You trying to become another Tolstoy? Never mind. Just keep on doing what you do: Hanging like a HUGE mothball in a tiny closet.
Globalists and One-Worlders are one reason; The other is idiots like you who've been brainwashed by the media into supporting a huge part of the Left's agenda -- that is to kill God and take down Christianity and the underpinnings of morality. On the shoulders of Christianity is what America has ALWAYS been, and why it has been great. So. Thanks. FOR NOTHING. What two or more consenting adults do in privacy is none of my,or your, business,and I don't even want to hear about it. Are YOU kidding?? Is that why we're bombarded and inundated with WHO, WHAT, WHERE and ALL things "gay" in Yahoo/Google/MSNBC/NYT/Social Media 24/7?? Homos won't shut up. They're on a roll. Homos NEVER shut up about what defines them as human beings: THEIR GENITALS. IF you and others,including the homosexuals, could set aside your emotional bigotry for a moment and look at the facts alone,you would all realize that homosexuals as a group should be our biggest allies because history proves they will be the first groups to be led to the gulags. LMAO! And btw -- "history" proves that the origins of the Nazi Party were by and large...HOMOSEXUAL. They don't call them the "gaystapo" for nothing either. It boils down to the fact that in the final analysis we are all in the same boat,and the damn boat is sinking while people keep screaming about which direction to row it instead of getting together to bail the damn thing out. Yes, the boat IS sinking fast. But there are TWO sides. One side is bailing, one side is poking MORE holes into the hull. YOU are now on the WRONG side and helping those destroying the ship.
Guess what,Bucko! Christians don't run the world. This means you are either going to have to learn to get along with other people and leave them to live their lives in peace,or take a long jump with a short rope. Your choice. Is it the medication are you really that detached from reality? Which one of us believes in Holy Spooks and magic? Homos indeed have MORE "rights" than either straight/normal citizens or Christians. No,they don't. They have the EXACT same rights as everyone else. They only have more rights in the minds of people like you who just aren't happy unless you feel like persecuted victims. You love following orders,and want everyone else to follow the same orders so you can feel like you matter and are someone important and informed. Tell me why there are special laws like "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crimes" for queers if you're so d*mned committed to "same constitutional rights"? Easy. Because there are people who are the mirror-image of you who want the Constitution to protect them by punishing people they don't agree with. They are wrong,and so are you. The US Constitution is about equal treatment for ALL citizens. Even fundies and homos.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I think you wrote that "backwards",but it doesn't matter to me either way. I honestly don't give a damn what you,homosexuals,or anyone else thinks. I only care when you lobby to get the laws changed so the government enforces your bigotry and superstition. They share one thing in common: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend": Christians. You are delusional. Christians aren't my enemy. LOONS are the enemy of reason,though,and you are a loon if you think America needs to be controlled by a religious cult based on fear and punishment.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Dummy,they wouldn't HAVE a public agenda if it weren't for loons like you screaming about how they don't have the same rights as every other citizen. It's foaming at the mouth raving lunatics like you that get them their support. that is to kill God and take down Christianity and the underpinnings of morality. Just how powerful do you really think your freaking God is if some unknown person on the internet can kill him with words and logic? I will admit that I am surprised that you think he/it is a powerless joke,though. On the shoulders of Christianity is what America has ALWAYS been, and why it has been great. So. Thanks. FOR NOTHING. Proving once again how delusional you really are. Which is typical of cult members. It's why they are attracted to cults.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
BTW,that's not true. Some of the strongarm "bully boys" in leadership positions with the police in the early days were homosexuals,but they were pretty much killed off once Hitler took power. In fact,you will be happy to know that Hitler and Stalin both agreed with you that homosexuality was a mental disease,and both send them off to be executed or worked to death in labor camps. You must be sooooo proud!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
sneakypete repeated an off-topic urban legend at #4 that Hillary Clinton was fired from the Impeachment Inquiry Staff in 1974 by Archibald Cox. At #11, I posted two words of my own, "Urban myth," and the Snopes debunking of the urban myth, showing that Hillary was not fired and that Jerry Zeifman never fired her either. At #19 sneakypete claimed that he never said that Zeifman fired her, but that "[t]he way I remember it, it was Archibald Cox that fired her." At #25, sneakypete tried to weasel out of responsibility for his #4 claim that "Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committee,and hiding evidence favorable to him and was fired for it by Archibald Cox …" He claimed he said it was only as he remembered it. And then he decided to call he "shithead." Since then I have adied and abetted him in his display of his stream of unconsciousness. Archibald Cox had been fired from his Executive Branch position Special Prosecutor in the Saturday Night Massacre in 1973, before Hillary was employed, in 1974, in her Legislative Branch position with the Impeachment Inquiry staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary, headed by Special Counsel John Doar. She was not fired by Archibald Cox, she was not fired by Jerry Zeifman, she was not fired. Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974 and the Impeachment Inquiry staff was disbanded as you cannot impeach an ex-President. Along with others, when her position was abolished, her employment was terminated. She was not fired for misconduct, and Jerry Zeifman lacked authority to do it had he wanted to. It didn't happen. Of course, had he really posted and quoted from memory, he should know what "his" allegations were about, and he demonstrably does not. The urban myths originate from the column spun from the Dan Calabrese article which falsely claimed that Jerry Zeifman had fired Hillary Clinton, attributing the act to Zeifman but not quoting. As for Zeifman's ability to fire Hillary, consider the following from his book, Without Dishonor, and guess whether he would have been told to eff off. Special Counsel John Doar and his senior assistants were the pros from Dover (M.A.S.H. ref) brought in to handle the case. At 92: Doar and Lois and I then sat alone in Room 2141. Doar turned to Lois, and without consulting me, they began formulating policies for putting lawyers and investigators on the committee's payroll. … I was confused and angered by Doar all afternoon—and concerned about his latching on to Lois in a way that is intended to bypass me in his dealings with Rodino and the committee. Zeifman was miffed. They were not equals. Doar was there because Zeifman was not competent to do the job. Doar did not need to consult with Zeifman. Doar did not answer to Zeifman. At 99: At 119: Rodham went on the payroll as well. Zeifman had no power of a veto over what Doar wanted. In Hillary's Pursuit of Power, (2006), Jerry Zeifman wrote at 6, "One of the first lawyers to be hired by Doar was Marshall's star pupil, Hillary Rodham." [italics added] At 101: Stonefaced, Doar replied, "That is not what this case is about! I will do this case in my own way." At one point in our discussions he also said: "You have had no actual experience in the prosecution of criminal cases, I have. I was an Assistant Attorney General." I told Doar that this was not a criminal prosecution, but rather a civil proceding based on a congressional investigation. I added that I had previously headed a congressional investigation… Zeifman did not tell Doar what to do. Zeifman has blessed us with this gem from "Without Honor," at 31: As a convicted felon, John Dean was disbarred.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut/ Geez, you're pathetic. Zeifman did not say he fired Hillary. He terminated her employment, along with others, after Nixon resigned and the employment of the Impeachent Inquiry Staff was shut down. You do not continue an impeachment inquiry when there is nobody to impeach. Nixon resigned August 9. Hillary was employed in Arkansas later in the month. That is about three weeks. Nobody in a federal civil service job can be fired that fast. The incumbent obtains a property right to federal employment and must be given due process, to include fair notice, a right to respond, and a fair hearing. When they need to remove someone from the job immediately, they must be put on paid administrative leave until due process runs its course. Of course, Jerry Zeifman had no authority to fire Hillary at all. In his 1995 book, Without Honor, he had not yet remembered that he either fired her or had made a negative recommendation, or anything about a recommendation. At page 12: At page 220: By the next morning Rodham had made her decision. She took the train down to Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1977, when her husband became Attorney General, Rodham joined Rose law firm as an associate. She was on the payroll that night and left in the morning. She was not fired. Jerry Zeifman, 1998, Copy of Sacramento Bee Article, 11/4/1998 (PDF) In his 2006 book, Hillary's Pursuit of Power, Zeifman did not allege any firing of Hillary, preface at page 11. Jerry Zeifman, Accuracy in Media February 5, 2008, Radio interview with Neal Boortz, April 2008, In a 2008 radio interview, Zeifman stated he terminated her, along with some other stafff members who were no longer needed. After Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford was the President, there was nothing for the Impeachment Inquiry Staff left to do but close up shop and leave. The entire staff was terminated. None was fired. The urban legend or eRumor started with the crap written by Dan Calabrese. http://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/ POLITICS Summary of eRumor: As a 27-year-old working on the Watergate investigation in the 1970s, Hillary Rodham Clinton was “fired” from her position for being a “liar” and “unethical”. The Truth: It’s true that Hillary Clinton’s ex-boss has accused her of being a “liar” and “unethical” during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry into Watergate, but claims that she was fired for those reasons are false. Claims that Hillary Clinton had been fired from the impeachment inquiry first went viral during her 2008 presidential bid. A column written by Dan Calabrese, the founder of Northstar Writers Group, appeared in countless forwarded emails, and the eRumor was born. The column was inspired by statements made by Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat who served as counsel and chief of staff for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” and comments that he made on his website, which is no longer active, have been critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s actions during the Watergate investigation, and in the years that followed. Jerry Zeifman said he supervised Hillary Rodham Clinton as she worked on the team that worked on the Watergate impeachment inquiry, and that during the investigation Hillary Clinton had “…engaged in a variety of self-serving, unethical practices in violation of House rules.” Specifically, Jerry Zeifman said Hillary Rodham Clinton and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office so Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy would have a better chance of being elected president. Zeifman said a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him in August of 1974 to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “…her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.” Jerry Zeifman also said that Hillary Rodham Clinton regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, which was a violation of House rules. Zeifman said in addition to helping Ted Kennedy win the presidency, Democrats also didn’t want Nixon to face an impeachment trial because they feared he might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy as part of his defense. But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have: Zeifman said Rodham sparked a bitter battle among Democrats by recommending the Judiciary Committee deny Nixon’s lawyers the right to attend the closed-door meetings. ‘Can you imagine that? This was a committee of lawyers and members of the bar, and she was saying the committee should deny the president representation,’ he said. After a lengthy behind-the-scenes debate, Zeifman said the committee decided Nixon’s lawyers could attend.” In an interview on the Neal Boortz Show in 2008, Jerry Zeifman altered his claim about Hillary’s termination from the Watergate investigation: When pressed, Zeifman said he couldn’t recommend Hillary Rodham Clinton for future positions, “Because of her unethical conduct.” Despite that, however, Clinton was terminated because she was “no longer needed” — not because she had lied, according to Zeifman’s own account. But in a 2008 column Zeifman wrote, “My own reaction was of regret, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.” In 2008, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign replied to Zeifman’s claims directly by saying, “In a column circulating on the Internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s. This is false. Hillary was not fired.” That website has since been taken offline. Posted 04/7/08 Updated 02/17/15
You must be trying to get Hillary elected. This crap ranks right up there with the Barry Soetoro bullshit. All the birther insanity helped him and discredited the opposition. I note that you have provided no source by your senile vacationing memory for your assertions. It is always relevant exactly what nutjob you are cribbing from. Even if your unsupported drivel were true, it would not constitute treason. [nolu chan #64] What do you recall Bill Clinton did in his college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort? [sneakypete #83 re Bill Clinton] You mean other than dodging the draft and visiting Russia,where he was wined and dined by prominent communists,including one lady in Moscow that worked for Stalin during the Revolution? Bubba Bill even slept at her apartment,and admitted this when he visited Moscow as president and invited her to a dinner party he threw and introducted her as one of his hosts during his commie tour. He also visited the North Korean embassy in Moscow. Yes, I meant what I asked. I provided the defined acts required for there to be treason from the Constitution. You have cited your usual bullshit. Do you maintain, - - - [sneakypete #83 re Hillary Rodham Clinton] You mean other than working with some of the leaders in the CPUSA,and supporting them? Do you maintain, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. [sneakypete #83 re Hillary Rodham Clinton] You mean other than working with some of the leaders in the CPUSA,and supporting them? So do these "leaders in the CPUSA" have names? What did she allegedly do? Do you refer to working as a summer intern with the law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein? Did everyone who worked at the law firm commit treason? Do you have some special insight about your definition of treason? Are you always so pathetic? Or do you really want to discredit Hillary's opposition by painting them all as nut jobs?
No,that would be you.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Absurd claims that Barack Obama was really Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, worked so well that you want to emulate it and drag out all the ridiculous claims about Hillary. It must be time to water my pet geranium and see if it sprouts brains. In review, your nonsense, Of course, everybody who goes to Russia commits treason and every day any employee went to work at the law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, they committed treason. Except she wasn’t and you have yet to recall who you recollected caught her or what evidence she was caught manufacturing. Except you have yet to recall what evidence you recollected she hid or how it was favorable to the very guilty Richard Nixon. Except she was never fired by anyone, and never worked for Archibald Cox. She was never fired and she received no such recommendation. 24 years after Watergate, Jerry Zeifman said, “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.” Jerry Zeifman wrote in 1995, “Rodham performed her job admirably.”
Article 2 This conduct has included one or more of the following: In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2%3C4RL%3B9%0A 2. Illegal Wiretaps. Caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of seventeen persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code. 3. Conspiracy to Suppress Free Speech. Caused harassment, by means of tax audits and other acts by the Internal Revenue Service, of named persons designated as political "enemies" of President Nixon for the purpose of inhibiting or preventing their exercise of First amendment rights, in violation of section 241 of the Criminal Code. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Burglary and Other Crimes. Caused the creation and adoption of a so called "domestic intelligence plan" for securing information about American citizens, under which plan it was intended to commit unlawful acts of burglary, wiretapping, bugging and the opening of mail; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code. 5. Burglary. Caused the creation of a "special investigations unit," called "the Plumbers," in which were employed, inter alia, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, which carried out a burglary on September 3, 1972 of the office of Lewis Fielding, M.D. in Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of obtaining evidence for use in the trial of Daniel Ellsberg; in violation of sections 182.1, 459, 6020(j) and 647(a) of the California Penal Code and section 241 of the Criminal Code. 6. Obstruction of Justice. Attempted to influence a United States District Court Judge, Hon. W. Matthew Byrne, in a matter then pending trial before him, to wit, the prosecution by the United States of Daniel Ellsberg for violation of the espionage statutes, by suggesting to Judge Byrne that he might be appointed as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; in violation of sections 371 and 1503 of the Criminal Code. 7. Conspiracy to Commit Crimes to Influence the Election. Adopted a plan or scheme proposed by G. Gordon Liddy to employ various unlawful devices, including wiretaps, illegal entries, assault and battery and prostitution, to influence the results of the 1972 Presidential election in a manner favorable to Richard M. Nixon; in violation of section 371 of the Criminal Code. 8. Burglary. Caused the commission of two acts of burglary on May 27, 1972 and June 17, 1972, by the "Plumbers" into the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Office Building, 2500 Virginia Avenue, N.W., in the District of Columbia, in violation of 22 D.C. Code 1801; the placing therein of a telephone wiretap in violation of section 2510 of the Criminal Code; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code. 9. Obstruction of Justice, Perjury. Concealed the complicity of high officials of the White House staff and of the campaign Committee to Re-Elect the President in the acts specified in Counts 7 and 8, for the purpose of defeating and preventing criminal prosecutions by the United States, by (a) destroying documentary evidence, (b) concealing the existence of documentary evidence, (c) promising executive clemency and paying money and causing money to be paid to G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzales, Frank Sturgis, James McCord and Eugenio Martinez to induce them, and which did induce them, to plead guilty to charges of burglary and to withhold testimony and to refuse to testify before a grand jury and at trial, (d) suborning perjury by Jeb S. Magruder at the trial of Liddy, et al.; in violation of sections 371, 1503, 1510, 1621 and 1622 of the Criminal Code. 10. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. President Nixon, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, Herbert Kalmbach and Maurice Stans, in concert with and aided and abetted by others, conspired to devise and carry out a plan or scheme to obtain money to spend for and- in support of the reelection of Richard M. Nixon as President of the United States in 1972, in which they employed various unlawful means, to wit, obtaining campaign contributions from corporations and foreign nationals in violation of sections 610 and 613 of the Criminal Code, and soliciting and/or obtaining campaign contributions from individuals, political committees, corporations and foreign nationals in exchange for promises of governmental benefit and/or the withholding of governmental sanctions and/or the cessation of governmental law enforcement action; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 241, 371, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 10, President Nixon and his co-conspirators: 11. Illegal Campaign Contributions from Corporations. Solicited and obtained before April 7, 1972, campaign contributions from seven corporations, in violation of sections 371 and 610 of the Criminal Code, and by means of express or implied promises of governmental benefits and/or threats of the withholding of governmental benefits; in violation of sections 201, 371 and 872 of the Criminal Code. 12. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited a contribution of $200,000 to $400,000 and obtained a contribution of $100,000 from the ITT Corporation promised on July 21, 1971, and delivered on August 5, 1971 to support the Republican National Convention expected to be held in San Diego, California; by means of promises, express or implied, to obtain a decision by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, which decision was obtained on July 31, 1971, to accept a consent decree which permitted ITT to retain the Hartford Fire Insurance Co., which the Antitrust Division had theretofore opposed by the filing and prosecution of a civil antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 271, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 13. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained a promise of a campaign contribution of $2,000,000 for President Nixon's reelection campaign from Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI), a dairy farm cooperative, in exchange for conferring on December 31, 1970, a governmental benefit on AMPI, to wit, the promulgation by President Nixon of reduced quotas for imports of dairy products; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 14. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained from three dairy producer cooperatives a promise of contributions to President Nixon's reelection campaign and obtained at least $427,500 in such contributions, from March 22, 1971, to November 6, 1972, in exchange for conferring upon the three cooperatives on March 25, 1971, a governmental benefit, to wit, an increase ordered by the Secretary of Agriculture in the minimum price support level for dairy products for 1971-72 from $4.66 to $4.93 per 100 lbs. of fluid manufacturing grade milk; at a cost of $125 million to the Treasury of the United States and to the profit of the dairy industry of $500 to $700 million; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 15. Conspiracy. Solicited and obtained from AMPI's political committee, TAPE, a contribution of $5,000, delivered on September 3, 1973, at a meeting which President Nixon attended, part of the funds obtained as specified in Count 14, expressly for the purpose of paying the costs of the "plumbers"'burglary of the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding specified in Count 8; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code. 16. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, from Robert Allen, President of Gulf Resources and Chemical Co., Inc., on April 3-5, 1972, a contribution of $100,000 of corporate funds in violation of section 610 of the Criminal Code, in exchange for the cessation and withholding, on March 29, 1972, of civil enforcement action by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States Government to abate air and water pollution by Gulf Resources and Chemical Company's subsidiary Bunker Hill Company's lead and zinc smelter in Idaho; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 17. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, on April 9, 1972, from Dwayne O. Andreas, a contribution of $25,000, in exchange for conferring upon Andreas and other persons associated with him a governmental benefit, to wit, the approval by the Comptroller of the Currency of a national bank charter sought by Andreas and his associates, applied for on May 26, 1972 and approved on August 22, 1972; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201,- 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 18. Conspiracy. Solicited and obtained the contributions specified in Counts 16 and 17 for the purpose, in part, of paying for the burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters specified in Count 8, in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code and 22 D.C. Code 1801. 19. Bribery, Fraud, Illegal Foreign Campaign Contributions. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, in April and in October, 1972, contributions totalling $25,000, from Nikos Vardinoyannis, a Greek national; in violation of Section 613 of the Criminal Code, and in exchange for conferring upon Vardinoyannis a governmental benefit, to wit, a contract for $4.7 million in U.S. government funds to supply fuel for the U.S. Sixth Fleet in Piraeus, Greece; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 20. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, in August, 1972, from officers of carpet manufacturing fines, Martin B. Seretean, Eugene T. Barwick and J. C. Shaw, contributions totalling more than $200,000 in exchange for conferring upon the carpet industry governmental benefits, to wit, a meeting at the White House with Charles Colson and other government officials, including officials from the Department of Commerce, and the withholding by the Department of Commerce of action opposed by the carpet industry, to wit, the introduction of a test for flammability of carpets more stringent and of higher safety than the current test, in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 21. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, in June, July and August, 1972, from Ray A. Kroc, Chairman of the Board of McDonald's, Inc., contributions of $200,000, in exchange for permission from the Price Commission, first denied on May 21, 1972, then granted on September 8, 1972, to raise the price of the McDonald's quarter Nixon Articles of Impeachment http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/371d1/nixonarticles.html 7 of 9 11/16/2011 10:49 AM pounder cheeseburger, in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and Section 201, 372, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 22. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, from the Seafarer's International Union, on November 2, 1972, a contribution of $100,000, in exchange for the conferring of a governmental benefit, to wit, the decision of the Department of Justice not to appeal dismissal of an indictment against the Union, filed on June 30, 1970,for violations of section 610 of the Criminal Code prohibiting campaign contributions by Unions; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 610, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 23. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, from Robert Vesco,.on April 10, 1972, a contribution of $200,000, which was not reported to the General Accounting Office as required by law, in exchange for conferring upon Vesco governmental benefits, to wit, arranging a meeting between his attorney, Harry Sears, and federal law enforcement officials, to wit the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and promises of other benefits, to wit, that John Mitchell and Maurice Stans would use their influence to prevent law enforcement action from being taken against Vesco; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 24. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained, purportedly for the 1972 reelection campaign of President Nixon, in 1969 and 1970, contributions tatalling $100,000 from Howard Hughes, in exchange for governmental benefits, to wit, the approval in 1969 by President Nixon, pursuant to authority conferred on the President by law, of the purchase by Hughes of Air West, a CAB certificated airline with international routes; and the withdrawal in 1970 by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice of its opposition to acquisition by Hughes of a seventh gambling casino in Las Vegas, Nevada; in violation of article II, Section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 25. Receiving Money Unlawfully Obtained. By the means specified in Counts 10-24 Richard Nixon received and obtained for his own use and benefit and did have the use and benefit, for the purpose of financing his campaign for reelection as President, of moneys illegally obtained as specified in Counts 10-24 to a total amount of $1,652,500, which he knew and/or had reason to know had been unlawfully obtained; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 241, 371, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 26. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. President Nixon, H. R. Haldamn, Herbert Kalmbach, Frank DeMarco, Charles G. Rebezo and Robert Abplanalp, in concert with and aided and abetted by others, devised and carried out a plan or scheme personally to enrich President Nixon by abuse of the power and authority of his office as President; in violation of article II, sectdon I of the Constitution, sections 271, 641, 1001 and 1505 of the CriminalCode, and section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code. Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 26, the President and his co-conspirators: 27. Embezzlement, Fraud. Caused the expenditure of public funds, in the amount of more than one million dollars, for materials and labor to improve, adorn and permanently increase the value of President Nixon's privately owned real property in San Clemente, California and Key Biscayne, Florida, in excess of expenditures authorized by law to provide for the security of the President; in violation of article II, section I of the Constitution and sections 371,641 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 28. Tax Evasion. Caused the filing of federal income tax returns on behalf of Richard M. Nixon, in which were claimed deductions from taxable income in an amount of approximated $270,000 for purported gifts to the United States of papers of Richard M. Nixon, which deductions were known to the co-conspirators to be unallowable because the gift of papers had not been timely made and consummated; in an attempt to evade or defeat the payment of federal income taxes and by reason of which Richard M. Nixon reduced his personal income tax for 1969 to $792.81 and for 1970 to $878.03, and thereby received in 1970 and 1971 large refunds of withheld taxes; in violation of seetion 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code and sections 371 and 1001 of the Criminal Code.
I love the way you state they are "absurd claims" yet never come right out and say they are not true. It must be time to water my pet geranium and see if it sprouts brains. Maybe it's time for the geranium to water you? You are nothing but a Dim shill and wannabe lawyer so out of touch with reality that you think ONE claim that was only a mistake on the surrounding details negates the truth in the core of the message. This ain't court,bucko,and you can't get evidence thrown out because of a misplaced comma.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Comments (106 - 168) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWho do you recall caught Hillary Clinton manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked with the Special Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee?
#66. To: sneakypete (#65)
How many freaking times do I have to explain to you that I was relying on memory of news reports from the time.
Did Nixon have such a politically or legally viable defense? Obviously, he felt that he did. In May 1977, Nixon made his first national appearance since his voluntary exile to San Clemente in the summer of 1974 in a series of televised interviews with David Frost. The former president stated, "I did not commit, in my view, any impeachable offense. … I can only say that wile technically I did not commit a crime, an impeachable offense … these are legalisms. As far as the handling of this [Watergate] matter is concerned, it was so botched-up. I made many bad judgments. The worst ones, mistakes of the heart rather than the head."
When the president does it, that means that by definition it is not illegal. … If the president approves an action because of the national security, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating a law.
#67. To: nolu chan (#66)
The bullshit you posted has never been a news report. There are Jerry Zeifman's discredited claims and emails and blogs with their urban myths.
#68. To: sneakypete (#67)
The bullshit you posted has never been a news report. There are Jerry Zeifman's discredited claims and emails and blogs with their urban myths.
#69. To: nolu chan (#68)
The bullshit you posted has never been a news report. There are Jerry Zeifman's discredited claims and emails and blogs with their urban myths.
#70. To: sneakypete, Liberator (#67)
Blah,blah,blah. Stick it up your ass and rotate.
#71. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#64)
#72. To: CZ82 (#71)
nolu chan
#73. To: sneakypete (#72)
He is on a desperate disinformation quest.
#74. To: Fred Mertz (#73)
He'll spam you to death if you aren't careful. Plus, he always has to get in the last word.
#75. To: CZ82, sneakypete, nolu chan, redleghunter (#70)
("Blah,blah,blah. Stick it up your ass and rotate.")
#76. To: CZ82, sneakypete (#70)
You didn't happen to make a wrong turn and get stuck on a one way street that ended up in a "Homohood" yesterday did you?
#77. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#36)
Bubba Bill had the skids greased for him from day one,thanks to the Soviet mole Senator William Fullbright and his influence.
#78. To: Liberator, CZ82 (#75)
For reference sake, it was suggested I "Rotate-on-this" by my clever HS baseball coach when I'd asked, "Am I in the pitching rotation??" "Rotation" or "Ro" subsequently became a nick of mine for years.
#79. To: sneakypete (#65)
How many freaking times do I have to explain to you that I was relying on memory of news reports from the time.
[sneakypete #4] Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committee,and hiding evidence favorable to him and was fired for it by Archibald Cox with the recommendation that "she never be hired or appointed to any position of trust with the government in the future."
At one point in the interview, Nixon explained the basis of his defense: "When the president does it because of the national security that means that it is not illegal. If the President approves an action because of the national security, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating the law.
In anticipation of the possibility that Nixon would assert such a defense Doar, Nussbaum and Burke Marshall had given Hillary a secret assignment that was not to be disclosed to the committee members even after the committee's self-imposed exclusion from access to the inquiry staff's confidential files was terminated.
Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .
Early in the deliberations of the House Committee on the Judiciary concerning the grounds for recommending the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, John Doar, Special Counsel of the Committee Staff, called me to his office. He asked me to prepare a historical study for the use of is staff, a study of misconduct in previous administrations and how previous Presidents had responded to charges of misconduct. He emphasized that the study should be factual and non-interpretative and said that it had to be completed and submitted by July 1. With misgivings, I agreed to undertake the work. It was then the middle of May, the busiest time of the academic year, and I knew that i would be dependent upon people who were preoccupied by other duties. To their credit and to my immense relief, the fourteen participating Historians dropped everything instantly and plunged into their assignments. Only their sense of public duty could have prompted such a response. I wish to express my gratitude for their hard work and cheerful cooperation under pressure that made it possible to meet our deadline. I have drawn freely on their work in preparing the Introduction, which was not a part of the original study.
August 14th, 1974 Heretofore, no president has been proved to be the chief coordinator of the crime and misdemeanor charged against his own administration as a deliberate course of conduct or plan. Heretofore, no president has been held to be the chief personal beneficiary of misconduct in his administration or of measures taken to destroy or cover up evidence of it. Heretofore, the malfeasance and misdemeanor have had no confessed ideological purpose, no constitutionally subversive ends. heretofore, no president has been accused of extensively subverting and secretly using established government agencies to defame of discredit political opponents and critics, to obstruct justice, to conceal misconduct and protect criminals, or to deprive citizens of their rights and liberties. Heretofore, no president has been accused of creating secret investigative units to engage in covert and unlawful activities against private citizens and their rights.
This study was not intended to investigate all manner of charges of misconduct to which American presidents have been called upon to respond. Many such charges were of a partisan or ideological character in which the alleged misconduct of the president consisted of differing with his critics over the constitutionality of his actions or the wisdom of his policies.
#80. To: CZ82 (#71)
Excerpted from EO-History: The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
November 4, 1998
First lady has seen this movie before
She worked on '74 impeachment study
By Lance Gay
Scripps-Howard News Service Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said.
FALSE
Is this true or false?
If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.
Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation — one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career.
#81. To: sneakypete, CZ82 (#72)
Thanks,and nolu chan is going to continue to tap dance around the fact that I remembered all the important details,except for the identity of the man that fired her.
November 4, 1998
First lady has seen this movie before
She worked on '74 impeachment study
By Lance Gay
Scripps-Howard News Service Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said.
#82. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#81)
#83. To: nolu chan (#64)
What do you recall Bill Clinton did in his college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
#84. To: CZ82 (#70)
You didn't happen to make a wrong turn and get stuck on a one way street that ended up in a "Homohood" yesterday did you?
#85. To: Liberator (#76)
Pete, are you willing to concede that you've been conned into supporting the pro-homo jihad (which has suddenly promoted Totalitarianism)? Or have you changed you mind yet on your misguided crusade?
#86. To: sneakypete (#84)
(Edited)
#87. To: sneakypete (#84)
#88. To: CZ82 (#86)
You hate what this country is becoming so why can't you see what one of the reasons for that is?
#89. To: sneakypete (#88)
#90. To: sneakypete, CZ82 (#85)
Not wanting to burn them at the stake is NOT the same thing as supporting them.
#91. To: Liberator (#90)
#92. To: CZ82, sneakypete (#86)
Obsessed or disgusted with?
#93. To: Fred Mertz (#91)
#94. To: sneakypete, CZ82 (#88)
(Edited)
IMHO,the prime reason our country is turning fascist is because the globalists have been successful in their efforts to turn us all against each other that we spend all our time fighting each other instead of uniting to fight the bastards taking over our country.
#95. To: Liberator (#90)
So in your twisted alleged mind....Christians -- whose livelihoods, culture, and faith are now being spit upon by homfascists and a Constititution that no longer applies to them -- are wanting burn who "at the stake"??
#96. To: Liberator (#92)
Yeah -- apparently repulsion over the homosexual fascism is ok with Pete.
#97. To: Liberator (#94)
The other is idiots like you who've been brainwashed by the media into supporting a huge part of the Left's agenda --<<
#98. To: Liberator (#94)
And btw -- "history" proves that the origins of the Nazi Party were by and large...HOMOSEXUAL. They don't call them the "gaystapo" for nothing either.
#99. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#77)
That said, can one (or both of you) of you please succinctly explain the actual gist or contention of your respective debate? A lot of energy and thought has been expended. Thanks...
I said to Doar, "And now what can I do to help?" Doar replied, "The first thing I want to do is talk to Lois alone." Surprised by his curtness, I suggested that we talk to Lois together—and then have lunch together to talk about the investigation that had been already begun under my supervision.
Doar also wanted to hire some individuals to whom he had personal ties. One of these was his longtime companion Renata Adler, who was a write. … I was particularly concerned about one applicant because of her close ties to Burke Marshall. This was Hillary Rodham, who had been Marshall's protoge at Yale and who had been recommended by Peter Edelman, a former top aide to Robert Kennedy.
Although I objected to allowing Doar to put her [Adler] on the payroll, Rodino eventually agreed.
All last week Doar insisted, "I'm going to do things my own way." I told him … [t]he impeachment of the President is not going to be done yourway, my way, Peter Rodino's way, or Tip O'Neil's or Jack Brooks's way. It is going to be done the congressional way. No one person's judgment can be relied on. The judgments of Congress are collective judgments. That is what the Congress is about! That is what democracy is all about."
When Dean was chosed to be White House Counsel, Rodino, myself, and his other Judiciary Committee friends were pleased. He had attained his position of years of intense devotion to the combined crafts of law and politics. Envied by other, less-skilled executive branch lawyers, Dean had become an extraordinarily clear-eyed legal and political counselor.
#100. To: CZ82, sneakypete (#82)
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
Twenty years later, marshall described Rodham's responsibilities to the then-First Lady's biographer: "The job required basid legal skills of analysis in an area that was quite unexplored. It also required somebody who would keep her work to herself, or within the work of the group." Rodham performed her job admirably.
Hillary Rodham was twenty-seven when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded. Since she was still a relative neophyte in law, she had no prospects of moving directly into a lucrative private practice representing multinational corporations. On her last night on the House Judiciary Committee's payroll, Rodham had dinner with a few of her younger staff colleagues at the A.V. Ristorante, a moderate-priced pasta bistro near Capitol Hill. She confided in her friends that she was still undecided as to whether to marry Bill Clinton—who was then in Little Rock beginning his climb up the political ladder by planning a campaign for Attorney General.
Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said.
Because of a number of her unethical practices I eventually decided that I could not recommend Hillary for any subsequent position of public or private trust. I also took the same position regarding her immediate supervisor, Bernie Nussbaum.
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.
Hillary Clinton’s former boss says he fired her from an investigative position because she was a “liar” and “unethical”-Truth! & Fiction!
Truth or Fiction
03.17.15 “Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. ‘If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,’ he said.
“Well, let me put it this way: I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — were no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not — recommend her for any further positions.”
#101. To: sneakypete (#83)
[sneakypete #4] On the other hand,BOTH Clintons have been involved in treason since their college days.
1. allegedly "dodging the draft", or
2. "visiting Russia", or,
3. "visiting the North Korean embassy in Moscow"
was: [nolu chan #64] What do you recall Hillary Rodham Clinton did in her college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
"4. Allegedly working with some of the leaders in the CPUSA, and supporting them"
was: Section 3.
[nolu chan #64] What do you recall Hillary Rodham Clinton did in her college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
#102. To: nolu chan (#101)
You must be trying to get Hillary elected.
#103. To: sneakypete (#102)
BOTH Clintons have been involved in treason since their college days.
Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committee,
and hiding evidence favorable to him
and was fired for it by Archibald Cox
with the recommendation that "she never be hired or appointed to any position of trust with the government in the future."
#104. To: sneakypete, redleghunter (#4)
Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
1. Conspiracy. President Nixon, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, John Mitchell, Herbert Kalmbach, and Maurice Stans, in concert with and abetted by others, conspired together to devise and carry out a plan or scheme to commit various crimes against numerous citizens of the United States who opposed the policies of Richard M. Nixon. President Nixon and his coconspirators thereby conspired to commit burglary in violation of 22 D.C. Code 1801; violated federal statutes making it a crime to wiretap, section 2510 et seq. of the United States Criminal Code (Title 18, U.S.C.); conspired to deprive citizens of civil rights in violation of section 241 of the Criminal Code; conspired to violate other federal statutes (e.g., the wiretap statute) in violation of section 371 of the Criminal Code; violated the President's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, article 11, section 3; violated the First amendment rights of persons to freedom of speech, and violated the Fourth amendment rights of persons to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 1, President Nixon and his co-conspirators:
#105. To: nolu chan (#103)
Absurd claims that Barack Obama was really Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, worked so well that you want to emulate it and drag out all the ridiculous claims about Hillary.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]