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: 98909
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 (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: nolu chan (#40)
You think Bubbette! is really good looking. That's proof right there that you are delusional. Or maybe a homosexual that likes ugly butch men.
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)
Or maybe a homosexual that likes ugly butch men. That wasn't very nice Pete. Chan just pointed out facts. Just because you have family members that are homos and they carry the alledged queer gene. That doesn't mean Chan has family like that. There are normal families out there Peter.
Just wanted to recall this piece from The Daily Beast back on September 13, 2012: A Friend's Tribute to Ambassador Chris Stevens-The Diplomatic Indiana Jones Surely this friend (Iranian Roya Hakakian) was also acquainted in some way to Blumenthal.
LOL! Your bigotry blinds you to the reality that everyone has relatives who are homosexual. Even you. You are so full of blind hatred,none of your relatives will admit it to you,though.
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)
The whole "Zeifman thing" sounds like a disinformation strategy to me. Your memory is for shit. Hillary never worked for Archibald Cox. Archibald Cox was the Special Prosecutor. All sentient beings who were alive at the time time, and have not gone senile, can recall The Saturday Night Massacre of October 20, 1973. Archibald Cox was fired by order of the President. He did not work for the Congress where Hillary Rodham later worked. Only the Legislative branch fires legislative employees. Archibald Cox was appointed by Attorney General Eliot Richardson. Cox was part of the Executive Branch. The AG and the Deputy AG refused to carry out Nixon's order and resigned. Robert Bork was sworn in as Acting AG and issued the letter to Cox effecting his firing. This is all before Hillary was ever hired. You remember that Archibald Cox, who was fired as the Special Prosecutor withn the Executive Branch in the Saturday Night Massacre of October 20, 1973, fired Hillary Rodham from the Legislative Branch in August 1974 for various undocumented misdeeds. That is quite a creative memory. You call Zeifman, the source of your allegations, disinformation and support the fantastic lunacy about Archibald Cox. It sounds as if you are still angry as a jilted lover of Hillary. Little else explains your inane rant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
Since I am neither blind nor a woman,how would such a thing even be possible?
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)
Nixon was not apprehended as a burglar. He very soon participated in a conspiracy to obstruct justice and got caught. SCOTUS ruled 8-0 that he had to release the actual tapes; the previously released select transcripts would not do. Within days of releasing the tapes, Nixon resigned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_tapes#The_.22smoking_gun.22_tape Once the "smoking gun" tape was made public on August 5, Nixon's political support practically vanished. The ten Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who had voted against impeachment in committee announced that they would now vote for impeachment once the matter reached the House floor. He lacked substantial support in the Senate as well; Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott estimated no more than 15 Senators were willing to even consider acquittal. Facing certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction in the Senate, Nixon announced his resignation on the evening of Thursday, August 8, to take effect noon the next day. It would certainly be one of the very few times the President issued an unconditional pardon to an inocent man to prevent a trial being brought. But then Gerry Ford, the president who issued the pardon, stated, "The acceptance of a pardon, I think, can be construed by many, if not all, as an admission of guilt." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4696&st=&st1= Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974. Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment. As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution. It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States. Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth. /s/ Gerald R. Ford GERALD R. FORD http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4717 Public Papers of the Presidents [...] QUESTIONS PARDON FOR FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON [1.] Q. Mr. President, some Congressional Republicans who have talked to you have hinted that you may have had a secret reason for granting President Nixon a pardon sooner than you indicated you would at the last news conference, and I wonder if you could tell us what that reason was? THE PRESIDENT. At the outset, let me say I had no secret reason, and I don't recall telling any Republican that I had such a reason. Let me review quickly, if I might, the things that transpired following the last news conference. As many of you know, I answered two, maybe three, questions concerning a pardon at that time. On return to the office, I felt that I had to have my counsel undertake a thorough examination as to what my right of pardon was under the Constitution. I also felt that it was very important that I find out what legal actions, if any, were contemplated by the Special Prosecutor. That information was found out, and it was indicated to me that the possibility exists, the very real possibility, that the [former] President would be charged with obstructing justice and 10 other possible criminal actions. In addition, I asked my general counsel to find out, if he could, how long such criminal proceedings would take, from the indictment, the carrying on of the trial, et cetera. And I was informed that this would take a year, maybe somewhat longer, for the whole process to go through. I also asked my counsel to find out whether or not, under decisions of the judicial system, a fair trial could be given to the former President. After I got that information, which took 2 or 3 days, I then began to evaluate, in my own mind, whether or not I should take the action which I subsequently did. Miss Thomas [Helen Thomas, United Press International]. Q. Throughout your Vice Presidency, you said that you didn't believe that former President Nixon had ever committed an impeachable offense. Is that still your belief, or do you believe that his acceptance of a pardon implies his guilt or is an admission of guilt? THE PRESIDENT. The fact that 38 members of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Democrat and Republican, have unanimously agreed in the report that was filed that the former President was guilty of an impeachable offense, I think, is very persuasive evidence. And the second question, I don't-- Q. Was it an admission of guilt? THE PRESIDENT. Was the acceptance of the pardon by the President an admission of guilt? The acceptance of a pardon, I think, can be construed by many, if not all, as an admission of guilt. Yes, Mr. Nessen [Ron Nessen, NBC News]. Q. What reports have you received on Mr. Nixon's health, and what effect, if any, did this have on your decision to pardon him now? THE PRESIDENT. I have asked Dr. Lukash, who is the head physician in the White House, to keep me posted in proper channels as to the former President's health. I have been informed on a routine day-to-day basis, but I don't think I am at liberty to give any information as to those reports that I have received. You also asked what impact did the President's health have on my decision. I think it is well known that just before I gave my statement, at the time that I gave the pardon, I personally wrote in a phrase "the threat to the President's health." The main concern that I had at the time I made the decision was to heal the wounds throughout the United States. For a period of 18 months or longer, we had had turmoil and divisiveness in the American society. At the same time, the United States had major problems, both at home and abroad, that needed the maximum personal attention of the President and many others in the Government. It seemed to me that as long as this divisiveness continued, this turmoil existed, caused by the charges and countercharges, the responsible people in the Government could not give their total attention to the problems that we had to solve at home and abroad. And the net result was I was more anxious to heal the Nation--that was the top priority. And I felt then, and I feel now, that the action I took will do that. I couldn't be oblivious, however, to news accounts that I had concerning the President's health, but the major reason for the action I took related to the effort to reconcile divisions in our country and to heal the wounds that had festered far too long. Q. Mr. President, after you had told us that you were going to allow the legal process to go on before you decided whether to pardon him, why did you decide on Sunday morning, abruptly, to pardon President Nixon? THE PRESIDENT. I didn't decide abruptly. I explained a moment ago the process that I went through subsequent to the last press conference. And when I had assembled all of that information that came to me through my counsel, I then most carefully analyzed the situation in the country, and I decided that we could not afford in America an extended period of continued turmoil. And the fact that the trial and all of the parts thereof would have lasted a year, perhaps more, with the continuation of the divisions in America, I felt that I should take the action that I did promptly and effectively. FORMER PRESIDENT'S TAPES AND DOCUMENTS [2.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask you a question about the decision relating to custody of the Nixon tapes and documents. Considering the enormous interest that the Special Prosecutor's office had in those documents for further investigation, I am wondering why the negotiations with Mr. Nixon's representatives were conducted strictly between the counsel in your office without bringing in discussions with either Mr. Jaworski's representatives or those from the Justice Department? THE PRESIDENT. In the first place, I did receive a memorandum, or legal opinion, from the Department of Justice which indicated that in the opinion of the Department of Justice, the documents, tapes--the ownership of them-were in the hands of the former President.1 And historically, that has been the case for all Presidents. In a news briefing held on September 8, 1974, Counsel to the President Philip W. Buchen announced, in regard to the status of the Presidential materials of Richard Nixon, that Attorney General William B. Saxbe had determined that "such materials are the present property of Mr. Nixon; however, it is also concluded that during the time the materials remain in the custody of the United States, they are subject to subpoenas and court orders directed to any official who controls that custody." The texts of the Attorney. General's legal opinion, dated September 6, 1974, and a September 6 letter of agreement between Mr. Nixon and Administrator of General Services Arthur F. Sampson concerning control of and access to Mr. Nixon's Presidential materials, were released by the White House September 8. They are printed in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (vol. 10, pp. 1104 and 1105). Now, the negotiations for the handling of the tapes and documents were undertaken and consummated by my staff and the staff of the former President. I believe that they have been properly preserved, and they will be available under subpoena for any criminal proceeding. Now, the Special Prosecutor's staff has indicated some concern. I am saying tonight that my staff is working with the Special Prosecutor's staff to try and alleviate any concerns that they have. I hope a satisfactory arrangement can be worked out. PREVIOUS STATEMENTS ON PARDON [3.] Q. Mr. President, during your confirmation hearings as Vice President, you said that you did not think that the country would stand for a President to pardon his predecessor. Has your mind changed about such public opinion? THE PRESIDENT. In those hearings before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, I was asked a hypothetical question. And in answer to that hypothetical question, I responded by saying that I did not think the American people would stand for such an action. Now that I am in the White House and don't have to answer hypothetical questions but have to deal with reality, it was my judgment, after analyzing all of the facts, that it was in the best interest of the United States for me to take the action that I did. I think if you will reread what I said in answer to that hypothetical question, I did not say I wouldn't. I simply said that under the way the question was phrased, the American people would object. But I am absolutely convinced, when dealing with reality in this very, very difficult situation, that I made the right decision in an effort--an honest, conscientious effort--to end the divisions and the turmoil in the United States. Mr. Lisagor [ Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News ]. SAFEGUARDING OF TAPES AND DOCUMENTS [4.] Q. Mr. President, is there any safeguard in the tapes agreement that was made with Mr. Nixon, first, with their destruction in the event anything happens to him, because under the agreement they will be destroyed, and secondly, should not the tapes be kept in the White House until the Special Prosecutor has finished dealing with them? THE PRESIDENT. The tapes and the documents are still in our possession, and we are, as I said a moment ago, working with the Special Prosecutor's office to alleviate any concerns they have as to their disposition and their availability. The agreement as to destruction is quite clear-cut. As long as Mr. Nixon is alive and during the period of time that is set forth, they are available for subpoena by a court involving any criminal proceedings. I think this is a necessary requirement for the protection of evidence for any such action. THE CIA AND CHILE [...] FURTHER QUESTIONS ON PARDON DECISION [6.] Q. In view of public reaction, do you think that the Nixon pardon really served to bind up the Nation's wounds? I wonder if you would assess public reaction to that move. THE PRESIDENT. I must say that the decision has created more antagonism than I anticipated. But as I look over the long haul with a trial, or several trials, of a former President, criminal trials, the possibility of a former President being in the dock, so to speak, and the divisions that would have existed not just for a limited period of time but for a long period of time, it seems to me that when I had the choice between that possibility and the possibility of taking direct action hoping to conclude it, I am still convinced, despite the public reaction so far, that the decision I made was the right one. Q. Mr. President, in regard to the pardon, you talk about the realities of the situation. Now those realities, rightly or wrongly, include a good many people who speculate about whether or not there is some sort of arrangement--they even, some of them, call it a deal--between you and the former President, or between your staff and his staff--resignation in exchange for a full pardon. The question is: Is there or was there, to your knowledge, any kind of understanding about this? THE PRESIDENT. There was no understanding, no deal between me and the former President, nor between my staff and the staff of the former President, none whatsoever. ACCESS TO INCOME TAX RETURNS [...] OWNERSHIP OF PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS [8.] Q. Mr. President, looking beyond the Nixon papers and in view of some criticism in Congress, do you believe we may have now reached the point where Presidential White House papers should remain in the Government's hands as the property of the Government? THE PRESIDENT. As far as I am personally concerned, I can see a legitimate reason for Presidential papers remaining the property of the Government. In my own case, I made a decision some years ago to turn over all of my Congressional papers, all of my Vice Presidential papers, to the University of Michigan archives. As far as I am concerned, whether they go to the archives for use or whether they stay the possession of the Government, I don't think it makes too much difference. I have no desire, personally, to retain whatever papers come out of my Administration. Mr. Mollenhoff [Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register and Tribune]. THE PARDON DECISION [9.] Q. Mr. President, at the last press conference you said, "The code of ethics that will be followed will be the example that I set." Do you find any conflicts of interest in the decision to grant a sweeping pardon to your life-long friend and your financial benefactor with no consultation for advice and judgment for the legal fallout? THE PRESIDENT. The decision to grant a pardon to Mr. Nixon was made primarily, as I have expressed, for the purpose of trying to heal the wounds throughout the country between Americans on one side of the issue or the other. Mr. Nixon nominated me for the office of Vice President. I was confirmed overwhelmingly in the House as well as in the Senate. Every action I have taken, Mr. Mollenhoff, is predicated on my conscience without any concern or consideration as to favor as far as I am concerned. CONDITIONAL AMNESTY AND THE PARDON DECISION [10.] Q. If your intention was to heal the wounds of the Nation, sir, why did you grant only a conditional amnesty to the Vietnam war draft evaders while granting a full pardon to President Nixon? THE PRESIDENT. The only connection between those two cases is the effort that I made in the one to heal the wounds involving the charges against Mr. Nixon and my honest and conscientious effort to heal the wounds for those who had deserted military service or dodged the draft. That is the only connection between the two. In one case, you have a President who was forced to resign because of circumstances involving his Administration, and he has been shamed and disgraced by that resignation. In the case of the draft dodgers and Army and military deserters, we are trying to heal the wounds by the action that I took with the signing of the proclamation this morning. REPORTS ON WATERGATE INVESTIGATION [11.] Q. Mr. President, another concern that has been voiced around the country since the pardon is that the judicial process as it finally unwinds may not write the definitive chapter on Watergate and perhaps with particular regard to Mr. Nixon's particular involvement, however total, however it may have been in truth. My question is, would you consider appointing a special commission with extraordinary powers to look into all of the evidentiary material and to write that chapter and not leave it to later history? THE PRESIDENT. Well, it seems to me as I look at what has been done, I think you find a mass of evidence that has been accumulated. In the first instance, you have the very intensive investigation conducted by the House Committee on the Judiciary. It was a very well-conducted investigation. It came up with volumes of information. In addition, the Special Prosecutor's office under Mr. Jaworski has conducted an intensive investigation and the Special Prosecutor's office will issue a report at the conclusion of their responsibilities that I think will probably make additional information available to the American people. And thirdly, as the various criminal trials proceed in the months ahead, there obviously will be additional information made available to the American people. So, when you see what has been done and what undoubtedly will be done, I think the full story will be made available to the American people. SUCCESSORS TO GENERAL HAIG AND PRESS SECRETARY TER HORST [...] THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S HEALTH [13.] Q. Mr. President, prior to your deciding to pardon Mr. Nixon, did you have, apart from those reports, any information either from associates of the President or from his family or from any other source about his health, about his medical condition? THE PRESIDENT. Prior to the decision that I made granting a pardon to Mr. Nixon, I had no other specific information concerning his health other than what I had read in the news media or heard in the news media. I had not gotten any information from any of the Nixon family. The sole source was what I had read in the news media plus one other fact. On Saturday, before the Sunday, a member of my staff was working with me on the several decisions I had to make. He was, from my staff, the one who had been in negotiations on Friday with the President and his staff. At the conclusion of some decisions that were made, I asked him, how did the President look, and he reported to me his observations. But other than what I had read or heard and this particular incident, I had no precise information concerning the President's health. [...]
You have obviously become confused and disoriented and your memory is not to be trusted. You recall impossible acts of Archibald Cox at a time he was not working for the government at all, and had previously served in an entirely different branch of government than where Hillary worked in 1974. In 1974, Cox was at the University of Cambridge as the Pitt Professor of American History and Institutions. Hillary was not fired from the University of Cambridge either. The tapes were sought by the Senate Watergate Committee. Hillary worked for the House Judiciary Committee under John Doar. You not only recall the negative recommendation given by Archibald Cox, you recall it in quotation marks. So, what were you quoting? Your obsession with Hillary appears to be that of a jilted lover with a confused and disoriented memory who wishes to disremember. Or perhaps you are still just crushing on her.
Just curious. But how many Presidents that followed Nixon do you think did a better job? I think the Democrats needed to be spied on. Even more so today.
:)
I take your question to be about performance, not ethics. Nixon did a pretty good job as president. Best performing successors would be Reagan and Clinton. Reagan restored respect after the Carter years and the economy recovered to be strong. Negatives for Reagan would be exploding the national debt, and the need for various staffers to be pardoned by G.H.W. Bush to stay out of prison over the Iran-Contra scandal. Clinton performed well as president but was like Pig Pen in the comics with an ethical cloud swirling about him. He almost wiped out the deficit and produced a strong economy. I suppose Jimmy Carter was the most honest, ethical president. Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton all issued some questionable pardons or commutations. Ronald Reagan for Mark Felt (Deep Throat) and George Steinbrenner. G.H.W. Bush kept a bunch of Reagan staffers out of prison by pardoning them, most for their role in the Iran-Contra affair. Notables were Elliott Abrams, Robert C. McFarlane and Caspar Weinberger. Bill Clinton for Marc Rich, Susan McDougal, Henry Cisneros, Mel Reynolds and John Deutch.
Are you sure that is what they were caught doing? When busted, Watergate burglar Eugenio Rolando Martinez was discovered with a key that turned out to be to the desk of Maxie Wells, a secretary to DNC official, Spencer Oliver. They did not enter the office of Larry O'Brien, then DNC chairman. Somebody hatched the idea and was running the op. It is still debatable who came up with the idea to target the desk of Maxie Wells or why. Liddy wrote that he thought they went looking for something the Dems had on the GOP. Collecting information is one thing. Burglaries is another.
I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand,but when someone says "the way I remember it" or anything remotely similar,they are quoting themselves. Get somebody to explain that to you. Since you are obscenely anal and will no doubt want a link,look for my original post on this thread about this. That will be your link,and since you obviously think links are gold-plated truths,there is the evidence for 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)
Did you used to listen to the G man when he was on the radio. I did back in the nineties. I acutally have his book will. I was working somewhere and they were throwing it away. I read about half of it. It was interesting. I just got busy with something else and never finished it.
I guess I thought they were doing something like that. Breaking in to retreive something they had. That is kind of like spying.
Good try. Here is your actual #4. You can't be ignorant enough to be serious! I am no fan of Richard "Wage and Price Controls,and lets open relations with China while we are at it!" Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime. On the other hand,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." 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 were quoting yourself at #4? That’s desperate. Do you always put your memories into quotes and attribute the direct quote to Archibald Cox? Hillary was not caught manufacturing evidence, she did not hide evidence favorable to Nixon, she was not fired by anybody, Archibald Cox was never there, and Jerry Zeifman didn't have the authority had he wanted to fire Hillary. Doar was the boss lawyer, the heavy hitter brought in as Special Counsel. Zeifman was the hired help who was shunted aside when Doar and his staff showed up. The Weekly Standard is a conservative publication. John Doar was a career Republican. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/meet-john-doar_819018.html Nov 24, 2014 The Scrapbook, ever mindful of the passage of time, couldn’t help but notice the obituary for John Doar in a recent edition of the Washington Post. Doar, who died last week at the age of 92, had been one of Bobby Kennedy’s associates at the Justice Department, serving for seven years in its civil rights division. Those were interesting times (1960-67) to be in the civil rights division, and the Post had much to say about Doar’s work in the long, sometimes violent, struggle to end racial segregation. But in newspaper obituaries, as with many things in life, it is often what isn’t mentioned—as opposed to what is pounded relentlessly into the ground—that piques our curiosity. For the fact is that, if the common reader has any knowledge whatsoever of the late John Doar, it is probably not from his Justice Department days but from his year’s service as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee (1973-74) during the Nixon impeachment inquiry. Alas, that dramatic episode rates only six brief sentences in an otherwise voluminous, six-column, full-page article, and includes this intriguing detail: “One of the lawyers working for him at the time was Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Here The Scrapbook pauses for breath, imagining the editors at the Washington Post pondering that one. Presumably they were aware of the fact that an urban legend exists (not hard to find on the Internet) to the effect that young Hillary Rodham somehow ran afoul of another committee staffer and was “fired” for unspecified “unethical” behavior. There is no evidence that any of this is true; but it is interesting nonetheless that the first big, and manifestly delicate, political job held by the presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee is—well, just kind of slipped in there without comment. There may be a reason for this, having nothing whatsoever to do with Hillary Rodham’s 40-years-ago job performance. For John Doar’s appointment is a story in itself, to wit: Democratic dominance of Congress, in 1974, was so permanent, so absolute, so overwhelming, and had been for so long, that nobody seems to have batted an eye when a longtime Kennedy family apparatchik was appointed to run the House investigation charged with impeaching Richard Nixon. Indeed, the Post even quotes an especially disingenuous statement from Doar at the time—which The Scrapbook has never forgotten: “As an individual, I have not the slightest bias against President Nixon. I would hope that I would not do him the smallest, slightest injury.” Oh, sure. We mention all this not because John Doar was capable of saying such things with a straight face, or because pious declarations aren’t a daily occurrence in Washington. No, we say it to remind readers that, once upon a time and not so long ago, the Republican party was so hopelessly outnumbered on Capitol Hill (and had been, in effect, since 1930) that the task of impartially inquiring into the impeachment of a Republican president was blithely entrusted to a lifelong, and deeply partisan, Democrat and his eager assistant, fresh from Yale Law School. Sometimes things do change for the better. -- Correction: Robert Doar emails The Scrapbook: Contrary to your assertion that he was “a lifelong and deeply partisan Democrat,” John Doar was a Republican who came to Washington to work in the Eisenhower administration. Though it is hard to measure such things, I can assure you that Doar’s seven years of work in the Civil Rights Division is far more well-known than his 8 months of work on the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry staff. Hillary Clinton was not Doar’s “assistant” on the impeachment inquiry staff; she was a junior lawyer who was assigned the tasks junior lawyers were given and Doar was grateful for her work, as he was of all of the work performed by the inquiry staff. And finally, the Nixon impeachment inquiry was most notable for achieving an overwhelmingly bipartisan result. Strong Republicans such as Tom Railsback, Harold Froelich, Larry Hogan (father of Maryland’s Governor elect) and Caldwell Butler, among others, joined in voting for articles of impeachment. Republicans’ properly facing up to the President’s misdeeds may well have contributed to the party’s rapid recovery of the White House in 1980, and for that, some small credit is due to Republicans like John Doar. From an official document, a list of lawyers on the Committee on the Judiciary Impeachment Inquiry Staff. Jerry Doar was the boss. Jerry Zeifman was not on that staff. Jerry Zeifman was General Counsel to the Committee. Hillary was not the Special Counsel, nor a Senior Associate, nor a Deputy Counsel. She was not Doar's "Assistant." She was a fresh out of law school lowly counsel, listed as such. Hillary had no power to do the things that were attributed to her. http://watergate.info/judiciary/BKIITOW.PDF HEARINGS BOOK II [...] IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY STAFF JOHN DOAR, Special Counsel FRED H. ALTSHULER, Counsel (II)
The below blog entry by Cranky Notions is essentially a condensed version of the theory of the Watergate breakin as set forth by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin in their book Silent Coup, The Removal of a President, first published in 1991. In the book Secret Agenda, in 1984 author Jim Hougan, in the terms of one commenter, "argues well the case that Nixon was helped in a big way out of office by DCI Richard Helms employing officers Hunt and McCord." http://crankynotions.com/2012/08/22/forty-years-on-and-watergate-still-doesnt-make-sense/ Cranky Notions Public Perception vs. The Truth In all seriousness, what is the root of the American fixation on Watergate and Richard Nixon? The fortieth anniversary of the break-ins this year has led to mass media commemoration and yet more pats on the pack for the folks at the Washington Post. Its not as if there haven’t been worse political scandals before or since: Chappaquiddick, JFK’s disgusting sex and drug habits, Iran-Contra and Bill Clinton’s entire political career come to mind. What we have been through in the last ten years alone is enough to sicken even the most seasoned of political observers. Compared to the American government’s lies about Pat Tillman, and Obama’s arming of violent Mexican gangs that went on to murder Americans under Fast and Furious, Watergate seems almost like a jolly college prank. Ben Bradlee happens to agree. As the former executive editor at the Washington Post said to his friend Jeff Himmelman in Yours in Truth: A Personal Portrait of Ben Bradlee: Not only that, Bradlee went on to express his doubts about much of Woodward and Bernstein’s account of the story: If they could prove that Deep Throat never existed … that would be a devastating blow to Woodward and to the Post. … It would be devastating, devastating.” Witnesses say that Bob Woodward became highly stressed when he heard what Bradley told Himmelman, and repeated the statement about “a residual fear… that that isn’t quite straight” countless times to himself. Woodward tried to get Bradlee to withdraw his statements. He even threatened legal action to prevent Himmelman from publishing them. It didn’t work. Far more people really should have heard the words of Bradlee. There may indeed have been a Deep Throat in the form of Mark Felt. But we now know – thanks to Max Holland’s great work in Leak: How Mark Felt Became Deep Throat – that the man was no hero. Felt was not motivated by his conscience or a sense of justice. He simply wanted to get back at Nixon for not appointing him as J. Edgar Hoover’s successor. He also wanted to bring down the outsider and squeaky-clean L. Patrick Gray to protect the FBI’s ‘turf’. It seems to me that the obsessive focus on the identity of Deep Throat distracted the public from the more important questions raised during Watergate. For the Washington Post and the Pulitzer Committee, there is the important matter of the unethical and flagrantly illegal methods used by Woodward and Bernstein in the course of their work. This was discovered years before Felt revealed himself. However, the most important mystery concerns the real story behind the break-ins at the offices of the DNC – something still largely unknown by the American public. The Break-Ins: What Really Happened The clue to solving this mystery begins with a woman known as Maureen Elizabeth Kane Owen “Mo” Biner. “Mo” was the wife of the far more famous John Dean: one of those responsible for the espionage at the Democratic National Committee and mastermind of the subsequent cover-up. As the man who pleaded guilty to a single felony count in exchange for becoming a key witness for the prosecution, history has judged Dean favourably. This might not be justified, but we’ll get to that. Maureen was the author of Mo: A Woman’s View of Watergate. Its a real turd of a book, devoted mostly to her love for John and what the people at the centre of the Watergate scandal were wearing. For the discerning reader, there is one part of interest: a wedding photograph with a woman called “my very dear friend Heidi”. We don’t read much at all about this dear friend elsewhere in the book. That is because “Heidi” was in fact Erika “Heidi” Rikan, a.k.a. Cathy Dieter: a notorious DC stripper at Washington’s Blue Mirror Club, a madam, and mistress of the mafia boss Joe Nesline. Rikan and Maureen Biner were roommates and long-time friends. In all likelihood, Biner was once a prostitute. Before dating John Dean, she was the girlfriend of the notorious deviant and sexual blackmailer Bobby Baker. He once tried to compromise John F. Kennedy by setting him up with the East German spy Ellen Rometsch. The truth is that the break-ins at Watergate were entirely the result of a sleazy sex scandal involving a DC call-girl ring. Larry O’ Brien’s office was not even the main target. In 1971, a call-girl operation was set up in the DNC’s Watergate offices and nearby Columbia Plaza by Phillip Mackin Bailey. Bailey was a Washington attorney known for representing prostitutes. With his amassed contacts, somewhere along the line he began pimping. Its a good business in Washington. Bailey set up the DNC operation at the request of Biner’s dear friend “Heidi” Rikan. Her lover, Nesline, was also linked to a sexual blackmail operation run out of the Georgetown Club involving the Korean intelligence agent Tongsun Park and the CIA agent Ed Wilson. Both appeared in Rikan’s address book. Bailey arranged for a secure telephone line between the Watergate offices and Rikan’s operation, where the clientele could hear a description of all the girls available. For this they used the office phone of the frequently-absent Democratic Party employee R. Spencer Oliver. It was in the desk of his secretary, Ida Maxine Wells. A key to this desk was found in the possession of the Watergate burglar Eugenio Martinez when he was arrested on June 17th, 1972, only to be kept in the National Archives until this very day. Bailey was arrested on account of his sleazy activities only days after the initial Watergate burglary. One of the Assistant US Attorneys who investigated Bailey’s ring, John Rudy, later testified in a different case that he had evidence tying R. Spencer Oliver to Bailey’s call-girl ring. He claims he was told by his superiors to suppress it because it was politically explosive. Rudy also uncovered an address book listing all of Bailey and Rikan’s girls and clientele. It included the name and contact details of a woman they dubbed “Clout”. This was a name used for Rikan’s dear friend Maureen Biner. Biner was by this time dating John Dean. Hence, she was political “clout”. The first Watergate break-in was actually masterminded by the chief executive of the infamous White House Plumbers, G. Gordon Liddy, as well as John Dean, simply to get sexual dirt on the Democrats. Such operations had been planned and done before. In October 1971, John Dean ordered a White House security advisor, John Caulfield, to investigate a recently-busted call-girl ring in New York to see if any Democratic politicians happened to be clients. In January of the next year, Liddy proposed something called ‘Operation Gemstone’. ‘Gemstone’ aimed to spy on the Washington headquarters of Ed Muskie and George McGovern, as well as the site of the Democratic National Convention – the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami. The Fontainebleau was also connected Meyer Lansky and the Syndicate, and prostitutes were expected to be at the convention. Operation Gemstone proposed recruiting prostitutes to help videotape convention attendees in compromising positions. Nixon certainly did not order the break-in. The legendary lawyer James F. Neal, prosecutor of the Watergate Seven, did not believe this was the case. He cited Nixon’s surprised reaction to news of the burglary on June 23, 1972 when he asked his aide, Harry Haldeman: “who was the asshole that did it?” Dean very quickly married Biner, asking Haldeman for some very brief time off to do so. A wife cannot be forced to testify against her husband, after all. The second break-in was planned by John Dean, who needed to find out if a picture and contact information of “Mo” (his own nickname for her) was in the desk if Ida Maxine Wells. Wiretaps transcripts exist of the conversations that took place over the phone in Oliver’s office, but they have been sealed by a federal judge. Philip Mackin Bailey spent the rest of his life in and out of mental institutions. While the full truth will likely remain buried for a long time, its quite clear from available evidence that the typical picture the public has of Watergate is severely distorted. They Were No Heroes Not only does the sleazy John Dean get off easy and appear as a regular and respected guest on news shows, Woodward and Bernstein are still considered the princes of American journalism. This is despite the fact we now know from Jeff Himmelman that Carl Bernstein interviewed a Watergate grand juror. The intrepid duo showed contempt for one of the most sacred institutions of the justice system and lied about it for 40 years. And The Post knew about the whole thing. Himmelman discovered this second gem from his work on Yours in Truth. He found seven pages of interview notes with what was clearly a Watergate grand juror in the Washington Post’s records. This is the source that Bernstein falsely described as a secretary for the Committee to Re-elect the President in ‘All the President’s Men’, whom he called ‘Z’. What’s more shocking is that Bob and Carl had the audacity to attempt contacting several other Watergate grand jurors, the names of which Woodward had illegally obtained from the District Court clerk’s office. One juror complained to the prosecuting attorney, Earl Silbert in December of 1972. Silbert’s team informed Judge John Sirica. Sirica called Woodward and Bernstein into court two weeks later and warned against any further meddling. Edward Bennett Williams, chief legal counsel to the Washington Post, was dispatched to a private meeting with the judge. Sirica wanted the journalists to be jailed. Assured that their attempts to breach the secrecy of the grand jury were unsuccessful, he merely issued a warning to all reporters to avoid any grand juror contact. Forty years on, the traditional account of Watergate given by John Dean and the Washington Post is becoming hard to defend indeed.
No,I was quoting myself in my later response to your demand for a link. I clearly told you that was the way I remembered it,and that seemed to confuse you because you have no memory or independent thoughts. Beyond that point it has been one brain fart and mega-copy from you after another,as you seem to try to understand the concept of people having memories and thoughts.
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 #53] Since you are obscenely anal and will no doubt want a link,look for my original post on this thread about this. That will be your link,and since you obviously think links are gold-plated truths,there is the evidence for you. That really is the evidence. Your original post with your "quote" of Archibald Cox was in your #4. Who were you quoting in your #4? Do you usually put your random thoughts into quotation marks and attribute them as a direct quote to Archibald Cox? You can't be ignorant enough to be serious! I am no fan of Richard "Wage and Price Controls,and lets open relations with China while we are at it!" Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime. On the other hand,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." 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)
#4. To: redleghunter (#1) These Xlintons learned much from Nixon. You can't be ignorant enough to be serious! I am no fan of Richard "Wage and Price Controls,and lets open relations with China while we are at it!" Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime. Are you really that clueless? I thought you are a fool without an original thought in your head,but I am starting to think you might be a machine of some sort. Someone writes "A",and you automatically reply with "B",with no thought at all. And "No,I am not going to explain the quotation marks above or here to you." Get one of your semi-human programmers to reboot you with the knowledge.
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 #53] Since you are obscenely anal and will no doubt want a link,look for my original post on this thread about this. That will be your link,and since you obviously think links are gold-plated truths,there is the evidence for you. You can't be ignorant enough to be serious! I am no fan of Richard "Wage and Price Controls,and lets open relations with China while we are at it!" Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime. On the other hand,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." 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 #58] No,I was quoting myself in my later response to your demand for a link. All that is very nice,but I not only never claimed he fired her,I have never even heard of him. The way I remember it,it was Archibald Cox that fired her, The whole "Zeifman thing" sounds like a disinformation strategy to me. 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) Of course, when you attributed words in quotation marks to Archibald Cox, in your #4, on 2015-03-30 at 6:42:40 ET, you were really quoting yourself from your later #19 on 2015-03-31 at 4:47:50 ET. You had Scotty beam you back in time and quoted yourself in your #4 from from your #19 posted a day later. What next? You were hacked? Somebody guessed your password?
You must be a very lonely little boy.
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)
Not when I am in the company of someone like you who can time travel.
You can't be ignorant enough to be serious! I am no fan of Richard "Wage and Price Controls,and lets open relations with China while we are at it!" Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime. On the other hand,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." 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) As you were not quoting anyone else, and all this is of your own recollection: 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? 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? When do you recall Hillary worked with the Watergate Committee which was in the Senate? Who do you recall caught Hillary Clinton manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked with the Special Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee? 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?
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
Comments (81 - 168) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestDid everyone Bill bedded or astroturfed in the back of his truck get a gift of a law professorship or just the ones you found really good looking?
#42. To: sneakypete (#41)
Did everyone Bill bedded or astroturfed in the back of his truck get a gift of a law professorship or just the ones you found really good looking? You think Bubbette! is really good looking. That's proof right there that you are delusional.
#43. To: out damned spot (#0)
#44. To: A K A Stone (#42)
Just because you have family members that are homos and they carry the alledged queer gene.
#45. To: sneakypete (#41)
[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."
[sneakypete #19] The way I remember it,it was Archibald Cox that fired her,
The Saturday Night Massacre was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon's executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973 during the Watergate scandal.
#46. To: nolu chan (#45)
It sounds as if you are still angry as a jilted lover of Hillary.
#47. To: sneakypete, redleghunter (#4)
[sneakypete #4] Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.
In late July 1974, the White House released the subpoenaed tapes. One of those tapes was the so-called "smoking gun" tape, from June 23, 1972, six days after the Watergate break-in. In that tape, Nixon agrees that administration officials should approach Richard Helms, Director of the CIA, and Vernon A. Walters, Deputy Director, and ask them to request L. Patrick Gray, Acting Director of the FBI, to halt the Bureau's investigation into the Watergate break-in on the grounds that it was a national security matter. The special prosecutor felt that Nixon, in so agreeing, had entered into a criminal conspiracy whose goal was the obstruction of justice.
61 - Proclamation 4311 - Granting Pardon to Richard Nixon
September 8, 1974
A Proclamation80 - The President's News Conference
September 16, 1974
Gerald R. Ford 1974
#48. To: sneakypete (#46)
Since I am neither blind nor a woman,how would such a thing even be possible?
[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."
#49. To: nolu chan (#47)
Nixon was not apprehended as a burglar. He very soon participated in a conspiracy to obstruct justice and got caught.
#50. To: nolu chan (#48)
Your obsession with Hillary appears to be that of a jilted lover with a confused and disoriented memory who wishes to disremember. Or perhaps you are still just crushing on her.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#49)
Just curious. But how many Presidents that followed Nixon do you think did a better job?
#52. To: A K A Stone (#49)
I think the Democrats needed to be spied on. Even more so today.
#53. To: nolu chan (#48)
So, what were you quoting?
#54. To: nolu chan (#52)
Liddy wrote that he thought they went looking for something the Dems had on the GOP.
#55. To: nolu chan (#52)
Are you sure that is what they were caught doing?
#56. To: sneakypete (#53)
I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand,but when someone says "the way I remember it" or anything remotely similar,they are quoting themselves.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
Meet John Doar
By THE SCRAPBOOK
The Weekly Standard Vol. 20, No. 11 TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO
H. Res. 803
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO EXERCISE ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACH
RICHARD M. NIXON
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WILLIAM O. BITTMAN, JOHN N. MITCHELL AND JOHN W. DEAN III
JULY 9, 10, 11, 1974
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
ALBERT E. JENNER, Jr., Special Counsel to the Minority
JOSEPH A. WOODS, Jr., Senior Associate Special Counsel
RICHARD CATES, Senior Associate Special Counsel
BERNARD W. NUSSBAUM, Senior Associate Special Counsel
ROBERT D. SACK, Senior Associate Special Counsel
ROBERT A. SHELTON, Associate Special Counsel
SAMUEL GARRISON III, Deputy Minority Counsel
THOMAS BELL, Counsel
W. PAUL BISHOP, Counsel
ROBERT L. BROWN, Counsel
MICHAEL M. CONWAY, Counsel
RUFUS CORMIER, Special Assistant
E. LEE DALE, Counsel
JOHN B. DAVIDSON, Counsel
EVAN A. DAVIS, Counsel
CONSTANTINE J. GEKAS, Counsel
RICHARD H. GILL, Counsel
DAGMAR HAMILTON, Counsel
DAVID HANES, Special Assistant
JOHN E. KENNAHAN, Counsel
TERRY R. KIRR PATRICE, Counsel
JOHN R. LABOVITZ, Counsel
LAWRENCE LUCCHINO, Counsel
R. L. SMITH MCKEITHEN, Counsel
ALAN MARER, Counsel
ROBERT P. MURPHY, Counsel
JAMES B. F. OLIPHANT, Counsel
RICHARD H. PORTER, Counsel
GEORGE RAYBORN, Counsel
JAMES REUM, Counsel
HILLARY D. RODHAM, Counsel
STEPHEN A. SHARP, Counsel
JARED STAMELL, Counsel
ROSCOE B. STARER III. Counsel
GARY W. SUTTON, Counsel
EDWARD S. SZIJKELEWICZ, Counsel
THEODORE TETZLAFF, Counsel
ROBERT J. TRAINOR, Counsel
J. STEPHEN WALKER, Counsel
BEN A. WALLIS, Jr., Counsel
WILLIAM WELD, Counsel
WILLIAM A. WHITE, Counsel
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
I guess I thought they were doing something like that. Breaking in to retreive something they had. That is kind of like spying.
Forty Years On, and Watergate Still Doesn’t Make Sense
A Blogger of Some Consequence
August 22, 2012 “Watergate … achieved a place in history … that it really doesn’t deserve. … The crime itself was really not a great deal. Had it not been for the Nixon resignation, it really would have been a blip in history.”
“Did that potted palm thing ever happen? … And meeting in some garage. One meeting in the garage. Fifty meetings in the garage … there’s a residual fear in my soul that that isn’t quite straight… I just find the flower in the window difficult to believe and the garage scenes…
#58. To: nolu chan (#56)
You were quoting yourself at #4?
#59. To: sneakypete (#58)
[sneakypete #58] No,I was quoting myself in my later response to your demand for a link.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#60. To: nolu chan (#59)
(Edited)
Do you usually put your random thoughts into quotation marks and attribute them as a direct quote to Archibald Cox?
#61. To: sneakypete (#60)
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#19. To: nolu chan (#11)
By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton.
#62. To: nolu chan (#61)
You had Scotty beam you back in time and quoted yourself in your #4 from from your #19 posted a day later. What next? You were hacked? Somebody guessed your password?
#63. To: sneakypete (#62)
You must be a very lonely little boy.
#64. To: sneakypete (#60)
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#65. To: nolu chan (#64)
Who 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.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]