[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 105968
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-16) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#17. To: TooConservative (#8)

It's irrelevant whether she sent or received classified info.

No,it's not. It's actually a federal felony.

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  posted on  2015-03-31   4:37:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: redleghunter (#9)

But setting up an unauthorized server with the knowledge that you are going to use it for government business including classified communications...Bad news that is criminal intent.

That's a cospiracy felony there,in addition to the felony of using unsecured means to transmit classified information.

Not that it matters. She and Bill have been committing felones,including treason, since their college days,and even after being caught several times neither got more than a slap on the hand.

AFAIK,she still has over 1,000 "raw" FBI background checks on prominent politicians and their families that she was never supposed to have even seen,and even refused to give then back to the FBI. Apparently they apologized for bothering her and slunk away with their tails betweeen their legs.

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  posted on  2015-03-31   4:43:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-03-31   4:47:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Dead Culture Watch (#15)

I can't think of a single massive government corruption scandal that snopes doesnt somehow run cover for in any degree or way they can.

It's called "disinformation". You run your own false claim that can be proven to be false,and 95 percent of the public come to believe that was the original claim.

The Dims,as benefiting their status of being controlled by communists,are past masters at this.

Notice how JFK and LBJ's little "adventures" in VN morphed into being "Nixon's War"? I have argued with grown adults who think to this day that Nixon started US involvement in VN by sending in ground combat troops.

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  posted on  2015-03-31   4:52:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: sneakypete (#19)

The way I remember it,it was Archibald Cox that fired her,

You left out your source for your slightly refashioned urban myth. I provided the original myth. She wasn't fired as alleged by Zeifman (or Cox). We should not help to elect her with arguments that help the target, like the "born in Kenya" story helped Obama.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-01   1:00:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: TooConservative (#12)

Sounds like he changed his story when he realized the danger of ending up as an Arkancide.

Provide a credible source to substantiate the claim that either Zeifman, Cox, or anyone else fired Hillary, as alleged.

You complain about Snopes as a source. There is not one credible source cited for this monumental event.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-01   1:03:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)

Snopes? Couldn't find anything from Huffpo on this?

Provide a credible source to substantiate the claim that either Zeifman, Cox, or anyone else fired Hillary, as alleged.

You complain about Snopes as a source. There is not one credible source cited for this monumental event.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-01   1:05:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan (#23) (Edited)

You complain about Snopes as a source.

I didn't think I was complaining at all. And Snopes is not exactly a serious source on many topics. How can it be, given the page-length they seem to impose?

She was terminated in a reduction-in-force without recommendation for rehire in government work, ending her career as a congressional lawyer wannabe.

It was one thing to let her go ASAP, much more serious that she didn't get a recommend for rehire. Around this time, she failed to pass the bar exam in D.C. and moved to Arkansas where she did pass the bar and ended up married to a philandering provincial governor.

Hillary got shuffled out the door. How furious she must have been.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-01   4:25:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: nolu chan (#21)

You left out your source for your slightly refashioned urban myth.

What part of "the way I remember it" has you so confused?

Shithead.

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  posted on  2015-04-01   23:52:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: sneakypete (#25)

What part of "the way I remember it" has you so confused?

The part about you remembering Archibald Cox firing Hillary Rodham. It does not have me confused, but demonstrates you must be confused.

You have yet to cite a source other than your recollection of something that did not happen, nor have I seen any report of this momentous event other than your reported memory. I have not even seen wingnut sources report that Archibald Cox did that.

Shithead.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-02   0:19:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: nolu chan (#26)

It does not have me confused, but demonstrates you must be confused.

Shithead.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-04-02   0:21:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: TooConservative (#24)

She was terminated in a reduction-in-force without recommendation for rehire in government work, ending her career as a congressional lawyer wannabe.

It was one thing to let her go ASAP, much more serious that she didn't get a recommend for rehire. Around this time, she failed to pass the bar exam in D.C. and moved to Arkansas where she did pass the bar and ended up married to a philandering provincial governor.

Hillary got shuffled out the door. How furious she must have been.

Fact check your nonsense before posting it.

In January 1974, Hillary Rodham began work for John Doar, special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. Nixon resigned in August 1974. Hillary resigned shortly after in August and went to Arkansas to be with Bill and in still in August, became an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law. After Nixon resigned, the impeachment jobs ended.

Hillary got her J.D. from Yale law in 1973. She was admitted to the Arkansas Bar on October 18, 1973. That is a year before your asinine idea that she practiced on the impeachment committee staff minus a license.

Before her 1974 stint in D.C., she had lived with Bill in California and New Haven, and after D.C. she went to Arkansas to live with Bill. They got married in their home in Arkansas.

Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock in 1976. Bill Clinton became Governor of Arkansas in 1977. Hillary became a partner at Rose Law in 1979.

There is plenty of serious issues to use for criticism of Hillary. Resort to ridiculous fairy tales that have been around for nearly twenty years is counter-productive.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-02   0:53:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Fred Mertz (#27)

Shithead.

Your best argument yet.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-02   0:53:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: nolu chan (#26)

You have yet to cite a source other than your recollection of something that did not happen,...

Why? I know you are anal to the point of being a fool,but I CLEARLY stated I was going on memory. Now you want me to document my memory?

AND....,WTH should I take YOUR sources as the truth when you are a Dim operative that dreams of living up Bubbette's ass if somebody would mark the spot for you?

Thank you all the same,but I will rely on my own memory before I will take the word of a professional leftist apologist.

Or is it that you don't understand the difference between a recollection and a documented fact? Actually,given that you are a Dim Drone you probably understand very little about anything. You just collect links to post.

And yeah,you ARE a shithead. This shouldn't come as a shock to you. I'm sure your own mother told you that often before she ran away from home or dropped you off at DNC headquarters before disappearing.

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  posted on  2015-04-02   9:26:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: nolu chan (#28) (Edited)

Hillary got her J.D. from Yale law in 1973. She was admitted to the Arkansas Bar on October 18, 1973. That is a year before your asinine idea that she practiced on the impeachment committee staff minus a license.

So,you are now claiming a Arkansas law license was required to work on a feral impeachment committee in DC?

Gee,and here I was thinking you had to have a license to practice law wherever you were,like,practicing law.

Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock in 1976. Bill Clinton became Governor of Arkansas in 1977.

Kinda overlooking the fact that Bubba Bill was the Arkansas AG before he became the Governor,ain't ya?

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  posted on  2015-04-02   9:29:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: sneakypete (#30)

Your declarative statement at #4 was:

[sneakypete #4] 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."

It was not until #19, after I posted the Snopes analysis debunking the claim and identifying Jerry Zeifman as the source of the urban myth that you first attributed to your memory that it was Archibald Cox that did it. It was already abundantly clear for 19 years that nobody did it.

At #26, I noted “You have yet to cite a source other than your recollection of something that did not happen,... “

[sneakypete #30] Why? I know you are anal to the point of being a fool,but I CLEARLY stated I was going on memory. Now you want me to document my memory?

You were going on memory in misattributing the firing to Archibald Cox at #19. You were not going on memory in republished the whole pile of bullshit that was debunked in 1996. Hillary was not fired by anyone. You remember something that never happened. In #4 you CLEARLY stated unsupported bullshit as fact and attributed to Archibald Cox the verbatim quote of the alleged recommendation that, "she never be hired or appointed to any position of trust with the government in the future." You quoted that from your memory, right?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-02   18:11:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: sneakypete (#31)

So, you are now claiming a Arkansas law license was required to work on a feral impeachment committee in DC?

Gee,and here I was thinking you had to have a license to practice law wherever you were, like, practicing law.

If that is what you think, you would do better not to think at all.

A licensed attorney of any state bar can practice for the federal government in D.C. without taking the D.C. bar exam. Hillary never passed the D.C. bar exam. Most attorneys in D.C. do not take the D.C. bar exam.

She had to be a licensed attorney to practice in D.C. starting in January 1974. She was. She was a member of the Arkansas State Bar.

Attorneys for the federal government require a J.D. and membership in good standing in any state bar. They do not need to be members of the bar where they are employed.

You do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Kinda overlooking the fact that Bubba Bill was the Arkansas AG before he became the Governor, ain't ya?

No. Hillary became an Arkansas lawyer in 1973, worked in D.C., returned to Arkansas and was a law professor in 1974, and joined Rose Law in 1976, all before Bill was elected as State AG. Kinda desperately grasping at straws, ain’t ya?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-02   18:15:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: nolu chan (#32)

It was not until #19, after I posted the Snopes analysis debunking the claim and identifying Jerry Zeifman as the source of the urban myth that you first attributed to your memory that it was Archibald Cox that did it.

Untrue. I know you have a pretty high opinion of yourself,but I have been saying that since the Clint-Roids were in the WH.

Just because you didn't see it before doesn't mean I wasn't doing it.

And frankly,your opinion of me doesn't matter enough to me to take the trouble to search that crap up.

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  posted on  2015-04-02   21:34:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: nolu chan (#32)

You were going on memory in misattributing the firing to Archibald Cox at #19. You were not going on memory in republished the whole pile of bullshit that was debunked in 1996. Hillary was not fired by anyone.

You are full of nolu chan to the tippity top of your pointy little head. The bitch WAS fired and barred from another government job or she would have never left DC and moved to Arkansas to marry Bubba. EVERY job she has had since this have been appointment jobs due to his influence.

You can take Snopes and all the other Dim apologists and accomplices and stuff them sideways. Their spin and lies and your spin and lies change nothing.

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  posted on  2015-04-02   21:37:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: nolu chan (#33)

No. Hillary became an Arkansas lawyer in 1973, worked in D.C., returned to Arkansas and was a law professor in 1974, and joined Rose Law in 1976, all before Bill was elected as State AG. Kinda desperately grasping at straws, ain’t ya?

No,that would be you doing that.

Bubba Bill had the skids greased for him from day one,thanks to the Soviet mole Senator William Fullbright and his influence.

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.

Hell,Barry Obobmer was a law professor too,and he's dumber than dirt. Still smarter than Joe Biden and Goober Gore,but still dumber than dirt.

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?

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  posted on  2015-04-02   21:43:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: sneakypete (#36)

Lol, goddamn your posts are entertaining!

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-04-03   11:36:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Biff Tannen (#37)

Thanks.

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  posted on  2015-04-03   14:45:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: sneakypete (#35)

The bitch WAS fired and barred from another government job or she would have never left DC and moved to Arkansas to marry Bubba.

And you know this because you recall a quote of Archibald Cox.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-04   0:36:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: sneakypete (#36)

Bubba Bill had the skids greased for him from day one,thanks to the Soviet mole Senator William Fullbright and his influence.

Damn, you've got all the intel. I'll bet this will inspire a story arc on The Americans.

Bubbette! got the law professor job PURELY because of his connection to Bubba

That and a J.D. from Yale Law and being a member of the Arkansas State Bar since October 18, 1973. She got the prof job before she married Bill. 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?

As for the reliable source of the bullshit story, Jerry Zeifman, he also wrote in 2008 that Eleanor Roosevelt came to him in a dream and endorsed Barack Obama.

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/eleanor-roosevelt-decries-congressional-black-caucus/

Eleanor Roosevelt Decries Congressional Black Caucus

Jerry Zeifman — February 20, 2008

Exclusive to Accuracy in Media

On January 22, 2008 I published an article describing a dream I had in which I “interviewed” Mrs. Roosevelt—who endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-04   1:01:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: nolu chan (#40)

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.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-04-04   2:25:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-04   9:26:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: out damned spot (#0)

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.

Zesta  posted on  2015-04-04   9:57:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: A K A Stone (#42)

Just because you have family members that are homos and they carry the alledged queer gene.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-04-04   22:12:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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 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

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-05   2:01:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: nolu chan (#45)

It sounds as if you are still angry as a jilted lover of Hillary.

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-04-05   5:26:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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

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.

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=

61 - Proclamation 4311 - Granting Pardon to Richard Nixon
September 8, 1974

By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

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

80 - The President's News Conference
September 16, 1974

Public Papers of the Presidents
Gerald R. Ford 1974

[...]

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.

[...]

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-05   17:38:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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."

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-05   18:24:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-05   18:45:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

:)

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-05   18:47:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: A K A Stone (#49)

Just curious. But how many Presidents that followed Nixon do you think did a better job?

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States#Ronald_Reagan

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-06   17:11:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: A K A Stone (#49)

I think the Democrats needed to be spied on. Even more so today.

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-06   17:40:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: nolu chan (#48)

So, what were you quoting?

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)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-04-06   19:44:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: nolu chan (#52)

Liddy wrote that he thought they went looking for something the Dems had on the GOP.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-06   21:43:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: nolu chan (#52)

Are you sure that is what they were caught doing?

I guess I thought they were doing something like that. Breaking in to retreive something they had. That is kind of like spying.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-06   21:44:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Good try. Here is your actual #4.

#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.

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  posted on  2015-03-30   6:42:40 ET

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

Meet John Doar

Nov 24, 2014
By THE SCRAPBOOK
The Weekly Standard Vol. 20, No. 11

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

TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES

HEARINGS
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

BOOK II
WILLIAM O. BITTMAN, JOHN N. MITCHELL AND JOHN W. DEAN III
JULY 9, 10, 11, 1974
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

[...]

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY STAFF

JOHN DOAR, Special Counsel
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

FRED H. ALTSHULER, 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

(II)
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

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-07   3:02:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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/

Forty Years On, and Watergate Still Doesn’t Make Sense

Cranky Notions
A Blogger of Some Consequence
August 22, 2012

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:

“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.”

Not only that, Bradlee went on to express his doubts about much of Woodward and Bernstein’s account of the story:

“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…

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-07   15:24:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (58 - 168) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com