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: 105954
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
#1. To: out damned spot, TooConservative, tomder55 (#0)
The stinking plot thickens. These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
If Hillary did not send classified info, the Guccifer hack indicated that she received plenty. The Petraeus/Jill Kelley link may have been another another part of this network.
That's where the similarity ends. No way in hell is Bubbette! going to even be indicted,never mind go to prison. Her backers and the DNC will sic "opposition research teams" out on the trail of anyone that even attempts to have her indicted,and anyone who does try will soon discover themselves and/or close relatives being treated to SWAT drug raids,their children will be booted out of the schools they are attending and if they even smoke pot on weekends,will be arrested for drug possession,the IRS will audit them,etc,etc,etc.
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 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)
I'm waiting for Hil-liar-y's "Checkers" speech. "I've got that email server and gosh-darnit I'm gonna keep it. 'They' aren't going to take it away from me."
I think that redleg is implying that they learned not to make the mistakes Nixon made. Like destroying evidence to coverup the truth.
As a longtime Xlinton opponent in the press, his work will be readily dismissed as more Xlinton-hating muckraking by others in libmedia. This is why he doesn't work at the Slimes any more. He's going to have to produce a real smoking gun to dent the Xlinton juggernaut for 2016.
It's irrelevant whether she sent or received classified info. Merely maintaining an unsecure channel through which such sensitive info could be channeled is criminal. If it was one or two documents, she'd get away with it. But a steady stream over a period of years demonstrates criminal intent.
You are correct. One or two documents sent via unsecure means would be written off as unknown 'spillage'. Given someone in her office would be sending things from both the unclassified and classified networks. On government systems in such a case, the netword administrator usually suspends the account of the offender, and either a letter of concern or reprimand is issued. If it is established there was knowing intent to do so then the punishment is more severe even for civilian employees. 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.
"For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22)
I think something has to be sent or received, so being able to prove one or the other happened is relevant. Every email address is capable of receiving classified information. I think Hillary and her staff's accounts were used to send and receive loads of the stuff. The Guccifer hack of Blumenthal exposed some of the stuff that was sent to her.
Urban myth. 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: 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
Sounds like he changed his story when he realized the danger of ending up as an Arkancide.
Snopes? Couldn't find anything from Huffpo on this?
Snopes isn't sanitizing much here. Quite often, these legal staffs in a congressional inquiry expand and shrink over time. The key point is that Hitlery was one of the first let go and she got no recommendation for any rehires. That is a very bad sign for a young lawyer trying to get a regular congressional gig, apparently what Hitlery was after. The Snopes version is pretty damning overall, considering this is the Smartest Woman In The World™.
Ya, but most people read the 'False', and stop there. 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.
You may be right.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No,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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Shithead.
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.
Your best argument yet.
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)
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)
Your declarative statement at #4 was: 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,... “ 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?
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. 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?
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)
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)
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)
Lol, goddamn your posts are entertaining!
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)
And you know this because you recall a quote of Archibald Cox.
Damn, you've got all the intel. I'll bet this will inspire a story arc on The Americans. 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/ 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.
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.â€
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.â€
Thanks,and nolu chan is going to continue to tap dance around the fact that I remembered all the important details,except for the identity of the man that fired her. He is on a desperate disinformation quest. Deny and focus on ONE wrong fact in an attempt to convince people all the other facts are also wrong.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
He'll spam you to death if you aren't careful. Plus, he always has to get in the last word.
He is either a dysfunctional anal Austistic,or a Dim lawyer. Or am I repeating myself?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You know I do believe that's the first time I've ever heard you say that. Yup, that's a new one for Pete. Dunno if it's helped win any argument, but pretty funny. And oddly, I have heard a variant of it... For reference sake, it was suggested I "Rotate-on-this" by my clever HS baseball coach when I'd asked, "Am I in the pitching rotation??" "Rotation" or "Ro" subsequently became a nick of mine for years.
Lol..."Homohood"? Is Pete still crusading? Pete, are you willing to concede that you've been conned into supporting the pro-homo jihad (which has suddenly promoted Totalitarianism)? Or have you changed you mind yet on your misguided crusade? We both recall queers merely demanding the "right" to sodomize each other silly "in the privacy of the bedroom." Now it's evolved into homo's "right" to violate a Christian's 1st Amendment Right as well as their 14th Amendment right. Still onboard their agenda?
The whole "law professor" thing is a popular scam by the DNC to park future candidates until they can find a spot for them where they will have influence. Bubbette! got the law professor job PURELY because of his connection to Bubba and because she couldn't do anything else other than be the "bag lady" for Bubba. Now I guess you are going to tell us all it was her vast experience as a successful entrepreneur that got her the board seat at Wal-Mart? Well, Pete is totally spot on in these brief assessments of the Klintoons. I don't know if it's germane to your debate. That said, can one (or both of you) of you please succinctly explain the actual gist or contention of your respective debate? A lot of energy and thought has been expended. Thanks...
LOL. Well I'm sure you could pitch. I get the younsters always saying "I wanna pitch coach, I wanna pitch coach." Like I'm their parents holding back some ice cream at bedtime. This year I tried a different approach. I let the ones who thought they could pitch (note these are 9 and 10 year old boys and some are more devoloped than others physically) toss around 15 pitches until they realized it takes time to devolop into a pitcher. So the "lemmie pitch" cries have gone down a bit this year:) Then there is the big kid who looks like he's 14 who has no interest in pitching and just slamming the ball. Spent an hour with that kid on the mound last night. Boy can he bring in the heat and has a natural break on the ball. Good kid he asked "coach am I pitching?" I said "yes." He said "do I have to?" I said "You BETCHA.":) I'm a softie so I sweetened the deal by telling him that he will bat clean up on opening day. He was happy, so I guess we have 'an accord.'
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
- - - Because you do not know what your own supposed recollection is about, it is a moral imperative that I tell you for the first time what your supposed "recollection" was about. It is another bloviation of Jerry Zeifman that was exaggerated in an urban legend. Jerry Zeifman, Hillary's Pursuit of Power, Xlibris, 2006. Chapter 11 is entitled "Hillary's Secret Book." At page 47, Zeifman explains that, At page 48-49, Zeifman goes on to bloviate, Hillary had been assigned to work with Yale professor C. Van Woodward—who was a colleague of Burke Marshall—to help him and a small group of Yale professors prepare a sanitized account of past abuses of presidential power that did not disclose the crimes committed during the Kennedy administration with the help of the Mafia. … Albert Jenner, Doar's Republican counterpart on the impeachment inquiry staff, was to say of the report, "We've kept it top secret." Without the permission of Rodino and after Nixon's resignation the secret sanitized report was eventually published commercially. You see, not giving this information to Nixon somehow equates to hiding evidence from him. And Hillary was fired by Archibald Cox for doing that dastardly deed. The "small group" was fairly sizable. "Eventually published" means 1974 with an Editor's Note dated August 14th, 1974. On October 3, 1974, Peter Rodino wrote a letter in which he stated: In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case. As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment. What was this bombshell with the JFK scandals suppressed? What was the assignment and who wrote it? It was published in 1974 by Dell Publishing Co., Inc. It was entitled, RESPONSES OF THE PRESIDENTS TO CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT, Edited with an added Introduction by C. Vann Woodward, Sterling Professor of History, Yale University, Director of the Study. C. Vann Woodward, Editor and Director Merrill D. Peterson, Supervisor of the period from 1789 to 1861 William S. McFeely, Supervisor of the period from 1861 to 1901 William E. Leuchtenburg, Supervisor of the period from 1901 to 1969 And there are the "Editor's Acknowledgements." C. V. W. New Haven, Conn., It was not evidence. It was not written by Hillary Rodham in Washington. It was not written by lawyers, but by a group of historians in Connecticut. In the introduction at xxvi, C. Vann Woodward writes, On page xxvii, "The Scope of the Study," one finds, It was an historical study, written by historians. Junior attorney Hillary Rodham was their go-fer in Washington. The section on JFK, 1961-1963, begins on page 319 and reports on Secretary Udall and Political Contributions, Billy Sol Estes, and TFX Fighter-Bombers. How would it make Nixon innocent? After the smoking gun tape came out and another showed an 18½ minute deletion, nothing could make Nixon innocent. He resigned almost immediately. He had no defense. A history study, written by historians, would not give him one. John Doar was the Special Counsel. He told his staff not to tell anyone about the study. Hillary Rodham was on Doar's staff. She did not tell Zeifman about the study. Zeifman could have said that over twenty years later, but that wouldn't sell books for him. It also wouldn't provide much fodder to build an Urban legend. The list of things Hillary actually got up to is almost endless. Scandals abound, even in the 21st century. And you pick a 1970's Urban Legend to run with. Way to go. But just think on the bright side, now you know what your vivid recollection of "hidden evidence" was about, and why it was never in news reports.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Repeating the bullshit in an URBAN MYTH does not make it true. Hillary Rodham was hired by and worked for the Special Counsel, John Doar and assigned by him to Bernard Nussbaum. Jerry Zeifman was not on the Special Counsel staff. Hillary Rodham was not fired. Zeifman lacked authority to fire Hillary Rodham had he wanted to. The notion that Hillary was fired at all goes back to the creative writing of Dan Calabrese link. Zeifman didn't say that and he stated he did not have the power to do it. Copy of Sacramento Bee Article, 11/4/1998 (PDF) Sacramento Bee [Excerpt] http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality." Origins: Former First Lady Hillary Clinton is no stranger to political scandal and controversy, and a specific accusation concerning her work as a young lawyer on the Watergate investigation has dogged her political career for more than a decade. The claim originated with Jerry Zeifman, under whom Clinton worked in 1974 as a member of the impeachment inquiry staff for the House Committee on the Judiciary during the course of the scandal. The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim? By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her: Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed: Following Zeifman's 2008 interview with Boortz, a column by Dan Calabrese ("FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON FIRED FROM WATERGATE INVESTIGATION FOR 'LYING, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR'") cemented the belief that Hillary Clinton had been "fired" from the Watergate investigation in political lore: However, one need only go back to the source of the rumor and Zeifman's own statement that he did not have the power to fire Hillary Clinton to discount that now common version of political lore: the evidence indicates that, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Clinton's behavior, she was let go from the Watergate committee because she was one of a number of people who were no longer needed as the investigation wound down (and Nixon's resignation made the issue moot), not because she was "fired" over ethical issues. Last updated: 21 October 2014
Well you got the identity wrong and she wasn't fired. Most all your details are bullshit and sourced from Dan Calabrese's bullshit. Tap dance around this – Zeifman said he did not have the power to fire Hillary. Copy of Sacramento Bee Article, 11/4/1998 (PDF) Sacramento Bee [Excerpt]
Hillary’s Crocodile Tears in Connecticut Jerry Zeifman — February 5, 2008 21 Comments | Printer Friendly I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears. Hillary Clinton crying My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations. Hillary as I knew her in 1974 At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham—who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House. During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book, Without Honor, and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library. After President Nixon’s resignation, a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel—as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following: John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics]. Labovitz said, ‘That came from Yale.’ I said, ‘You mean Burke Marshall’ [Senator Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, ‘Yes.’ His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition. At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust. Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After becoming a Yale professor, he also became Senator Ted Kennedy’s lawyer at the time of Chappaquidick—as well as Kennedy’s chief political strategist. As a result, some of his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the Camelot government in exile. In addition to getting Hillary a job on the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, Kennedy and Marshall had also persuaded Peter Rodino (D-NJ), then-Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to place two other close friends of Marshall in top positions on our staff. One was John Doar; who had been Marshall’s deputy in the Justice Department—whom Rodino appointed to head the impeachment inquiry staff. The other was Bernard Nussbaum, who had served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York—who was placed in charge of conducting the actual investigation of Nixon’s malfeasance. Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976, they hoped to keep Nixon in office “twisting in the wind” for as long as possible. This would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and restoring moral authority to the Republican Party. As was later quoted in the biography of Tip O’Neill (by John Farrell), a liberal Democrat would have become a “shoe-in for the presidency in 1976" if Nixon had been kept in office until the end of his term. However, both Tip O’Neill and I—as well as most Democrats—regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon with Ford as soon as possible. As a result, as described by O’Neill, we coordinated our efforts to “keep Rodino’s feet to the fire.” A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon’s effort to “cover up” the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance). In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo. After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.” Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff—where they were no longer accessible to the public. Hillary had also made other ethically flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with—or take depositions of—any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department’s special Watergate prosecutor. Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary’s recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment-inquiry staffers. It was not until two months after Nixon’s resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into “a troubling set of events.” That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked “that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.” And, while “no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use,” Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted—at committee expense—by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings. The report was kept secret from members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote: “I am especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course of our investigation.” He was also concerned that staff members may have unlawfully received royalties from the book’s publisher. On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: “Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form.” No effort was ever made to ascertain whether or not Hillary or any other person on the committee staff received royalties. Two decades later Bill Clinton became President. As was later to be described in The Wall Street Journal by Henry Ruth—the lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor—“The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party.” http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut/
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
You mean other than dodging the draft and visiting Russia,where he was wined and dined by prominent communists,including one lady in Moscow that worked for Stalin during the Revolution? Bubba Bill even slept at her apartment,and admitted this when he visited Moscow as president and invited her to a dinner party he threw and introducted her as one of his hosts during his commie tour. He also visited the North Korean embassy in Moscow. What do you recall Hillary Rodham Clinton did in her college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort? You mean other than working with some of the leaders in the CPUSA,and supporting them?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Just how obsessed with homosexuality are you?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No. Not wanting to burn them at the stake is NOT the same thing as supporting them. For the record,I DO insist that homosexuals have the same Constitutional Rights as any other American citizen. If this weren't true,this wouldn't be America.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Obsessed or disgusted with? The way I see it they should keep it to themselves in their own closet and not out for the whole world to see, laugh at and be disgusted by. Something they need to be reminded of on a daily basis or it will only get worse. You hate what this country is becoming so why can't you see what one of the reasons for that is?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
Oh BTW you should know that by now that I don't discriminate, I give just as much schitt to Leftards, Moderates and Faux Conservatives as I do Homos.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
IMHO,the prime reason our country is turning fascist is because the globalists have been successful in their efforts to turn us all against each other that we spend all our time fighting each other instead of uniting to fight the bastards taking over our country. What two or more consenting adults do in privacy is none of my,or your, business,and I don't even want to hear about it. What IS my business,as well as the business of every other American that values individual rights and freedoms,is the global conspiracy by the international bankers to destroy our form of government and take away all our individual freedoms. IF you and others,including the homosexuals, could set aside your emotional bigotry for a moment and look at the facts alone,you would all realize that homosexuals as a group should be our biggest allies because history proves they will be the first groups to be led to the gulags. It boils down to the fact that in the final analysis we are all in the same boat,and the damn boat is sinking while people keep screaming about which direction to row it instead of getting together to bail the damn thing out. It's all about "Me,ME,ME,DAMMIT!",and nobody seems to give a damn about the pending death of the greatest country that has ever existed.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Most people don't even know what a Globalist is hence it's easy to distract them. But globalists are only one piece of the puzzle so exterminating them will only get you so far, it's a good start but not the end game.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
So in your twisted alleged mind....Christians -- whose livelihoods, culture, and faith are now being spit upon by homfascists and a Constititution that no longer applies to them -- are wanting burn who "at the stake"?? Is it the medication are you really that detached from reality? For the record,I DO insist that homosexuals have the same Constitutional Rights as any other American citizen. If this weren't true,this wouldn't be America. For the record, your "Constitution" is THE same exact fake USCON in play at the ACLU, SPLC, and LBQT headquarters. Homos indeed have MORE "rights" than either straight/normal citizens or Christians. Tell me why there are special laws like "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crimes" for queers if you're so d*mned committed to "same constitutional rights"?
Man, your fixation on any and all things homosexual has got to stop. Get help.
Yeah -- apparently repulsion over the homosexual fascism is ok with Pete. Why be disgusted just because young children are being taught and brainwashed in elementary school that sodomy is "normal" as well as "gay marriage"?? You see -- "enlightened" people like Pete -- who believe they are human "rights" crusaders -- are enablers of this insanity as well as helping spearhead the homofascist agenda. They share one thing in common: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend": Christians. The way I see it they should keep it to themselves in their own closet and not out for the whole world to see, laugh at and be disgusted by. Something they need to be reminded of on a daily basis or it will only get worse. Reminding queers of their open faggotry? That's why "Hate speech" laws are now in effect where people get fired from their jobs, businesses get shut down, or people arrested. Convenient, eh? So you JUST want "constitutional rights" for gays, eh Pete? Which ones? The 1st Amendment? The 14th? Chyeah, right. This nonsense and insanity will only get worse as long as long as the idiots who buy into this "Gays be victums of bigotry" BS and keep on supporting it. And...It's NOT the nature of Queers to just...be. They must be flamboyant about EVERYTHING, mustn't they? And no, they aren't interested in Constitutional parity, but in garnering even MORE special rights above and beyond. NO different than those other militant" victumhood" champs -- "aggrieved" blacks.
14 words. One sentence. You trying to become another Tolstoy? Never mind. Just keep on doing what you do: Hanging like a HUGE mothball in a tiny closet.
Globalists and One-Worlders are one reason; The other is idiots like you who've been brainwashed by the media into supporting a huge part of the Left's agenda -- that is to kill God and take down Christianity and the underpinnings of morality. On the shoulders of Christianity is what America has ALWAYS been, and why it has been great. So. Thanks. FOR NOTHING. What two or more consenting adults do in privacy is none of my,or your, business,and I don't even want to hear about it. Are YOU kidding?? Is that why we're bombarded and inundated with WHO, WHAT, WHERE and ALL things "gay" in Yahoo/Google/MSNBC/NYT/Social Media 24/7?? Homos won't shut up. They're on a roll. Homos NEVER shut up about what defines them as human beings: THEIR GENITALS. IF you and others,including the homosexuals, could set aside your emotional bigotry for a moment and look at the facts alone,you would all realize that homosexuals as a group should be our biggest allies because history proves they will be the first groups to be led to the gulags. LMAO! And btw -- "history" proves that the origins of the Nazi Party were by and large...HOMOSEXUAL. They don't call them the "gaystapo" for nothing either. It boils down to the fact that in the final analysis we are all in the same boat,and the damn boat is sinking while people keep screaming about which direction to row it instead of getting together to bail the damn thing out. Yes, the boat IS sinking fast. But there are TWO sides. One side is bailing, one side is poking MORE holes into the hull. YOU are now on the WRONG side and helping those destroying the ship.
Guess what,Bucko! Christians don't run the world. This means you are either going to have to learn to get along with other people and leave them to live their lives in peace,or take a long jump with a short rope. Your choice. Is it the medication are you really that detached from reality? Which one of us believes in Holy Spooks and magic? Homos indeed have MORE "rights" than either straight/normal citizens or Christians. No,they don't. They have the EXACT same rights as everyone else. They only have more rights in the minds of people like you who just aren't happy unless you feel like persecuted victims. You love following orders,and want everyone else to follow the same orders so you can feel like you matter and are someone important and informed. Tell me why there are special laws like "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crimes" for queers if you're so d*mned committed to "same constitutional rights"? Easy. Because there are people who are the mirror-image of you who want the Constitution to protect them by punishing people they don't agree with. They are wrong,and so are you. The US Constitution is about equal treatment for ALL citizens. Even fundies and homos.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I think you wrote that "backwards",but it doesn't matter to me either way. I honestly don't give a damn what you,homosexuals,or anyone else thinks. I only care when you lobby to get the laws changed so the government enforces your bigotry and superstition. They share one thing in common: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend": Christians. You are delusional. Christians aren't my enemy. LOONS are the enemy of reason,though,and you are a loon if you think America needs to be controlled by a religious cult based on fear and punishment.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Dummy,they wouldn't HAVE a public agenda if it weren't for loons like you screaming about how they don't have the same rights as every other citizen. It's foaming at the mouth raving lunatics like you that get them their support. that is to kill God and take down Christianity and the underpinnings of morality. Just how powerful do you really think your freaking God is if some unknown person on the internet can kill him with words and logic? I will admit that I am surprised that you think he/it is a powerless joke,though. On the shoulders of Christianity is what America has ALWAYS been, and why it has been great. So. Thanks. FOR NOTHING. Proving once again how delusional you really are. Which is typical of cult members. It's why they are attracted to cults.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
BTW,that's not true. Some of the strongarm "bully boys" in leadership positions with the police in the early days were homosexuals,but they were pretty much killed off once Hitler took power. In fact,you will be happy to know that Hitler and Stalin both agreed with you that homosexuality was a mental disease,and both send them off to be executed or worked to death in labor camps. You must be sooooo proud!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
sneakypete repeated an off-topic urban legend at #4 that Hillary Clinton was fired from the Impeachment Inquiry Staff in 1974 by Archibald Cox. At #11, I posted two words of my own, "Urban myth," and the Snopes debunking of the urban myth, showing that Hillary was not fired and that Jerry Zeifman never fired her either. At #19 sneakypete claimed that he never said that Zeifman fired her, but that "[t]he way I remember it, it was Archibald Cox that fired her." At #25, sneakypete tried to weasel out of responsibility for his #4 claim that "Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committee,and hiding evidence favorable to him and was fired for it by Archibald Cox …" He claimed he said it was only as he remembered it. And then he decided to call he "shithead." Since then I have adied and abetted him in his display of his stream of unconsciousness. Archibald Cox had been fired from his Executive Branch position Special Prosecutor in the Saturday Night Massacre in 1973, before Hillary was employed, in 1974, in her Legislative Branch position with the Impeachment Inquiry staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary, headed by Special Counsel John Doar. She was not fired by Archibald Cox, she was not fired by Jerry Zeifman, she was not fired. Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974 and the Impeachment Inquiry staff was disbanded as you cannot impeach an ex-President. Along with others, when her position was abolished, her employment was terminated. She was not fired for misconduct, and Jerry Zeifman lacked authority to do it had he wanted to. It didn't happen. Of course, had he really posted and quoted from memory, he should know what "his" allegations were about, and he demonstrably does not. The urban myths originate from the column spun from the Dan Calabrese article which falsely claimed that Jerry Zeifman had fired Hillary Clinton, attributing the act to Zeifman but not quoting. As for Zeifman's ability to fire Hillary, consider the following from his book, Without Dishonor, and guess whether he would have been told to eff off. Special Counsel John Doar and his senior assistants were the pros from Dover (M.A.S.H. ref) brought in to handle the case. At 92: Doar and Lois and I then sat alone in Room 2141. Doar turned to Lois, and without consulting me, they began formulating policies for putting lawyers and investigators on the committee's payroll. … I was confused and angered by Doar all afternoon—and concerned about his latching on to Lois in a way that is intended to bypass me in his dealings with Rodino and the committee. Zeifman was miffed. They were not equals. Doar was there because Zeifman was not competent to do the job. Doar did not need to consult with Zeifman. Doar did not answer to Zeifman. At 99: At 119: Rodham went on the payroll as well. Zeifman had no power of a veto over what Doar wanted. In Hillary's Pursuit of Power, (2006), Jerry Zeifman wrote at 6, "One of the first lawyers to be hired by Doar was Marshall's star pupil, Hillary Rodham." [italics added] At 101: Stonefaced, Doar replied, "That is not what this case is about! I will do this case in my own way." At one point in our discussions he also said: "You have had no actual experience in the prosecution of criminal cases, I have. I was an Assistant Attorney General." I told Doar that this was not a criminal prosecution, but rather a civil proceding based on a congressional investigation. I added that I had previously headed a congressional investigation… Zeifman did not tell Doar what to do. Zeifman has blessed us with this gem from "Without Honor," at 31: As a convicted felon, John Dean was disbarred.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut/ Geez, you're pathetic. Zeifman did not say he fired Hillary. He terminated her employment, along with others, after Nixon resigned and the employment of the Impeachent Inquiry Staff was shut down. You do not continue an impeachment inquiry when there is nobody to impeach. Nixon resigned August 9. Hillary was employed in Arkansas later in the month. That is about three weeks. Nobody in a federal civil service job can be fired that fast. The incumbent obtains a property right to federal employment and must be given due process, to include fair notice, a right to respond, and a fair hearing. When they need to remove someone from the job immediately, they must be put on paid administrative leave until due process runs its course. Of course, Jerry Zeifman had no authority to fire Hillary at all. In his 1995 book, Without Honor, he had not yet remembered that he either fired her or had made a negative recommendation, or anything about a recommendation. At page 12: At page 220: By the next morning Rodham had made her decision. She took the train down to Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1977, when her husband became Attorney General, Rodham joined Rose law firm as an associate. She was on the payroll that night and left in the morning. She was not fired. Jerry Zeifman, 1998, Copy of Sacramento Bee Article, 11/4/1998 (PDF) In his 2006 book, Hillary's Pursuit of Power, Zeifman did not allege any firing of Hillary, preface at page 11. Jerry Zeifman, Accuracy in Media February 5, 2008, Radio interview with Neal Boortz, April 2008, In a 2008 radio interview, Zeifman stated he terminated her, along with some other stafff members who were no longer needed. After Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford was the President, there was nothing for the Impeachment Inquiry Staff left to do but close up shop and leave. The entire staff was terminated. None was fired. The urban legend or eRumor started with the crap written by Dan Calabrese. http://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/ POLITICS Summary of eRumor: As a 27-year-old working on the Watergate investigation in the 1970s, Hillary Rodham Clinton was “fired” from her position for being a “liar” and “unethical”. The Truth: It’s true that Hillary Clinton’s ex-boss has accused her of being a “liar” and “unethical” during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment inquiry into Watergate, but claims that she was fired for those reasons are false. Claims that Hillary Clinton had been fired from the impeachment inquiry first went viral during her 2008 presidential bid. A column written by Dan Calabrese, the founder of Northstar Writers Group, appeared in countless forwarded emails, and the eRumor was born. The column was inspired by statements made by Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat who served as counsel and chief of staff for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” and comments that he made on his website, which is no longer active, have been critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s actions during the Watergate investigation, and in the years that followed. Jerry Zeifman said he supervised Hillary Rodham Clinton as she worked on the team that worked on the Watergate impeachment inquiry, and that during the investigation Hillary Clinton had “…engaged in a variety of self-serving, unethical practices in violation of House rules.” Specifically, Jerry Zeifman said Hillary Rodham Clinton and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office so Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy would have a better chance of being elected president. Zeifman said a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him in August of 1974 to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “…her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.” Jerry Zeifman also said that Hillary Rodham Clinton regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, which was a violation of House rules. Zeifman said in addition to helping Ted Kennedy win the presidency, Democrats also didn’t want Nixon to face an impeachment trial because they feared he might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy as part of his defense. But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have: Zeifman said Rodham sparked a bitter battle among Democrats by recommending the Judiciary Committee deny Nixon’s lawyers the right to attend the closed-door meetings. ‘Can you imagine that? This was a committee of lawyers and members of the bar, and she was saying the committee should deny the president representation,’ he said. After a lengthy behind-the-scenes debate, Zeifman said the committee decided Nixon’s lawyers could attend.” In an interview on the Neal Boortz Show in 2008, Jerry Zeifman altered his claim about Hillary’s termination from the Watergate investigation: When pressed, Zeifman said he couldn’t recommend Hillary Rodham Clinton for future positions, “Because of her unethical conduct.” Despite that, however, Clinton was terminated because she was “no longer needed” — not because she had lied, according to Zeifman’s own account. But in a 2008 column Zeifman wrote, “My own reaction was of regret, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.” In 2008, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign replied to Zeifman’s claims directly by saying, “In a column circulating on the Internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s. This is false. Hillary was not fired.” That website has since been taken offline. Posted 04/7/08 Updated 02/17/15
You must be trying to get Hillary elected. This crap ranks right up there with the Barry Soetoro bullshit. All the birther insanity helped him and discredited the opposition. I note that you have provided no source by your senile vacationing memory for your assertions. It is always relevant exactly what nutjob you are cribbing from. Even if your unsupported drivel were true, it would not constitute treason. [nolu chan #64] What do you recall Bill Clinton did in his college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort? [sneakypete #83 re Bill Clinton] You mean other than dodging the draft and visiting Russia,where he was wined and dined by prominent communists,including one lady in Moscow that worked for Stalin during the Revolution? Bubba Bill even slept at her apartment,and admitted this when he visited Moscow as president and invited her to a dinner party he threw and introducted her as one of his hosts during his commie tour. He also visited the North Korean embassy in Moscow. Yes, I meant what I asked. I provided the defined acts required for there to be treason from the Constitution. You have cited your usual bullshit. Do you maintain, - - - [sneakypete #83 re Hillary Rodham Clinton] You mean other than working with some of the leaders in the CPUSA,and supporting them? Do you maintain, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. [sneakypete #83 re Hillary Rodham Clinton] You mean other than working with some of the leaders in the CPUSA,and supporting them? So do these "leaders in the CPUSA" have names? What did she allegedly do? Do you refer to working as a summer intern with the law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein? Did everyone who worked at the law firm commit treason? Do you have some special insight about your definition of treason? Are you always so pathetic? Or do you really want to discredit Hillary's opposition by painting them all as nut jobs?
No,that would be you.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Absurd claims that Barack Obama was really Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, worked so well that you want to emulate it and drag out all the ridiculous claims about Hillary. It must be time to water my pet geranium and see if it sprouts brains. In review, your nonsense, Of course, everybody who goes to Russia commits treason and every day any employee went to work at the law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, they committed treason. Except she wasn’t and you have yet to recall who you recollected caught her or what evidence she was caught manufacturing. Except you have yet to recall what evidence you recollected she hid or how it was favorable to the very guilty Richard Nixon. Except she was never fired by anyone, and never worked for Archibald Cox. She was never fired and she received no such recommendation. 24 years after Watergate, Jerry Zeifman said, “If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her.” Jerry Zeifman wrote in 1995, “Rodham performed her job admirably.”
Article 2 This conduct has included one or more of the following: In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2%3C4RL%3B9%0A 2. Illegal Wiretaps. Caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of seventeen persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code. 3. Conspiracy to Suppress Free Speech. Caused harassment, by means of tax audits and other acts by the Internal Revenue Service, of named persons designated as political "enemies" of President Nixon for the purpose of inhibiting or preventing their exercise of First amendment rights, in violation of section 241 of the Criminal Code. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Burglary and Other Crimes. Caused the creation and adoption of a so called "domestic intelligence plan" for securing information about American citizens, under which plan it was intended to commit unlawful acts of burglary, wiretapping, bugging and the opening of mail; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code. 5. Burglary. Caused the creation of a "special investigations unit," called "the Plumbers," in which were employed, inter alia, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, which carried out a burglary on September 3, 1972 of the office of Lewis Fielding, M.D. in Los Angeles, California, for the purpose of obtaining evidence for use in the trial of Daniel Ellsberg; in violation of sections 182.1, 459, 6020(j) and 647(a) of the California Penal Code and section 241 of the Criminal Code. 6. Obstruction of Justice. Attempted to influence a United States District Court Judge, Hon. W. Matthew Byrne, in a matter then pending trial before him, to wit, the prosecution by the United States of Daniel Ellsberg for violation of the espionage statutes, by suggesting to Judge Byrne that he might be appointed as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; in violation of sections 371 and 1503 of the Criminal Code. 7. Conspiracy to Commit Crimes to Influence the Election. Adopted a plan or scheme proposed by G. Gordon Liddy to employ various unlawful devices, including wiretaps, illegal entries, assault and battery and prostitution, to influence the results of the 1972 Presidential election in a manner favorable to Richard M. Nixon; in violation of section 371 of the Criminal Code. 8. Burglary. Caused the commission of two acts of burglary on May 27, 1972 and June 17, 1972, by the "Plumbers" into the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Office Building, 2500 Virginia Avenue, N.W., in the District of Columbia, in violation of 22 D.C. Code 1801; the placing therein of a telephone wiretap in violation of section 2510 of the Criminal Code; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code. 9. Obstruction of Justice, Perjury. Concealed the complicity of high officials of the White House staff and of the campaign Committee to Re-Elect the President in the acts specified in Counts 7 and 8, for the purpose of defeating and preventing criminal prosecutions by the United States, by (a) destroying documentary evidence, (b) concealing the existence of documentary evidence, (c) promising executive clemency and paying money and causing money to be paid to G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzales, Frank Sturgis, James McCord and Eugenio Martinez to induce them, and which did induce them, to plead guilty to charges of burglary and to withhold testimony and to refuse to testify before a grand jury and at trial, (d) suborning perjury by Jeb S. Magruder at the trial of Liddy, et al.; in violation of sections 371, 1503, 1510, 1621 and 1622 of the Criminal Code. 10. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. President Nixon, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, Herbert Kalmbach and Maurice Stans, in concert with and aided and abetted by others, conspired to devise and carry out a plan or scheme to obtain money to spend for and- in support of the reelection of Richard M. Nixon as President of the United States in 1972, in which they employed various unlawful means, to wit, obtaining campaign contributions from corporations and foreign nationals in violation of sections 610 and 613 of the Criminal Code, and soliciting and/or obtaining campaign contributions from individuals, political committees, corporations and foreign nationals in exchange for promises of governmental benefit and/or the withholding of governmental sanctions and/or the cessation of governmental law enforcement action; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 241, 371, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 10, President Nixon and his co-conspirators: 11. Illegal Campaign Contributions from Corporations. Solicited and obtained before April 7, 1972, campaign contributions from seven corporations, in violation of sections 371 and 610 of the Criminal Code, and by means of express or implied promises of governmental benefits and/or threats of the withholding of governmental benefits; in violation of sections 201, 371 and 872 of the Criminal Code. 12. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited a contribution of $200,000 to $400,000 and obtained a contribution of $100,000 from the ITT Corporation promised on July 21, 1971, and delivered on August 5, 1971 to support the Republican National Convention expected to be held in San Diego, California; by means of promises, express or implied, to obtain a decision by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, which decision was obtained on July 31, 1971, to accept a consent decree which permitted ITT to retain the Hartford Fire Insurance Co., which the Antitrust Division had theretofore opposed by the filing and prosecution of a civil antitrust action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 271, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 13. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained a promise of a campaign contribution of $2,000,000 for President Nixon's reelection campaign from Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI), a dairy farm cooperative, in exchange for conferring on December 31, 1970, a governmental benefit on AMPI, to wit, the promulgation by President Nixon of reduced quotas for imports of dairy products; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 14. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained from three dairy producer cooperatives a promise of contributions to President Nixon's reelection campaign and obtained at least $427,500 in such contributions, from March 22, 1971, to November 6, 1972, in exchange for conferring upon the three cooperatives on March 25, 1971, a governmental benefit, to wit, an increase ordered by the Secretary of Agriculture in the minimum price support level for dairy products for 1971-72 from $4.66 to $4.93 per 100 lbs. of fluid manufacturing grade milk; at a cost of $125 million to the Treasury of the United States and to the profit of the dairy industry of $500 to $700 million; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 15. Conspiracy. Solicited and obtained from AMPI's political committee, TAPE, a contribution of $5,000, delivered on September 3, 1973, at a meeting which President Nixon attended, part of the funds obtained as specified in Count 14, expressly for the purpose of paying the costs of the "plumbers"'burglary of the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding specified in Count 8; in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code. 16. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, from Robert Allen, President of Gulf Resources and Chemical Co., Inc., on April 3-5, 1972, a contribution of $100,000 of corporate funds in violation of section 610 of the Criminal Code, in exchange for the cessation and withholding, on March 29, 1972, of civil enforcement action by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States Government to abate air and water pollution by Gulf Resources and Chemical Company's subsidiary Bunker Hill Company's lead and zinc smelter in Idaho; in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 17. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, on April 9, 1972, from Dwayne O. Andreas, a contribution of $25,000, in exchange for conferring upon Andreas and other persons associated with him a governmental benefit, to wit, the approval by the Comptroller of the Currency of a national bank charter sought by Andreas and his associates, applied for on May 26, 1972 and approved on August 22, 1972; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201,- 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 18. Conspiracy. Solicited and obtained the contributions specified in Counts 16 and 17 for the purpose, in part, of paying for the burglary of Democratic National Committee headquarters specified in Count 8, in violation of sections 241 and 371 of the Criminal Code and 22 D.C. Code 1801. 19. Bribery, Fraud, Illegal Foreign Campaign Contributions. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, in April and in October, 1972, contributions totalling $25,000, from Nikos Vardinoyannis, a Greek national; in violation of Section 613 of the Criminal Code, and in exchange for conferring upon Vardinoyannis a governmental benefit, to wit, a contract for $4.7 million in U.S. government funds to supply fuel for the U.S. Sixth Fleet in Piraeus, Greece; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 20. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, in August, 1972, from officers of carpet manufacturing fines, Martin B. Seretean, Eugene T. Barwick and J. C. Shaw, contributions totalling more than $200,000 in exchange for conferring upon the carpet industry governmental benefits, to wit, a meeting at the White House with Charles Colson and other government officials, including officials from the Department of Commerce, and the withholding by the Department of Commerce of action opposed by the carpet industry, to wit, the introduction of a test for flammability of carpets more stringent and of higher safety than the current test, in violation of article 11, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 21. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, in June, July and August, 1972, from Ray A. Kroc, Chairman of the Board of McDonald's, Inc., contributions of $200,000, in exchange for permission from the Price Commission, first denied on May 21, 1972, then granted on September 8, 1972, to raise the price of the McDonald's quarter Nixon Articles of Impeachment http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/371d1/nixonarticles.html 7 of 9 11/16/2011 10:49 AM pounder cheeseburger, in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and Section 201, 372, 872 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 22. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, from the Seafarer's International Union, on November 2, 1972, a contribution of $100,000, in exchange for the conferring of a governmental benefit, to wit, the decision of the Department of Justice not to appeal dismissal of an indictment against the Union, filed on June 30, 1970,for violations of section 610 of the Criminal Code prohibiting campaign contributions by Unions; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 610, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 23. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained for the reelection campaign of President Nixon, from Robert Vesco,.on April 10, 1972, a contribution of $200,000, which was not reported to the General Accounting Office as required by law, in exchange for conferring upon Vesco governmental benefits, to wit, arranging a meeting between his attorney, Harry Sears, and federal law enforcement officials, to wit the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and promises of other benefits, to wit, that John Mitchell and Maurice Stans would use their influence to prevent law enforcement action from being taken against Vesco; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 24. Bribery, Fraud. Solicited and obtained, purportedly for the 1972 reelection campaign of President Nixon, in 1969 and 1970, contributions tatalling $100,000 from Howard Hughes, in exchange for governmental benefits, to wit, the approval in 1969 by President Nixon, pursuant to authority conferred on the President by law, of the purchase by Hughes of Air West, a CAB certificated airline with international routes; and the withdrawal in 1970 by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice of its opposition to acquisition by Hughes of a seventh gambling casino in Las Vegas, Nevada; in violation of article II, Section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 371, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 25. Receiving Money Unlawfully Obtained. By the means specified in Counts 10-24 Richard Nixon received and obtained for his own use and benefit and did have the use and benefit, for the purpose of financing his campaign for reelection as President, of moneys illegally obtained as specified in Counts 10-24 to a total amount of $1,652,500, which he knew and/or had reason to know had been unlawfully obtained; in violation of article II, section 4 of the Constitution and sections 201, 241, 371, 872, 1503 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 26. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. President Nixon, H. R. Haldamn, Herbert Kalmbach, Frank DeMarco, Charles G. Rebezo and Robert Abplanalp, in concert with and aided and abetted by others, devised and carried out a plan or scheme personally to enrich President Nixon by abuse of the power and authority of his office as President; in violation of article II, sectdon I of the Constitution, sections 271, 641, 1001 and 1505 of the CriminalCode, and section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code. Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 26, the President and his co-conspirators: 27. Embezzlement, Fraud. Caused the expenditure of public funds, in the amount of more than one million dollars, for materials and labor to improve, adorn and permanently increase the value of President Nixon's privately owned real property in San Clemente, California and Key Biscayne, Florida, in excess of expenditures authorized by law to provide for the security of the President; in violation of article II, section I of the Constitution and sections 371,641 and 1505 of the Criminal Code. 28. Tax Evasion. Caused the filing of federal income tax returns on behalf of Richard M. Nixon, in which were claimed deductions from taxable income in an amount of approximated $270,000 for purported gifts to the United States of papers of Richard M. Nixon, which deductions were known to the co-conspirators to be unallowable because the gift of papers had not been timely made and consummated; in an attempt to evade or defeat the payment of federal income taxes and by reason of which Richard M. Nixon reduced his personal income tax for 1969 to $792.81 and for 1970 to $878.03, and thereby received in 1970 and 1971 large refunds of withheld taxes; in violation of seetion 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code and sections 371 and 1001 of the Criminal Code.
I love the way you state they are "absurd claims" yet never come right out and say they are not true. It must be time to water my pet geranium and see if it sprouts brains. Maybe it's time for the geranium to water you? You are nothing but a Dim shill and wannabe lawyer so out of touch with reality that you think ONE claim that was only a mistake on the surrounding details negates the truth in the core of the message. This ain't court,bucko,and you can't get evidence thrown out because of a misplaced comma.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Are you really so stupid that you think a mind-numbing list of accusations that were and are partisan in nature and never proven makes the criminals and traitors you support look any better? The DNC MUST be paying you by the hour. Couldn't get a job 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)
That's hardly a newsflash. You're only reinforcing my point...That it's subversives and homosexuals actually run it. Politics, the "education system" and the culture provide all the proof I need. This means you are either going to have to learn to get along with other people and leave them to live their lives in peace,or take a long jump with a short rope. Your choice. No...what it actually means is that YOU won't be the last to be eaten by the crocodile. There are TWO sides to this Culture War. Pick a side. They [homofascists] have the EXACT same rights as everyone else. Uh, no they don't; I just reviewed those special 'Hate Crimes' and Hate Speech' -- just TWO case examples of how homosexuals actually possess MORE "Rights" than normal people. Why are you compelled to ignore that point? Because there are people who are the mirror-image of you who want the Constitution to protect them by punishing people they don't agree with. HUH??? "Punish"?? How?? I'll bet you can't clarify this dopey claim. Because it just doesn't exist.
First of all, with respect to your fallacious claim that Christians "enforce superstition" (aka belief in God) you have YET to prove that claim as true in all the years we've debated it. And you STILL can't. Give it up -- it's bullsh*t. As to Claim #2 -- that we "lobby to get laws changed" -- I believe you've got that azz-backwards, Bucko. It's homos who've been doing nothing BUT changing eisting laws, aided and abetted by single judges or courts overturning the will of The People....and NOT through Legislation. You are delusional. Christians aren't my enemy. Oh, but they are. Why deny it? You are a loon if you think America needs to be controlled by a religious cult based on fear and punishment. Again, you're engaging in fallacious claims. America has NOT controlled by anything but common sense consensus and constitutional/legislative law....UNTIL THE LAST 20 YEARS OR SO. It that time it's been controlled by the tyranny of the few, the perverse, and the usurpers of common sense. That "fear and punishment"? Look around. It's the Left and all their supporters doing so (Homosexuals, liberals, black liberation theologists, Dems, militant atheists, America-haters.) I know it's shocking, but guess which suicidal side you find yourself allied with?
(The Left's agenda -- that is to kill God and take down Christianity and the underpinnings of morality.) Just how powerful do you really think your freaking God is if some unknown person on the internet can kill him with words and logic? "Killing God" was a metaphor -- I can't believe you couldn't understand it. Oh well. In clearer terms, the ouster and replacement of God as the ultimate answerable authority, as well as the elimination of any definitive standards of morality is the basis for our current state of confusion, chaos, and collective mental instability. Moral relativity -- the inability of America to discern and act on the difference between Right and Wrong-- is what has been killing America. And THAT is whether or not you believe in God or not. This acceptable immoral template began right at the top with...Bill Clinton and allowing he his farcical, criminal Presidency to go unpunished. Again -- one need not be a Christian to understand this irrefutable truth: The Christian ethic and faith has indeed been the traditional foundation and underpinning on from America built its greatness. Tear God away from the America fabric, and you don't have a "good" people, you don't even have an "America"; You have a divided & conquer people of diluted loyalty and common values. The proof of such a claim are the daily headlines, and well the ID and values reflected of the current President. Btw -- was America a better or worse county before or after "gay marriage" was officially shoved down America's throat? Have American more or less "rights" during the last 20 years?
You're agreeing *with* me in part: ("History" proves that the origins of the Nazi Party were by and large...HOMOSEXUAL.) The point: Hitler's sadistic homosexual Brownshirts provided the muscle and numbers for the Nazi Party movement. Why? Because homosexuals are by nature...fascists. In fact,you will be happy to know that Hitler and Stalin both agreed with you that homosexuality was a mental disease,and both send them off to be executed or worked to death in labor camps. Who wasn't tossed into death camps or Gulags?But...but are you saying Hitler and Stalin were both "homophobes"?? :-( Will you be establishing a WWII Gay Victim Museum? When's the pink-ribbon cutting ceremony? What does it say about a Hitler (who was aid to be homosexual himself) in that he knew enough to recruit homosexuals for his first "army"? Moreover, Hitler STILL retained many homosexual sadists within his upper echelon of command. They just had to keep their little secrets...well, secret. Sort of. In defense of both fascist nuts, the American Psychiatric Association proclaimed homosexuality a mental disorder up until 1973, when homosexuals tricked its leadership into changing that status. And at NO time in history were homos EVER thought of as anything BUT sick, mentally ill, and f***ed up in the head (cue the Greek/Roma/Muzzie examples.) Still somehow, someway you're going to believe that homosexuality is acceptable, normal behavior? And that the rest of us must accept that notion...or be arrested or fired or ostracized? Chyeah, "freedom." "Rights." FOR WHOM AGAIN??
Thanks for the overview, Chan. I enjoy and appreciate your penchant for detail and documentation. Your respective quibbling is obviously between approaching the issues from your legalese "burden of proof" court perspective, versus that of the presumption of guilt based on "proof" constructed via circumstantial, testimony, and dot-connecting. With respect to Hitlery's "firing" or technically "let go" from her position and involvement in Nixon's Impeachment proceedings, the unofficial "word on the street" was that Hitlery was sloppy, ventured into darker gray areas, and acted inappropriately in any case (no, please don't ask for citations :-) Technically and legally, you may be right. But then knowing how history has often been "revised" or redacted when the Clintons (or 0webuma) are the subject, the validity of the official narrative will always be questioned.
Omissions and unavailability of information do not dismiss any notion that Barry O's identity and history have not been manipulated in order to hide damaging revelations. Same as in the respective cases of both Hitlery and Bubba.... What of all the missing, unreleased docs and records of 0webuma? The BC shenanigans (and subsequent odd death of Loretta Fuddy, "verifier" of BO's supposed BC -- a BC that had originally been exposed as fake from the outset?) What of 0webuma's SS#? His parental situation? His transcripts? His relationships with Larry Sinclair, his choir member relationship (and murder?) The white-washed relationship with Bill Ayers? Rev. Wright? The prosecution of those who simply looked into his student loans? Etc-etc?? What of Bubba's serial rapes? The mysterious, suspicious death-trail of associates? Mena? Hitlery's involvement with Vince Foster (and Foster's murder and magically placed file?) Etc-Etc. How can you state without reservation that ANY claim challenging either the 0webumas or the Klintoons are "ridiculous" when it's clear as day that in all cases, shenanigans is the rule rather than exception? It's easy to claim, "WHAT PROOF?!?" when people in high places are manipulating indictable evidence and eliminating witnesses. Or do you also dismiss THAT notion?
Who is this all-knowing "nolu chan" anyway? Why should anyone believe someone who finds it so very important to provide "documentation" on a website that is likely to be read by less than a hundred people? Is nolu merely an algorithm plug-in or a real person with access to the internet in his or her prison cell?
I think nolu is just another inquisitive person and poster who finds these forums a way to vent, connect, and share opinions -- just like most of us. There are those who believe ALL the "official" versions and narratives created by our elites masters and globalist overseers (nolu, and most of the serfs), those who believe most of the "official" narrative (still too many), and then those of us who scarcely believe a word (like me and maybe you ;-) Is nolu merely an algorithm plug-in or a real person with access to the internet in his or her prison cell? Lol... He's real. But he/she's a stickler for technicality and "facts" (even if some are obviously manufactured.) And of course, he/she is virulently anti-conspiracy, which mean his trust in the people running the system (including the judiciary) is 100%. Free Republic used to be that way. But given our respective observation of events and leadership since Reagan left (and especially since 9/11), we all know that THIS benevolent gubmint would NEVER do anything to hurt us, or collude with subversive international Powers That Be to divide, conquer, and destroy our Republic, the Constitution, and our sovereignty. And WHAT "New World Order"?? OH WAIT...
Close,but Christianity doesn't own the patent on ethic behavior. Btw -- was America a better or worse county before or after "gay marriage" was officially shoved down America's throat? Neither. Our problems are related to a thoroughly corrupt ruling class and a population composed of self-centered clowns that think everyone exists to provide for them as individuals. Who marries who has NOTHING to do with it. Who RAISES who is a hell of a lot more important than who marries who. Parents,who by YOUR definition are all heterosexual moralists,gave up their rights and obligations to raise their own children decades ago,and gladly passed them off to the governemnt. THAT is the root of our problems. We now have multi-generations of children that grew up thinking the government is their daddy and mommy. Have American more or less "rights" during the last 20 years? Clearly less,and it had and has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with selfishness and the desire to rule.
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)
("History" proves that the origins of the Nazi Party were by and large...HOMOSEXUAL.) Yeah,but that wasn't the part I was agreeing with. It's nothing more than fundie propaganda. I do agree that both fundies and Hitler were/are big fans of the "Big Lie",though. Hitler did the same thing all your fundie ministers and every other wannabe dictator does,he gathered the people living on the edges of society,and used them as tools to gain power. And like your fundie ministers,he will abandon them the instant he gains power and doesn't need them anymore. The difference is Hitler hated them enough to have them executed,and for all your dogmatic kneejerk hatred,I doubt you or your cult leader want to execute them. You just want them to somehow "go away". Still somehow, someway you're going to believe that homosexuality is acceptable, normal behavior? It IS normal behavior for homosexuals. Just how fucking thick are you that you can't understand that? These people are no threat to you in any way other than political,and you and the other fundies brought that on yourselves by making them political targets. Naturally they move to the side that wants their votes instead of the side that wants them put into mental hospitals. And truth to be told,people who worship non-existant creatures that live somewhere in the sky who are going to reward them with eternal life for being faithful cult members are a better fit for mental hospitals than people who just want to have sex with the people that sexually attract them. BTW,what is your thoughts on the fundie ministers that have been caught having homosexual sex,or sex with the married women in their cults?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
A Dim drone hired to disrupt and stop any criticisms of Bubbette! as she heads off on her White House quest. His job is to find ONE detail in ANY argument or discussion that hasn't been proven to be true in court,and then imply if that one detail is not proven to be true,the whole argument MUST be false. That part doesn't offend me. The part that offends me is he's actually stupid enough to think this makes him clever. He is nothing more than a distraction and a minor cog in the Dim machine.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I didn't say that, nor was it my intent. Just that America's ethics were Christian-Bible based (even IF one wasn't Christian), while America itself moderated its behavior accordingly and by the Golden Rule. Our problems are related to a thoroughly corrupt ruling class and a population composed of self-centered clowns that think everyone exists to provide for them as individuals. Who marries who has NOTHING to do with it. You mean to tell me you can't tell whether America is a better OR worst place once the homofascist agenda kicked in? You have GOT to be kidding me. That corruption you allude to and self-centered clowns (aka narcissism) defines the Left and the militant gay agenda and insistence (or ELSE!) on acceptance of homo-marriage to a tee. Not that all the problem can be attributed to homofascism -- on that point you're right. Who RAISES who is a hell of a lot more important than who marries who. Yes, and since LBJ's Great Leftist Society, fathers were encouraged to leave families, divorces was encouraged, and sodomists were given parental "rights" (where NONE exist.) It's been an epic formula for FUBARing America. Parents,who by YOUR definition are all heterosexual moralists,gave up their rights and obligations to raise their own children decades ago,and gladly passed them off to the governemnt. THAT is the root of our problems. We now have multi-generations of children that grew up thinking the government is their daddy and mommy. You're partially absolutely correct -- especially on the surrender of independence ceded to gubmint (especially as Sugar Daddy.) You're right as well as the afore mentioned destruction of the family unit (especially blacks.) But in NO way shape or form have moral hetrosexual/normal people surrendered their respective "rights and obligations" to gubmint to raise their own kids. Don't know how you can conclude that.
Hitler did the same thing all your fundie ministers and every other wannabe dictator does,he gathered the people living on the edges of society,and used them as tools to gain power. And like your fundie ministers,he will abandon them the instant he gains power and doesn't need them anymore. The difference is Hitler hated them enough to have them executed,and for all your dogmatic kneejerk hatred,I doubt you or your cult leader want to execute them. You just want them to somehow "go away". Just when you've scaled height of insanity to Mount Everest you've exceeded you own record; Your insanity can now be discussed atop Mount Olympus. There's no refuting a cartoon character. It IS normal behavior for homosexuals. Just how fucking thick are you that you can't understand that? So because sodomists, psychopaths, necrophiliacs, and other assorted mentally ill lunatics all declare themelvces "normal," is reason to accept their mutant sickness, behavior and acts? On what planet are YOU on? These people are no threat to you in any way other than political... Oh, is THAT all? And who, genius, do you think controls laws and enforcement? POLITICIANS. Guess who are being coerced to think and act BY LAW a certain way (so not to "offend" sodomists? Yup. SODOMISTS-in-CHARGE.And their tool-box accessories, like you) BTW,what is your thoughts on the fundie ministers that have been caught having homosexual sex,or sex with the married women in their cults? They're hypocrites and sinners, and don't belong in leadership positions that represent the word of God. Next question?
No,and if you were to be honest with yourself,neither can you. Homosexuals as a group had ZERO political influence prior to the 90's,and in fact any politician or other public figure had negative influence if he or she were a known homosexual. Even that fruit Barney Frank stayed married to a woman and in the closet. Jerry Brown from Ca is still in the closet,and he's a re-run governor of the land of fruits and nuts. His first time as Governor he pretended he and Linda Ronstadt were a couple to give him and her both cover. They are both homosexuals. American culture had been destroyed a LONG time before homosexuals came out and became a political force. Your,and other fundie Christians claims they destroyed American culture ranks right up there with the insanity you promote that homosexuals being married somehow lessens the value of your own marriages. Yes, and since LBJ's Great Leftist Society, fathers were encouraged to leave families, divorces was encouraged, and sodomists were given parental "rights" (where NONE exist.) It's been an epic formula for FUBARing America. No argument there! But in NO way shape or form have moral hetrosexual/normal people surrendered their respective "rights and obligations" to gubmint to raise their own kids. Don't know how you can conclude that. If it's not true,how did all those laws get passed and how did they stay on the books? I know that MY claim is the vast majority of the families in this country consist of a heterosexual mother and father,and I assume you agree with this. If this is so where were they when the laws were passed that took away their parental rights (OBLIGATIONS!),and why were and are they silent on these issues? Trust me,I am as pissed off about this particular issue as your are,since in my mind this is at the root of the whole thing.
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)
It's normal for THEM,and I would love to see every single "sodomist" (sodomite) in your church outed as sodomites and kicked out of your church. If that were to happen,there wouldn't be enough members there next Sunday to hold a bridge game. I suspect you might even be out looking for a new church to attend. BTW,are you really and truly so ignorant that you put sodomites (if you are going to rant and rave about how you hate something,you should at least use the correct word) in the same category as psychopaths,necrophiliacs,and other mentally ill people? BTW,in YOUR opinion,are cult members mentally ill? is reason to accept their mutant sickness, behavior and acts? It's not for me to accept or not accept. It's none of my business and I don't even want to know about it. *I* am not the one obsessed with homosexuality. On what planet are YOU on? Earth. You should take the time for a long visit here sometime. Nice place,mostly.
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)
My goodness she was a looker, back in the day.
You noticed that, did you. Lol
My goodness she was a looker, back in the day. And had the voice of a angel. Now she has some sort of disease that can't be treated that prevents her from singing. I know she is old now and not touring or making records like she used to,but her losing her voice is still a loss to the world.
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 DON'T KNOW IF HAVING TO BAKE A CAKE FOR YOUR FAG RELATIVES MAKES US BETTER. IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT YOU ARE 1. A FAGGOT 2. YOU ARE AN IMMORAL FOOL 3. FAGS ARE SHARING THE CAKE WITH YOU AND YOU LIKE SLAVES MAKING YOUR CAKE. Pete your vision for the future is evil. People who try to implement your vision should be put down like a rabid dog. You're not smart. You're not clever. You're not moral. You're immoral. Your memory the past America doesn't exist. Pete look in the mirror you're and meguro are the problem.
How do you khow? Did you see him in your closet with you?
Pete you are mentally ill if you believe that statement. Just because your family is loaded with queers. The rest of America isn't. You're obviously a homosexual. You get bent out of shape if anyone criticizes your people.
Connecting Parkinson's disease and drug addiction: common players reveal unexpected disease connections and novel therapeutic approaches" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21375485 AKA: "I-shouldn't-have-done-all-those-drugs-itis"
Evidence Links Cocaine Abuse And Parkinson's Disease Sex, Drugs and Parkinson's Disease Etc.
You're still mad that you had to marry a woman,ain't you? Isn't that at the core of your extreme hatred towards homosexual marriages,and why you think they somehow make your marriage less valid? Tell us all,are there any other groups of citizens in America that you demand be treated like Second Class citizens that have fewer rights than the rest of us?
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)
How do you khow? Did you see him in your closet with you? I saw him passing love notes to you. And just how shrewd are you to think I would be in the closet when of the two of us,*I* am the one that demands homosexuals be treated like everyone else and admit to having homosexual relatives?
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)
Yes, great voice. I wore out many of her tapes.
I think thou protest too much. BTW,you DO know that males and females can commit sodomy with each other,right? In YOUR mind,does that make them homosexuals?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I guess that makes me safe,because I never did care much for cocaine,and wouldn't have given you 5 dollars for a dump truck load back when I was getting high. Tried it several times,and it never did do anything for me. BTW,I have no evidence at all that Linda Ronstadt ever did a lot,or any,cocaine back in her glory days. I am just assuming she did a fair amount based on her lifestyle,occupation,wealth,and "the 60's". Even if she did a pound a day,she was still woman with an incredible voice and it is a shame she has lost it.
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)
"Linda Ronstadt, who did her share of cocaine during her heyday as the leading female rock singer of the '70s, thinks marijuana and other drugs should be legalized..." www.celebstoner.com/news/...ll-drugs-should-be-legal/ Yep. www.amazon.com/Whats-New-Linda-Ronstadt/dp/B00006LSRY It's tragic. And what's more tragic is that her opinions and the gift of her voice were rendered into the bleating of a drug abusing Judas goat.
Look Closer. EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. NIXON: Huh? EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. And with its use on television, it has such leverage. NIXON: You know what's happened [in northern California]? EHRLICHMAN: San Francisco has just gone clear over. NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco. Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again. EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants. NIXON: Jesus Christ.
"8-1984 - Lawrence King [Homosexual and alleged Pedophile] throws a lavish party in Dallas, Texas, after singing the National Anthem at the Republican National GOP Convention." http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9
Uhhh,I don't consider Nixon and Ehrlichman to have been the most alert people on the planet back then. As far as that goes,San Francisco and The Bohemian Grove crowd were a small crowd most Americans had never even heard of,and would have ridiculed if they had. They were almost exclusively a rich,trendy,trust fund crowd. I pass through San Francisco a couple of times in the 60's thanks to my army travel agent. The first time was in 65,and the second time was in 68. Both times I was wearing Army dress greens and a Green Beret with jump boots,and not a single hippy tried to hassle me. I got invited to parties,and everybody wanted to talk to me and ask my what I thought of the VN war. Let's just say they heard a different take on it than the one they were used to hearing,but they all politely listened to me and we had a non-hostile debate. The only trouble I had was with a black shoeshine guy on Market street. I ended up knocking him on his ass and kicking him in the head inside the Doggy Diner. Some people you just can't reason with,so you have to use other methods. BTW,if I saw a homosexual during either of my visits to San Francisco I didn't know it. All I really remember seeing was young males and females wanting to get together and hump their brains out.
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)
Ok,so a home sang the National Anthem at a Republican even in Dallas in 1984. Big deal. It was a local event,and he was the hired help. Maybe Boy Jorge hired him so he wouldn't feel lonesome?
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 NATIONAL GOP convention is "local". LOL. GeeOpie - Eyes Wide Shut much?
[sneakypete #105] I love the way you state they are "absurd claims" yet never come right out and say they are not true. I have stated many times previously that the absurd claims you puked up, as posted by others over the past years, are not only absurd, but absurdly untrue. If they were true, they would not be absurd. If they were possibly true, they would not be absurd. They are not possibly true, have been proven utterly untrue for ten years, and are utter garbage. They are completely indefensible, therefore you cannot make any real effort to defend the claims you made by your supposed recall of the news.
Why, no. You must have been in a coma for at least 20 years, since the Nixon tapes started getting released and removed any and all doubt. The “partisan” committee voted for the articles of impeachment, Article I (27-11), Article II (28-10) and Article III (21-17). That was before the smoking gun tape was released. When it was about to come to vote of the full house, Nixon resigned. He had almost no support in the House and was informed by the leading Senators that he faced certain conviction in the Senate with less than 15 senators still supporting him. Hearing him commit crimes in tape recorded conversations removes doubt in all except those who refuse to hear. Perhaps it was House Resolution 803 that passed 410-4 that you find partisan. RESOLVED, That the Committee on the Judiciary acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the Chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the Rules of the Committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely 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. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
I will not ask for citations because none exist. Despite the descriptions of Hillary’s presentation of procedures to the committee, the transcript of the proceedings indicate she did not say a mumbling word. The junior counsel do not get speaking roles in the high drama. The presentations were made by John Doar, Special Counsel, and Joseph Woods., Senior Associate Special Counsel. I did find one place where Hillary Rodham’s name came up. In Book I where the Impeachment Inquiry Procedures were presented to the subcommittee, Rep. Kastenmeier (chairman) presiding. From page 378: Mr. WOODS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my left is Hillary Rodham and John Labovitz; on the far right John Davidson of the inquiry staff. The following is the draft of procedures to which the chairman referred. Mr. KASTENMEIER. It is captioned “Impeachment Inquiry Procedures,” is that correct? Mr. WOODS: That is correct, sir. The document referred to is herein titled “Impeachment Inquiry Procedures.” The Committee on the Judiciary states the following procedures applicable to the presentation of evidence in the impeachment inquiry pursuant to House Resolution 803, subject to modification by the committee as it deems proper as the presentation proceeds. [Reading:] On page 400, it shows that the procedures, as amended, were adopted unanimously. To see how the Impeachment Inquiry Staff actually functioned, and how the neophyte attorney Hillary Rodham was actually assigned “grunt work” see the following from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. In Joseph Woods recorded interview by Timothy Naftali, October 27, 2011, the Richard Nixon Oral History Project of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, one finds: At ii: Joseph Woods served as Senior Associate Special Counsel to U.S. House of Representatives Impeachment Inquiry Staff in 1974. Woods headed the Constitutional and Legal Section of the Inquiry Staff. At 6-7: Woods: Of course, he was the ultimate decider of all issues that had to do with the functioning of the staff. [...] Woods: … The organization of the inquiry staff was quite different. Each task force within the operation was made up of committee staff and minority staff so that Weld and Davidson, for example, who were on the minority staff were members of my unit, my task force, and Weld was involved in the writing of the grounds of impeachment memo. As I recall it, Davidson was not. He was involved with other projects. I think we worked effectively. [...] And [keep] in mind that there were no criminal statutes of the United States at the time that the Constitution was adopted but the Constitution had in it high crimes and misdemeanors. It couldn’t have meant crimes as it came to be defined in the criminal statutes of the United States because there was no United States and therefore there were no such statutes. There were no federal crimes. At 8: Woods: Yes. The Grounds of Impeachment report was issued in February 1974, printed by the GPO, and the foreward was signed by Peter Rodino on February 22, 1974. At 10: Woods: She did not work on the memo. Her principle role came later in working with me to draft the procedures that the committee would follow in conducting its hearings on the evidence. She and I essentially did that. Obviously with John Doar’s approval, but Hillary and I wrote those procedures. [...] Woods: Well, the starting point is the rules for the conduct of those procedures could be whatever the committee decided they were going to be. They dirivited from the fact that the sole power of impeachment is lodged in the House of Representatives is the proposition that the House can make its own rules. And those rules could be as restrictive and as secretive, provide for secrecy. Then there’s the liberal cast of the Democrats on the committee who were firmly committed to the proposition that there has to be due process about everything and that open hearings and the opportunity to confront witnesses, the opportunity to present a rebuttal case, and all these things that are part of what the United States are all about. At 11: At 15: Woods: I knew about it and I knew that Hillary had a key role in that project but I did not – and I met Dr. Woodward when he was down at the staff offices at one time but no, I did not have anything to do with the decision to retain him or with the project with him as it went forward. Naftali: Can you recall what role Hillary Rodham played in that? Woods: Well, I think she was the liaison with Dr. Woodward. Beyond that, I can’t answer the question. Naftali: Was this Mr. Doar’s idea do you know? Woods: That, I don’t know. Certainly, it was one that he approved of or it wouldn’t have happened. At 21-23: Woods: Well, she was an excellent person to work with. She is the one person that I asked for to be on my task force. I was very much impressed by her when I met her the day that she and I both reported for duty back then and I specifically requested John Doar to put her on my task force, which he did. She would do what you asked her to do. I never heard her express any reticence to undertake a task that might seem mundane given that she had recently finished a prestigious law school. She was a very diligent worker. Was easy to work with. I give her very high marks all around. Naftali: Since she did not write or help write the memo on the constitutional grounds for impeachment, what were her first tasks? Woods: John Doar was very distrustful of computers and, in any event, they were in their infancy at the time. When I got there in January of ’74 there was not such a thing as a memory typewriter in the organization and I believe that was probably true in the Congress but I’m not sure about that. It certainly was a fact in the inquiry staff and I was able to, after some argument, to get an IBM Selectric typewriter for my secretary and whenever people had things they wanted to be able to revise they were forever seeking her assistance because she had the one machine in the office that was capable of any sort of memory. Against that background, we had to have some kind of system to try to make a given bit of information available to people in various categories of inquiry. Let’s take an incident that took place that both John Doar and I had great significance. It took place in Key Biscayne when Mr. Nixon learned of the Watergate report of the apprehension of the Watergate burglars. He threw an ashtray across the room. Both Doar and I thought that that was the disgust of a person who said they blew it. That it was not the anger of someone who thought it was the wrong thing to have done. Now, that makes very nicely the distinction between the Statement of Information and the fact, if you will. And so the Statement of Information ultimately would be just a report of the throwing of the ashtray without any comment as to what the significance of that might’ve been. With that particular incidents could’ve had ramifications for different people looking into little bits of this and that somewhere in the factual investigation so, if we had computers, it would’ve been easy to bring up that information. It certainly would be now and I think it would’ve been then, to bring up that information in various context. But we didn’t have that capability. So what we did was to develop a system of punch cards where we put these pieces of information on the card and then we notched out things that it didn’t apply to and assigned little holes to different categories of inquiry and then if you wanted to find all of the incidents that fell within a certain category, you ran a long knitting needle through the holes at the end and you pulled up the cards that hadn’t been notched out. It was that primitive. And as a way station toward developing those cards, we had a system of little, not even 3X5, even smaller than that, coupons that were produced in carbon in numerous copies and these were filed in different databases, if you will. And designing those little coupons and working out the system of the cards that were going to be picked up by the knitting needles was something that Hillary and I worked on. And that’s what she was doing, which is essentially grunt work, while some of the other people had the fun of writing the grounds memo. And she never complained. Naftali: Then you gave her the more interesting task of working on the procedures. Woods: Well, that’s true. Naftali: By the way, this whole process emerged because Mr. Doar didn’t like computers. Woods: Well, I’m not sure what the capabilities of computers were at that time and I’m not sure I understand what they are yet. But I’m gradually getting there, but very gradually. Naftali: So you and Hillary Rodham worked then with the library. With Maureen, because the library – wasn’t that where all these coupons were placed in the end? Woods: Beats me where they were. I don’t remember. I simply don’t remember. I get the general impression that the system was not very successful. That it didn’t serve the purpose very well. But of course I’m not sure that the computers of that day would’ve been that helpful either. Naftali: I’m just wondering, where you got the idea for the knitting needle and the – where did that come from? I know it’s been a long time, but do you remember where that came from? Woods: No. No, I do not. Naftali: But anyhow, you and Hillary basically distilled the material down to these cards which would then be transferred to these punch cards. Woods: No, I’m not trying to say that she was making the entries on the cards. I’m saying that she and I worked on trying to figure out what the system was going to be. I think it was a mighty a labor to produce a mouse, to define one now. It was just not a successful thing.
I did not cite any claim challenging the Clintons. There are so many valid claims that the claims made by sneakypete are unnecessary, and as inexcusably absurd as the claim that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, or that Nixon committed no crime other than the coverup of “the break-in”. The proof that Obama did not lose his citizenship in Indonesia is that it was legally impossible. Indonesian law provided that adopted children under the age of 5 years could automatically obtain citizenship. Obama was not 4 years old. So, it did not happen under Indonesian law, which also prohibited naturalization if it resulted in dual citizenship. Even if Obama had been eligible and Indonesia officially had granted him Indonesian citizenship, there is not an act a parent can do which relieves an American born child of his or her citizenship. Remarriage to a foreigner does not do it. The parent cannot revoke citizenship for a minor child. There appears to be no evidence of an official adoption but it is irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/066_statutes_at_large.pdf 66 Stat. 267, PUBLIC LAW 414, JUNE 27, 1952 NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952 LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN Sec. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by— (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or .... http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf See the scoresheet for birther futility in court (0-220) for decided cases.
Why should this thread have over 1,200 views? Why should anyone believe someone who posts urban legends? Why should anyone believe someone who cannot post any documentation for his or her claims? Cited and linked relevant official documents are not “documention”, they are just documentation. Presumably, you prefer fiction to fact.
His job is to find ONE detail in ANY argument or discussion that hasn't been proven to be true in court,and then imply if that one detail is not proven to be true,the whole argument MUST be false. Actually, I did not contest “ONE detail.” I contested every single detail in the 10-year old debunked urban legend that was puked up on the board by sneakypete. It is all false or baseless. The source is urban legends spun from and exaggerated from a Dan Calabrese column. 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) Nixon was guilty of much more than a coverup. There is no evidence the Clintons committed treason in their college days. Hillary was not caught manufacturing evidence. Hillary was not caught hiding evidence favorable to Nixon. Hillary was not fired. Archibald Cox was the former Special Prosecutor for the Senate. The alleged recomendation is a fairy tale. Of course, Hillary had a secret intel operation. She wiped her server clean. The Guccifer hack shows intel reports being sent to Hillary’s server. The events of Benghazi could still use some explaining. There are probably a few hundred other real items worth discussing.
“THE” BREAK-IN August 28, 1971 September 3, 1971 May 26, 1971 May 27, 1971 May 27-28 June 17, 1972 Of course, the above list of actual break-ins does not include the break-in of the Brookings Institution ordered by President Nixon. On the White House Tapes, Conversation Number 533-1, on June 30, 1971, Presdent Nixon is heard saying to H.R. Haldeman, “The way I want that handled, Bob, is to do it another way. I want—I want Brookings—I want them to just break in.” The head/co-chair of the White House Special Investigations Unit put a sign on the door of his office, Room 16 in the basement of the Old Executive office Building, DAVID R. YOUNG, PLUMBER. Thus, the unit became known as the plumbers. David Young was at the White House on July 1, 1971 and the Special Investigations Unit came into formal existence on July 24, 1971. Its existence as an extra-legal intelligence service was a crime. Everyone involved in bringing it into existence and supporting its continued existence were members of a criminal conspiracy and equally guilty of every criminal act entered into by any member of the conspiracy. While the break-in of the Brookings Institution was called off, the initial concrete step or overt act did occur. The formation of the criminal conspiracy was complete and it included President Nixon. He was subsequently criminally liable for their criminal existence, criminal funding, and all crimes committed by any member of the conspiracy in furtherance of the conspiracy, whether he had any advance knowledge of the acts or whether he approved the acts or not. Nixon’s criminal acts predated the break-in of June 17, 1972. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview Charles Doyle April 30, 2010 7-7500 At 9: In the 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, House Report No. 93-1305, “Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States,” August 20, 1974, at page 3, discussing impeachment Article 2, the report states, (4) He has failed to take care tat the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impete and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial, and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry ito the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities, including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveilance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practice of the Committee to Re-elect the President. (5) In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed. At page 35, under “Prior Covert Activities” is found, At 36, Following the publication of the Pentagon Papers in June 1971, the President created a special investigations unit which engaged in covert and unlawful activities. (Book VII, 620-23, 651) This organization (dubbed “the Plumbers) by its members) was based in the White House, under the immediate supervision of John Erlichman. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy worked in the Unit. (Book VII, 651) The Plumbers acquired from the FBI information about the Pentagon Papers investigation (Book VII, 952-53)), twice requested the CIA to prepare psychological profiles of Daniel Elsberg (Book VII, 898-99), 1401-03), and formulated a plan to acquire derogatory information about Ellsberg to leak to the press for political purposes. (Book VII, 1126-28) In August, 1971, after obtaining Ehrlichman’s approval for a covery operation, provided it was not traceable, Plumbers co-directors Egil Krough and David Young authorized Hunt and Liddy to undertake an operation to gain access to Ellsberg’s psyciatric records. (Book VII, 1240-44) On September 3, 1971, a team consisting of Bernard Barker, Felipe DeDiego and Eugenio Martinez (all of whom subsequently participated in one of the Watergate break-ins), acting under the direction and immediate supervision of Hunt and Liddy, illegally broke into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. (Book VII, 1281-87)
Article IV (failed 12-26 because “most Committee members believed that Nixon’s false tax return was a ‘personal,’ non-governmental crime, and thus did not warrant the impeachment of the President.” (1) He, during the period for which he has been elected President, unlawfully received compensation in the form of government expenditures at and on his privately-owned properties located in or near San Clemente, California, and Key Biscayne, Florida. (2) He knowingly and fraudulently failed to report certain income and claimed deductions in the year 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 on his Federal income tax returns which were not authorized by law, including deductions for a gift of papers to the United States valued at approximately $576,000. In all of this Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Impeachment Inquiry, Statement of Information, Book X, Tax Deduction for Gift of Papers, page 19: On April 17, 1974, the President and Mrs. Nixon paid by check the amount of deficiency and penalty for 1970, 1971, and 1972, totalling $284,707.16. Nixon was not legally required to pay the amount for 1969 which was $148,080.97. He announced he was paying it but did not do so. The House Judiciary Committee rejected proposed Article 4. The evidence of fraud was overwhelming. The Statement of Information sets it forth in detail with supporting exhibits. That was not why Article 4 was rejected. It was rejected because filing fraudulent tax returns was not considered relevant to Nixon’s performance of his office. Congressional Record – House, V. 144, No. 154, December 19, 1998, pp. H11932 - H11933 [Mr. Brad Sherman speaking] Mr. Speaker, I would call this House a kangaroo court, but that would be an insult to marsupials everywhere. December 17, 1998. News Flash 1974: Judiciary Determined Lying Under Oath In Private Matter is Not Impeachable—a Review of Nixon Tax Perjury Article Dear Colleague: In 1974 the Judicary Committee established a precedent that a crime committed in private life (i.e., Richard Nixon's tax fraud) does not warrant the impeachment of the President. 1969 tax fraud, the Committee was swayed principally by the legal principles defining an impeachable offense, not by the lack of factual evidence against Richard Nixon. The crimes which the Judicary Committee found did not warrant the impeachment of President Nixon are virtually identifical to the two perjury charges against President Clinton. President Nixon knowingly filed a 1969 tax return which fradulently claimed that he had donated pre-presidential papers before the date Congress eliminated the charitable tax deduction for such donations. President Nixon, knowing his return was false as to this $576,000 deduction, signed his name under the words: ''Under penalty of perjury, i declare that i have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete.'' In July 1974 Edward Mezvinsky (D-IA), a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced an Article of impeachment alleging that President Nixon had signed ''Under penalty of perjury'' a tax return which Nixon knew was false. while Mezvinsky argued that filing the tax return was an abuse of public power because Nixon knew his red-flag $576,000 deduction would not trigger an audit because he was President. However, most Committee members believed that Nixon's false tax return was a ''personal,'' nongovernmental crime, and thus did not warrant the impeachment of the President. The Judiciary Committee voted 26 to 12 against impeaching Nixon for his false tax return. Technically, Nixon committed ''tax fraud'' not ''perjury'' and was subject to prosecution under the Internal Revenue Code. Yet Nixon's crime (covered by his pardon) was almost identical to the perjury of which Clinton is accused (and is referred to here as ''tax perjury'') 1. Nixon signed a document under the words ''under penalty of perjury, i declare 2. He presented false information to a federal agency. 3. Nixon lied when he had a legal obligation, enforceable by federal felony statutes, to tell the truth. 4. Nixon's false statements related to a private matter—his personal liability for federal taxes. (Clinton testified regarding his personal liability to Paula Jones.) 5. Nixon ignored the ''rule of law'' and his legal obligation to tell the truth. Some have argued that the Judiciary Committee did not pass a Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment against Nixon only because the facts were unclear. A review of the Committee Report shows that some members thought the factual evidence against Nixon was weak, while other Members thought that a criminal act in the conduct of personal affairs did not warrant the impeachment of the President. (see attached excerpt.) Most of the Members of the Judiciary Committee did not speak on the record on the Tax Perjury Article. So how are we to know the reason for their vote and the precedent the 26 to 12 vote established. The person most aware of the reasoning of the Committee Members regarding the Article is its author Edward Mezvinsky (D-IA), who lobbied his colleagues on both side of the aisle to get his Article adopted. I called Mr. Mezvinsky yesterday and talked with him at length about his efforts in 1974 to convince his colleagues to vote for his Article. He told me that the clear majority of those who voted against his Article did so because they concluded that a crime committed in private life, which did not relate to an abuse of Presidential power and was not as heinous as murder or rape, did not warrant the impeachment of a President. Mr. Mezvinsky is a Democrat. Is he remembering or interpreting the vote on his 1974 Article of impeachment to establish a precedent favorable to our current Democratic President? Has his memory faded with time over the last 24 years? Fortunately, in 1975 Mezvinsky wrote an article for the Georgetown Law Journal describing the thought process of his colleagues and providing a contemporaneous statement of the legal conclusions reached in 1974 by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Mezvinsky first explains the staff guidance the Committee received, and then the conclusion of the Members of the Committee, which followed that guidance. ''The staff nevertheless injected a requirement of substantiality into the impeachment formula: to constitute an impeachable offense, presidential conduct must be 'seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.' [Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, House Comm. On the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 26-27 (Comm. Print 1974).]'' ''Most opponents of the Tax Article felt that willful tax evasion did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense requiring removal of the President.''—Edward Mezvinsky, Georgetown Law Journal, 1975, Volume 63: 1071 at pages 1078-1079. The record on the Nixon impeachment process further supports the conclusion that impeachment of a President is warranted only for an offense against our very system, an offense subversive of the government itself. A memorandum setting forth the views of certain Republican Members (including current senate Majority Leader Trent Lott) of the Judiciary Committee in 1974 similarly emphasized the necessarily serious and public character of any alleged offense: ''It is not a fair summary . . . to say that the Framers were principally concerned with reaching a course of conduct, whether or not criminal, generally inconsistent with the proper and effective exercise of the office of the presidency. They were concerned with preserving the government from being overthrown by the treachery or corruption of one man. . . . [I]t is our judgment, based upon this constitutional history, that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended that the President should be removable by the legislative branch only for serious misconduct dangerous to the system of government established by the Constitution." [Nixon Report at 364-365 (Minority Views of Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, Wiggins, Dennis, Mayne, Lott, Moorhead, Maraziti and Latta) (final emphasis added).] A 1975 law journal article tells the story. In 1974 a Judiciary Committee, dominated by Democrats, was confronted with a President who had lied on a tax return signed ''under penalty of perjury.'' That crime dishonored President Nixon, undermined respect for law, and called into doubt Mr. Nixon's credibility on public matters. However the Committee applied the following formula: seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office. That same standard should be applied to President Clinton. The first two articles allege that President Clinton lied ''under penalty of perjury'' and through that action undermined respect for law, and his own credibility and honor. Yet President Clinton's actions do not warrant the impeachment of a President under the standards formulated by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and applied by most Committee Members in rejecting the Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. I urge you to follow the standard enunciated and followed by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and reject the first two Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton. I hope you will also join me in voting against the third and fourth Articles as well. Very truly yours, Brad Sherman. EXCERPTS FROM HEARINGS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, JULY 1974, ON AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF RICHARD M. NIXON, DEALING WITH TAX FRAUD/TAX PERJURY Mr. Railsback (R-IL)—I suggest that there is a serious question as to whether something involving his personal tax liability has anything to do with his conduct of the office of the President. (Pg. 524). Mr. Hogan (R-MD)—The staff report on grounds for impeachment makes clear, and I am quoting: ''As a technical term high crimes signified a crime against the system of government, not merely a serious crime. This element of injury to the commonwealth, that is, to the state itself and the Constitution, was historically the criteria for distinguishing a high crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary one.'' (Pg. 541) Mr. Mayne (R-IA)—. . . even if criminal fraud had been proved, then we would still have the question whether its a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach under the Constitution, because that is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen, to determine whether the President should be impeached, not to comb through every minute detail of his personal taxes for the past six years, raking up every possible minutia which could prejudice the President on national television. (Pg. 545) Mr. Waldie (D-CA)—I speak against this article because of my theory that the impeachment process is a process designed to redefine Presidential powers in cases where there has been enormous abuse of those powers . . . And though I find the conduct of the President in these instances to have been shabby, to have been unacceptable, and to have been disgraceful even, I do not find a presidential power that has been so grossly abused that . . . [it is] . . . sufficient to warrant impeachment. (Pg. 548) Mr. Thornton (D-AR)—I think it is apparent that in this area there has been a breach of faith with the American people with regard to incorrect income tax returns . . . But it is my view that these charges may be reached in due course in the regular process of the law. This committee is not a tax fraud court, nor a criminal court, nor should it endeavor to be one. our charge is full and serious enough, in determining whether high crimes and misdemeanors affecting the security of our system of government must be brought December 18, 1998 to the attention of the full House . . . (Pg. 549) Zeifman, with reference to the Douglas Inquiry where the question was posed, "… What then, is an impeachable offense?" relied on the claim of that legal giant Gerald Ford, who famously replied, See CRS Report 98-882 A, Impeachment Grounds: A Collection of Selected Materials, Updated October 29, 1998, by Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist, American Law Division, at page 24. At pages 28-32, this same report presents some differing expert opinion: Charles Black “Omitting qualifications, and recognizing that the definition is only an approximation, I think we can say that ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ in the constitutional sense, ought to be held to be those offenses which are rather obviously wrong, whether or not ‘criminal,’ and which so seriously threaten the order of political society as to make petulant and dangerous the continuance in power of their perpetrator. The fact that such an act is also criminal helps, even if it is not essential, because a general societal view of wrongness, and sometimes of seriousness, is, in such a case, publicly and authoritatively recorded. “The phrase ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ carries another connotation—that of distinctness of offense. It seems that a charge of high crime or high misdemeanor ought to be a charge of a definite act or acts, each of which in itself satisfies the above requirements. General lowness and shabbiness ought not to be enough. The people take some chances when they elect a man to the presidency, and I think this is one of them,” BLACK, IMPEACHMENT: A HANDBOOK, 39-40 (1974). “The ‘President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Convictions of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ The phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ was an English term of art that denoted political crimes against the state, and the choice of this phrase was a deliberate and considered action. By including that English phrase, our Founding Fathers intended to expand the scope of impeachable offenses beyond the scope of criminally indictable offenses. This language incorporates political offenses against the state that injure the structure of government and tarnish the integrity of the political office. As Alexander Hamilton observed, these political offenses include breaches of the public trust that a president assumes once he has taken office. Hamilton made this point in the Federalist, describing impeachable crimes as ‘those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuses or violations of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself”, BARR, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, 2 TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW AND POLICY 1, 9-10 (1997). “The concept of an impeachable offense guts an impeachment case of the very factors — repetition, pattern, coherence — that tend to establish the requisite degree of seriousness warranting the removal of a president from office. . . . “The most pertinent precedent in this nation’s history for framing a case for the removal of a chief executive may well be the earliest — the Declaration of Independence. In expressing reasons for throwing off the government of George III, the Continental Congress did not claim that there had been a single offense justifying revolution. Instead, it pointed to a course of conduct; it ‘pursu[ed] invariably the same Object’ and evinced a common design; it ‘all [had] in direct object the establishment of absolute Tyranny over these States.’ It was this pattern of wrongdoing taken together, not each specification considered alone, that showed the unfitness of George III to be the ruler of the American people. . . . [T]he unfitness of a president to continue in office is to be judged in much the same way: with reference to totality of his conduct and the common patterns that emerge, not in terms of whether this or that act of wrongdoing, viewed in isolation, is an impeachable offense,” LABOVITZ, PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, 129-31 (1978). “It can therefore be concluded that impeachment is not a political tool for arbitrary removal of officials; that the standard for what constitutes an impeachable offense is not based on an inflexible historical precedent or on the judicial tenure clause; that impeachment is not limited to crimes, whether indictable or otherwise; and that the sanction of impeachment does not extend to noncriminal misconduct unless it involves violation of statutory law, the conduct of the respondent’s official duties or an abuse of his official position. “Within these limitations, it is extremely difficult to define the proper standard for an impeachable offense in affirmative terms. . . . “The only generalization which can safely be made is that an impeachable offense must be serious in nature. . . . “While there are no clear rules as to what constitutes a serious offense, there are a number of factors which are relevant. Thus an offense is more serious if it is a criminal violation or if it involves moral turpitude. In the words of one court, It may be safely asserted that where the act of official delinquency consists in the violation of some provision of the constitution or statute which is denounced as a crime or misdemeanor, or where it is a mere neglect of duty willfully done, with a corrupt intention, or where the negligence is so gross and disregard of duty so flagrant as to warrant the inference that it was willful and corrupt, it is within the definition of a misdemeanor in office. But where it consists of a mere error of judgment or omission of duty without the element of fraud, and where the negligence is attributable to a misconception of duty rather than a willful disregard thereof, it is not impeachable, although it may be highly prejudicial to the interests of the State,” Fenton, The Scope of the Impeachment Power, 65 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 719, 745-7 (1970). “Despite then-Congressman Gerald Ford’s well-known assertion that ‘an impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be’, there is now wide agreement that the phrase ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanor’ was intended by the Framers to connote a relatively limited category closely analogous to the ‘great offences’ impeachable in common law England. In addition to treason and bribery, the ‘great offences’ included misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on or contempt of legislative prerogatives, and corruption. “There have been only two serious attempts to impeach American Presidents. In both instances, the offenses charged reflected the impact of the common law tradition discussed here: offenses have been regarded as impeachable if and only if they involve serious abuse of official power,” TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 217 (1978). “I have dwelt the longer on this point because many seem to think that a public officer can be impeached for a mere act of indecorum. On the contrary, he must have committed a true crime, not against the law of England but against the law of the United States. As impeachment is nothing but a mode of trial, the Constitution only adopts it as a mode of procedure, leaving the crimes to which it is to be applied to be settled by the general rules of criminal law. “. . . [A]s there are under the laws of the United States no common law crimes, but only those which are contrary to some positive statutory rule, there can be no impeachment except for a violation of a law of Congress or for the commission of a crime named in the constitution. English precedents concerning impeachable crimes are consequently not applicable,” Dwight, Trial by Impeachment, 15 AMERICAN LAW REGISTER (6 N.S.) 257, 268-69 (1867). “Many attempts have been made to define this power, quite commonly by those who were trying to make the definition fit the facts to a particular case, rather than to have it accord with the constitutional provisions only. A notable exception to this, however … is what was said by Manager (afterwards President) Buchanan in the Peck Impeachment: “Perhaps that statement should be broadened to include offences of so weighty a character, and so injurious to the office, that every official is bound to know that they are of the same general character as crimes, and might well be made criminal by statute; but the terra incognita beyond, no one can properly be asked to explore under the existing constitutional provisions, if for no other reason than because it is a fixed and salutary principle that penal provisions shall be so construed that the persons to be affected by them may certainly know what things they are forbidden to do,” Simpson, Federal Impeachments, 64 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 651, 881 (1916). “The . . . problem is how to identify those nonindictable offenses for which certain high-level government officials may be impeached. Given that certain federal officials may be impeached and removed for committing serious abuses against the state and that these abuses are not confined to indictable offenses, the challenge is to find contemporary analogues to the abuses against the state that authorities such as Hamilton and Justices Wilson and Story viewed as suitable grounds for impeachment. On the one hand, these abuses may be reflected in certain statutory crimes. Violations of federal criminal statues, such as the bribery statute, represent abuses against the state sufficient to subject the perpetrator to impeachment and removal, because bribery demonstrates serious lack of judgment and respect for the law and because bribery lowers respect for the office. In other words, there are certain statutory crimes that, if committed by public officials, reflect such lapses of judgment, such disregard for the welfare of the state, and such lack of respect for the law and the office held that the occupant may be impeached and removed for lacking the minimum level of integrity and judgment sufficient to discharge the responsibilities of the office. On the other hand, Congress needs to be prepared, as then-Congressman Ford pointed out, to explain what nonindictable offenses may be impeachable offenses by defining contemporary political crimes. The boundaries of congressional power to define such political crimes defy specification because they rest both on the circumstances underlying a particular offense (including the actor, the forum, and the political crime) and on the collective political judgment of Congress,” Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits of Impeachment, 68 TEXAS LAW REVIEW 1, 83, (1989). “Moreover, leaving aside historical precedent, to limit impeachment to the commission of crimes is bad policy, such a limitation is both too broad and too narrow. It is too broad because some crimes have no functional relation to the problem of malfeasance or abuse of office. For example, if an official in the executive branch, a judge, or a legislator, had been arrested once for driving while intoxicated, that crime should not merit the drastic remedy of removal from office. “The proposed limitation is also too narrow, for the `civil Officer’ might engage in many activities which amount to abuse of office and yet not commit any crimes. For example, if the President abused his pardon power by unconstitutionally pardoning a judge who had been impeached or summoned the Senators from only a few states to ratify a treaty, the President may have violated no criminal law, but he or she has abused the office. . . .” Rotunda, An Essay on the Constitutional Parameters of Federal Impeachment, 76 KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL 707, 725-26 (1988). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. New York: PublicAffairs Books. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1, page 978. Nixon faced all kinds of prosecutions for his well-documented multitude of criminal offenses. That is why, shortly after Nixon’s resignation, Gerald Ford pardoned him for all criminal acts he may have engaged in. Otherwise, the prosecutions would have gone in all sorts of embarrassing directions. Had Ford tried to specify all the offenses pardoned, he may never have finished writing the pardon. Nixon was guilty for 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 tax fraud. He was saved by a pardon. The evidence is overwhelming.
Liar Pete. You are the chapmpion of faggot pretend rights on this site. You never miss a chance to stick up for immorality.
You write this stuff out with crayons,and someone else later posts it on the web,right? I've never seen a dog chase their tail so much. FACT,he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father,and had his name legally changed to Barry Soetoro. FACT,his mother,as his legal guardian,and his father had his citizenship changed to Indonesian. FACT,there is no record of him ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Oboma. FACT,he traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport issued to Barry Soetoro,Indonesian citizen when he was 18 and Pakistan wasn't allowing US citizens to visit. FACT,there is no legal record every having denounced his Indonesian citizenship OR applying to have his US citizenship re-instated. FACT,he and his handlers,because he really is a dummy and has to speak from a script,refuses to even talk about any of this.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
No matter how many lies you spin around it,Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate break-in. What he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. You also seem more than willing to gloss over the fact it was the Republicans that told him they would vote for impeachment if he didn't resign. Probably because you don't want people talking about how the entire Dim Party rallied behind "Hit all depends on what the definition of "is",is." Bubba Bill Clinton,who CLEARLY committed perjury under oath and who was obviously guilty of a whole truck load of various felonies,proof of which the Dims refused to even look at after it had been gathered and presented to them. You are just Bubba and Bubbette!'s little bitch,playing your partisan little games in the hope the other little bitches will like you,and maybe pat you on the head occasionally.
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 didn't "lose his citizenship",shithead. His mother gave it up for him,and he seemed more than happy to travel under an Indonesian passport as an Indonesian citizen as a young adult. No matter how much legalize you may spin around him,there is no getting around intent or the fact that his handlers won't allow him to address these issues to the point where they have spent millions of dollars to keep him from having to address these issues. He may have even received federal grant money to go to US schools. Once again,nobody knows because he runs the government,and his handlers will make sure nobody ever finds out.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I contested every single detail in the 10-year old debunked urban legend that was puked up on the board by sneakypete. It is all false or baseless. The source is urban legends spun from and exaggerated from a Dan Calabrese column. Blah,blah,blah. Your ADD is kicking in again,Bubba. EVERY one of your claims is spun around ONE detail you can refute,and then a virtual barrage of words to try to imply that since that one detail is not a proven fact,none of the others is valid. Simply put,you are a professional liar trying out for a slot with the professional liars connected to the DNC.
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)
Remind us again what office Nixon is running for this election season,Bubba. He MUST be running for elective office,or you wouldn't be barraging us with details and professional spin on a former president that has been out of office and dead for decades,right? We all know this couldn't be part of an effort to get people writing and commenting about Nixon so they wouldn't be writing and commenting about Barry Obomer and Bubbette!,right? Hey,bubba! Nixon is old news,let's move on to discuss current events of national interest instead of flogging a dead horse and a dead man,ok? After all,hits fo de chil-runs!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I don't lie,you fucking cretin! Unlike you,I am a champion of the RIGHTS of American citizens,where we are all supposed to be the same in the eyes of the law. Climb out of your closet and take a look around in the sunshine.
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 only are your statements of "FACT" incorrect, they are impossible according to U.S. and Indonesian law. This one is just bullshit. It did not happen. This is contrary to Indonesian law as well as impossible under U.S. law. United States Supreme Court, unanimous, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329-30 (1939) This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: "Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States.… - - - LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN SEC. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by- (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or [...] LOSS OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY THROUGH PARENT'S EXPATRIATION; SEC 355. A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, that, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States. In a manner of speaking, correct. As he never changed his name from Barack Obama, he never changed it back to Barack Obama. Another shithead urban legend. Update your urban legend list. This one was destroyed in 2009. Damn, you are pathetic. Archived State Department travel advisories for Pakistan http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf From U.S. State Department Travel Advisory No. 81-33A of August 17, 1981: The Travel Advisory provides advice about travelling to Pakistan. There is no indication of a ban. A Travel Warning would tell of serious short term dangers and caution people to avoid unnecessary travel. Of course, in the case of a travel ban, there would not be a travel advisory. The New York Times ran a story about an assistant news editor's travel around Pakistan in 1981. It seems she was not aware of any alleged ban at that time. Nobody has yet produced a shred of evidence of a U.S. ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981. June 14, 1981 LAHORE, A SURVIVOR WITH A BITTERSWEET HISTORY By BARBARA CROSSETTE; BARBARA CROSSETTE IS AN ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/more-birther-nonsense-obamas-1981-pakistan-trip/ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Obama_citizenship_denial#1981_Pakistan_trip http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/passport.asp Claim: Barack Obama must have used a non-U.S. passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981. FALSE Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] [...] Origins: This item is yet another of many similar pieces purporting to offer some bit of evidence demonstrating that Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen of the U.S. and thus is ineligible to be President of the United States. The premise in this case is that a young Barack Obama visited Pakistan back in 1981, a country he allegedly could not have traveled to on a U.S. passport, and thus he must have used a passport issued by some other country, such as the U.K. (Obama's father was a Kenyan and thus a British subject) or Indonesia (where Obama lived for a while after his mother married an Indonesian citizen) — a circumstance supposedly demonstrating that Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S., once held multiple citizenships, or at some point gave up his U.S. citizenship. During a fundraiser in San Francisco in April 2008, Barack Obama made reference to a visit he had undertaken to Pakistan during his college years (a journey he had not mentioned in either of his books). His campaign press secretary, Bill Burton, later provided some additional detail about that trip to curious journalists: During the summer of 1981, when he was twenty years old, Barack Obama visited with his mother and half-sister in Indonesia, then embarked on a three-week trip to Pakistan with a college friend whose family lived in Karachi. However, the claim that Barack Obama must have set out on that trip to Pakistan using a non-U.S. passport is false: The U.S. State Department did not include Pakistan on a "no travel" list barring Americans from traveling there in mid-1981, and evidence documents that Americans could in fact freely visit that country at that time. The U.S. State Department issues Travel Warnings (which caution travelers about "long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable") and Travel Alerts (which caution travelers about "short-term conditions, generally within a particular country, that pose imminent risks to the security of U.S. citizens") but those warnings are purely advisory — they do not prohibit Americans from traveling to the listed countries. The fact that the U.S. State Department issued an informative Travel Advisory for Pakistan in August 1981 (to make American citizens aware of updated visa requirements for entering that country) demonstrates that U.S. passport holders could freely travel to and from Pakistan at the time of Barack Obama's visit there. Moreover, during that same time period (mid-1981), New York Times assistant news editor Barbara Crossette visited Pakistan and wrote a column about her experiences, a piece in which she offered tips to other Americans who might wish to visit that country. Additionally, her column prompted a follow-up letter from John S. Brims, then the U.S. Consul General in Lahore, Pakistan, in which he "welcome[d] an influx of Americans" who might have been inspired to come to Pakistan by her article and also offered helpful tips for tourists traveling to that country by rail from India: One of the pleasures of the Foreign Service is being able to serve in cities like Lahore, and I would welcome an influx of Americans who might have been inspired to come by Barbara Crossette's piece, "Lahore, a Survivor With a Bittersweet History." But please caution them. While tourists can obtain a free, 30-day, non-extendable visa to Pakistan at the Wagah border crossing (on the rail route from New Delhi to Lahore), tourists cannot make the reverse journey from Pakistan to India through the same crossing unless they already have an Indian visa. The Indians only offer this service, so far as I know, to tourists debarking at airports. We have had a number of Americans stranded in Lahore who did not know this, and they tend to be too discouraged to enjoy the city. Many other news articles from 1981 reference either Americans' traveling to Pakistan or the Pakistan government's making efforts to encourage visits from U.S. tourists. In short, if Barack Obama did visit Pakistan in the summer of 1981, he — like all other Americans — could have openly done so bearing a U.S. passport. Last updated: 14 July 2009 As he was not eligible to obtain Indonesian citizenship under Indonesian law, and he could not have had his U.S. citizenship under U.S. law, your alleged fact is complete bullshit. As he never lost U.S. citizenship, he could not re-instate that which was never lost. FACT. You have proven yet one more time that you are a shithead.
You are clearly losing your sanity. Of course, it was the REPUBLICANS who marched down the road to give Nixon the bad news. His IMPEACHMENT in the House was a foregone conclusion. Three articles of impeachment had already passed out of the House Judiciary Committee with bi-partisan support. After the "smoking-gun" tape emerged, his support in the House essentially disappeared. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal The REPUBLICAN leaders gave him the bad news that in the days since the "Smoking Gun" tape had been released, his REPUBLICAN support in the Senate had disappeared and he could not count on getting fifteen votes in the Senate. They informed Nixon he faced certain CONVICTION in the Senate. Senator Republican Leader Hugh Scott, conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Republican Leader John Rhodes delivered the message on August 7, 1974. On August 9, 1974, Nixon resigned. Only you could fantacize that Nixon needed the Democrat leaders to tell him they were going to vote for impeachment. What he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. Leon Jaworski, The Right and the Power, 1976, at 176-177 wrote, The indictment returned in the Watergate cover-up case charged that the defendants conspired to defraud the United States, to obstruct justice, and to make false statements and declarations, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The indictment charged that the conspiract continued up until March 1, 1974, the day the indictment was returned. And the grand jury also charged that President Nixon conspired with those indicted. Furthermore, the available evidence reasonably i8ndicated that the President participated in a conspiract to violate certain other statutes in addition to those specifically charted in the indictment, and that he fairly could be held culpable, both as a principal and on a theory of vicarious liability, for additional substantive offenses. Jaworski went on the specify violations of Jaworski, The Right and the Power, 1976, at 178 wrote, Available evidence was sufficient to make out at least a prima facie case that the President participated dir3ectly and personally in each of the four most important phases of the conspiracy. Also, he was a major actor in seeking to conceal the existence and later the scope of and participants in the conspir4acy, which efforts themselves may be shown to have been part of the original cover-up conspiracy or, possibly, a second illegal conspiracy." Way back in 1971, in the nascent period of Nixon creating the White House Special Investigations Unit (SIU), aka the "Plumbers," Nixon was directing the formation of a White House unit to burglarize the Brookings Institution. In forming this illegal, unauthorized unit, specifically to perform unlawful acts, Nixon et al took the first concrete step, and the gang became members of an unlawful conspiracy, and all were guilty of the subsequent acts of any of them, with or without specific knowledge that such acts had been taken. No break-in at Brookings was necessary for the crimnal conspiracy to come into existence. "Conspiracy is a crime which begins with a scheme and may contiue on until its objective is achieved or abandoned. The liability of individual conspirators continues on from the time they joined the plot until it ends or until they withdraw. The want of an individual's continued active participation is no defense as long as the underlying conspiracy lives and he has not withdrawn. An individual who claims to have withdrawn bears the burden of establishing either that he took some action to make his departure clear to his co-conspirators or that he disclosed the scheme to the authorities. As a general rule, overt acts of concealment do not extend the life of the conspiracy beyond the date of the accomplishment of its main objectives. On the other hand, the rule does not apply when concealment is one of the main objectives of the conspiracy." Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist in American Public Law, Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview, Congressional Research Service, R41223, April 30, 2010. June 30, 1971. Nixon, Haldeman, Mitchell, Kissinger, Ziegler, Laird. 5:17-6:23 p.m., Oval Office. Haldeman: Yeah. But you have to have somebody to do it. Nixon: That's what I'm talking about. Don't discuss it here. You talk to Hunt. I want the break-in. Hell, they do that. You're to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in. Haldeman: I don't have any problem with breaking in. It's a Defense Department approved security— Nixon: Just go in and take it. Go in around 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock. July 1, 1971. Nixon, Haldeman, Kissinger. 8:45-9:52 a.m., Oval Office. Did they get the Brookings Institute raided last night? NO. Get it done. I want it done. I want the Brookings Institute's safe cleaned out and have it cleaned out in a way that it makes somebody else [responsible?]. July 1, 1971. Nixon, Haldeman, Colson, Erlichman. 10:28-11:40 a.m., Oval Office. July 2, 1971. Nixon, Haldeman, Colson. 9:15-10:39 a.m., Oval Office September 8, 1971. Nixon, Ehrlichman. 3:36-5:10 p.m., Oval Office. Segment 1: Ehrlichman: He's doing the [unintelligible] the narcotics thing. But he's also spencing most of his time of the Ellsberg declassifications, and the dirty tricks business on getting stuff out. Segment 2: September 10, 1971. Nixon, Ehrlichman. 3:03-3:51 p.m., Executive Office Building. Nixon: You can do that, you know. Ehrlichman: Photograph them and find out what the hell is there. Nixon: How do you do that? Ehrlichman: Well, through Kunzer [Administrator of GSA] i can do that. He can send the Archivist out of town for a while and we can get in there and he will photograph and he'll reseal them. Nixon: There are ways to do that? Ehrlichman: Yeah. And nobody can tell we've been in there. … In 1973, Nixon looks back at the Huston Plan, the called off burglary of the Brookings Institution, and the Plumbers: May 20, 1973. Nixon, Haldeman. 12:26-12:54 p.m., Camp David Telephone. On the famous Dean papers, you'll be interested—pleased ti know that we've got that nailed down on all four corners. Haldeman: Good. Nixon: The go order was issued by you, I mean, you and carried out by Huston on one day and then 24-48 hours later a no order was issued, and everybody—and we have affidavits on thatt ad soe have nots on it thatt they have the no order. The other point is that nothing whatever was done by any of the agencies involved. Haldeman: That's what I thought. Nixon: You know, what I mean is there were no break-ins. … Now its a rough one. I mean, not rough on us so much, but it's rough in terms of these agencies recommending everything from surreptitious entry to— Haldeman: Yeah. Nixon: —bugging to everything else. Yet the point is— Haldeman: But it was signed by all of them. Nixon: They all recommended it. Haldeman: Yeah. Nixon: It was unanimous. Haldeman: Well, that's good because that shows the tenor of the times. Nixon: Yeah. Haldeman: That needs to be done. Nixon: It needs to be done, Bob. Also, I'll point out the plumbers thing. Why we did it, that we have massive leaks and that I had given orders to all departments to do everything that they could and at the White House we developed the capability to do what we could there. Haldeman: Yeah. Nixon: And that everything that we did there was on that. Now on the point, just a couple of things to nail down. I want to be sure because I don't want to do a damn thing that would be at all harmful or inconsistent with that you or John may have recalled and, therefore, have testified to. I have no recollection of John ever telling me about the unsuccessful break-in or whatever it was until after, I mean, until we got into the March period. Haldeman: The psychiatrist? Nixon: Yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huston_Plan The Huston Plan was a 43-page report and outline of proposed security operations put together by White House aide Tom Charles Huston in 1970. It first came to light during the 1973 Watergate hearings headed by Senator Sam Ervin (a Democrat from North Carolina). The impetus for this report stemmed from President Richard Nixon wanting more coordination of domestic intelligence in the area of gathering information about purported 'left-wing radicals' and the counterculture-era anti-war movement in general. Huston had been assigned as White House liaison to the Interagency Committee on Intelligence (ICI), a group chaired by J. Edgar Hoover, then Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director. Huston worked closely with William C. Sullivan, Hoover's assistant, in drawing up the options listed in what eventually became the document known as the Huston Plan. Among other things the plan called for domestic burglary, illegal electronic surveillance and opening the mail of domestic "radicals". At one time it also called for the creation of camps in Western states where anti-war protesters would be detained. In mid-July 1970 Nixon ratified the proposals and they were submitted as a document to the directors of the FBI, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA). Out of these only Hoover objected to the plan, and gained the support of then Attorney General of the United States John Mitchell to pressure Nixon to rescind the plan. And despite the ultimate decision by the President to revoke the Huston Plan, several of its provisions were implemented anyway. After the Huston Plan, the FBI lowered the age of campus informants, thereby expanding surveillance of American college students as sought through the Plan. In 1971, the FBI reinstated its use of mail covers and continued to submit names to the CIA mail program. As details of the Huston Plan unfolded during the Watergate Hearings, it came to be seen as a part and parcel of what Attorney General Mitchell referred to as, "White House horrors". This would include the Plumbers Unit, the proposed fire-bombing of the Brookings Institution, the 1971 burglary of the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the creation of a White House enemies list, and the use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to punish those deemed to be enemies. The Huston Plan was also investigated by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Sen. Frank Church in 1976, into activities of the CIA and abuses of domestic intelligence gathering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_horrors The White House Horrors is a term attributed to Richard Nixon's former United States Attorney General, John N. Mitchell to describe the crimes and abuses committed by Nixon's staff during his presidency.[1][2] The revelation of their existence and scope is among the many events of the Watergate scandal. More than 70 people were convicted of crimes related to Watergate (some pleaded guilty before trial). Here is a listing of much of the criminality involved:
Just how much shitheadedness can you display? As I showed at #144, that was legally impossible. His mother had no authority or ability to give up his citizenship for him. What you claim remains impossible. Applicable United States law bars any action of a parent or legal guardian from effecting the loss of nationality of a native-born or naturalized U.S. citizen. United States Supreme Court, unanimous, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329-30 (1939) This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: "Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States.… Don't let the actual laws or facts get in your way. Keep dreaming that impossible dream and telling the whole world about it. LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN SEC. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by- (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or [...] LOSS OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY THROUGH PARENT'S EXPATRIATION; SEC 355. A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, that, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/066_statutes_at_large.pdf 66 Stat. 267, PUBLIC LAW 414, JUNE 27, 1952 NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952 LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN Sec. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by— (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or .... 66 Stat. 272, , PUBLIC LAW 414, JUNE 27, 1952 SEC. 355. A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.
Your ADD is kicking in again,Bubba. EVERY one of your claims is spun around ONE detail you can refute,and then a virtual barrage of words to try to imply that since that one detail is not a proven fact,none of the others is valid. Simply put,you are a professional liar trying out for a slot with the professional liars connected to the DNC. What’s wrong pete? That is some of the sorriest, content-free diversionary non-responsive bullshit you have yet attempted to sell. Your urban legend chain email has been debunked for about 10 years. That's why you cannot even attempt to defend it. Nice try at diversion though. 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
He MUST be running for elective office,or you wouldn't be barraging us with details and professional spin on a former president that has been out of office and dead for decades,right? You should check out your short term memory loss. Nixon is running for elective office as your imaginary legal paragon. That is why YOU brought him up with your absurd bullshit. You seem to keep forgetting your #4. Here, let me remind you again. You must have thought Nixonian bullshit was relevant somehow. You seem to be having trouble articulating why you interjected your Nixonian bullshit into the conversation. I merely debunked your irrelevant bullshit. 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)
Here's a chance to update your routine. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062369288/ref=gno_cart_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER Hardcover – May 5, 2015 In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs. Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments. In his New York Times bestselling books Extortion and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer detailed patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government. Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office. Hardcover: 256 pages
Ahhh,the Bubbette! Clinton ,"That's old news,let's move on!" ploy. You are nothing but a professional liar and propagandist for the Dim Party. Probably just one of a large opposition research team that tries to bombard critics into silence by posting books in response to anything negative about the despicable criminals you work for and want to be like when you grow up. A juvenile David Axelrod wannabe. You aspire to be pond scum.
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 have been reduced to an embarrassing warm puddle of piss, unable to even attempt to defend the recycled ten year old bullshit chain email urban legends you have been puking up. His mother's father was from Kansas, Toto. His mother gave up his citizenship for him... only a shithead would make that claim. Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. What the above is excerpted from: A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law governing the right of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily "(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State" (emphasis added). B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship: Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of Section 349(a)(5), U.S. citizens cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below. C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES a person seeking to renounce U.S. citizenship must renounce all the rights and privileges associated with such citizenships. In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998),the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because he wanted to retain the right to live in the United States while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. D. DUAL NATIONALITY / STATELESSNESS Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. They may also have difficulty traveling as they may not be entitled to a passport from any country. Even if not stateless, former U.S. citizens would still be required to obtain a visa to travel to the United States, or show that they are eligible for admission pursuant to the terms of the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP). Renunciation of U.S. citizenship may not prevent a foreign country from deporting that individual to the United States in some non-citizen status. E. TAX & MILITARY OBLIGATIONS /NO ESCAPE FROM PROSECUTION Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed in the United States, or escape the repayment of financial obligations previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad. F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. G. IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION Finally, those contemplating a renunciation of U.S. citizenship should understand that the act is irrevocable, except as provided in section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483), and cannot be canceled or set aside absent successful administrative or judicial appeal. (Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20). Renunciation is the most unequivocal way in which a person can manifest an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Please consider the effects of renouncing U.S. citizenship, described above, before taking this serious and irrevocable action. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact: Regular Mail
His mother's father was from Kansas, Toto. That was a mistake. I obviously meant his ho mother's Indonesian husband. You knew that,but just wanted to be the pissy little punk your mother raised you to be.
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)
Chan is wiping the floor with you.
It's ok with me if you want to think that. Number 1,I have better things to do with my time that do research to provide links to a Dim opposition team that is being paid with government money to defend Dims. Number 2,I don't give a rabid rats ass what you,Bubbette!'s Fan Boy,or anyone else here thinks of 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)
I think you're doing fine. I also think Bubbette!'s Fan Boy would be bored to death without you.
[nolu chan #163] His mother's father was from Kansas, Toto. [sneakypete #164] That was a mistake. I obviously meant his ho mother's Indonesian husband. All you have claimed has been a mistake. Your absurd claims that Obama was adopted in Indonesia and became an Indonesian citizen as a result were mistakes. Your claim that Obama's mother gave up his citizenship for him was a mistake. The United States does not permit what you claim to have happened. Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who are mentally incompetent. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. Then again, Indonesia did not permit what you claim to have happened. sneakypete's imaginary law only applies in sneakypete's imaginary world. FACT, Indonesian law did not provide for sneakypete bullshit. Not only was Obama not adopted, Indonesian law clearly shows that he would not have gained Indonesian citizenship by the imaginary adoption, had it occurred. Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia (1) A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child. (2) Said declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law. As Obama was over 5 years old when he went to Indonesia, his imaginary adoption could not have legally conferred imaginary Indonesian citizenship. As Indonesia rejects dual citizenship, and renunciation of Obama's U.S. citizenship was impossible, obtainment of Indonesian citizenship was legally impossible. The complete law from which the above is extracted: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities Author: Republic of Indonesia Publication Date: 1 August 1958 Reference: IDN-110 Cite as: Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia [Indonesia], 1 August 1958, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ec8.html Comments: This is an unofficial translation. The Law was signed by the President on 29 July 1958, promulgated on 1 August 1958, and published in the Government Gazette No. 113 of 1958. Disclaimer: This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. Date of entry into force: 1 August 1958 THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, Considering: that it is necessary to have a law on the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia; With a view to: a. articles 5 and 144 of the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; b. article 89 of the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; With the approval of Parliament; Has decided: To cite: The Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Article 1. Citizens of the Republic of Indonesia are: a. persons who, based on the legislation and/or treaties and/or regulations prevailing since the August 17, 1945 Proclamation, are already citizens of the Republic of Indonesia; b. persons who at their birth have a legal family relationship with their father, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, with the understanding that said citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia starts as from the existence of that legal family relationship and that said legal family relationship is created before the persons concerned have reached the age of 18 or before they are married at an earlier age; c. a child born within 300 days after the decease of its father, if said father is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia at the time of his death; d. persons whose mother is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia at their birth, if at that time they have no legal family relationship with their father; e. persons whose mother is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia at their birth, if their father has no nationality, or as long as the nationality of the father is unknown; f. those born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia as long as both parents are unknown; g. a child found within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia as long as both parents are unknown; h. persons who are born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, if both parents have no nationality or as long as the nationality of both parents is unknown; i. persons born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia who have not acquired the nationality of the father or mother at the time of their birth and as long as they do not acquire the nationality of either their father or mother; j. persons who have acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia according to the regulations of this law. Article 2. (1) A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person adopting the child. (2) Said declaration of legality by the Pengadilan Negeri shall be requested by the person adopting the child within 1 year after such an adoption or within 1 year after enforcement of this law. Article 3. (1) A child outside a marriage of a mother who is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia or a child out of a legal marriage, but who has in a case of divorce been assigned to the care of its mother, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, who follows the nationality of the father, a foreigner, may present a petition to the Minister of Justice in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if, after, having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, it possesses no other nationality or states at the same time to have released another nationality according to the procedure stipulated by the legal provisions of the country of origin and/or according to the procedure stipulated by the agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country in question. (2) The above mentioned petition shall be presented within 1 year after the person concerned has reached the age of 18 to the Minister of Justice through the Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person. (3) The Minister of Justice fulfills or rejects the petition with the approval of the Cabinet Council. (4) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia which has been acquired on such a petition is valid as of the date of the decree of the Minister of Justice. Article 4. (1) Aliens born and domiciled in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia whose father or mother, in case they have no legal family relationship with the father, is also born in the territory of the Republic in Indonesia and is a resident of the Republic of Indonesia, may present a petition to the Minister of Justice in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if they, after having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, have no other nationality or at the time that they present a petition they also make a statement as to having released another nationality which they may possibly possess, in accordance with the legal provisions prevailing in the country of their origin or according to the provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country in question. (2) The above mentioned petition shall be presented, within 1 year after the persons concerned have reached the age of 18, to the Minister of Justice through the Pengadilan Negeri at their residence. (3) The Minister of Justice fulfils or rejects the petition with the approval of the Cabinet Council. (4) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired on such a petition is valid as of the date of the decree of the Minister of Justice. Article 5. (1) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia because of naturalization is acquired with the validity of the decree of the Minister of Justice who grants this naturalization. (2) In order to present a petition for naturalization, the petitioner shall: a. have reached the age of 21; b. be born within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia or at the time of presenting the petition be domiciled in said region for at least the last 5 consecutive years or in total 10 inconsecutive years; c. if the person is a married man obtain the approval of his wife (wives); d. master the Indonesian language properly and have appropriate knowledge of the history of Indonesia and have never been penalize because of having committed an offence which harms the Republic of Indonesia; e. be in a spiritual and physical healthy condition; f. pay to the State's Treasury an amount between Rp.500,-to Rp.10.000,- of which the amount is fixed by the Tax office at the residence of the petitioner, based on the evident petitioner's monthly earnings, with the stipulation that it may not exceed the evident earnings for one month; g. have a fixed income; h. have no nationality, or have lost his nationality if the petitioner acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia or states at the time to have released another nationality according to the legal provisions of the country of origin or according to the legal provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country concerned. A woman may not apply for naturalization during matrimony. (3) Petitions for naturalization shall be forwarded in writing and provide with a stamp to the Minister of Justice through the Pengadilan Negeri as the residence of the petitioner; The petition shall be written in the Indonesian language and together with this petition shall be forwarded evidence on matters mentioned in para 2 except for what is stated under letter d. The Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia investigates the evidence as to its correctness and examines the petitioners as to their capability of mastering the Indonesian language and their knowledge of the history of Indonesia. (4) The Minister of Justice fulfills or rejects application for citizenship with the approval of the Cabinet Council. (5) The decree of the Minister of Justice which grants naturalization is valid as of the date that the petitioner takes an oath or swear allegiance before the Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the petitioner and is valid retroactively the date of said decree of the Minister of Justice. The oath or allegiance swearing is as follows: "I swear (promise): "that I release entirely all loyalty "to foreign authority; "that I recognize and accept the highest authority "of and shall be loyal to "the Republic of Indonesia; "that I shall uphold the Constitution and other laws of "the Republic of Indonesia and "shall defend them faithfully; "that I bear this duty out of my own free will "and shall not diminish whatsoever". (6) After the petitioner has taken an oath or sworn allegiance as mentioned above, the Minister of Justice publishes such naturalization by inserting his decree in the State's Paper. (7) If the oath is not taken or allegiance not sworn within three months after the date of the decree of the Minister of Justice, said decree will automatically become null and void. (8) The amount of money mentioned in para 2 is refunded, if the naturalization is not fulfilled. (9) If the petition for naturalization is rejected, the petitioner may send in a repeat petition. Article 6. Naturalization may also be granted for the interest of the State or because of services rendered to the State, by the Government with the approval of Parliament. In this case from the provisions of article 5 only those in para 1, para 5, para 6 and para 7 are applicable. Article 7. (1) A foreign woman married to a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within 1 year after contracting said marriage, except in case when she acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia she possesses still another nationality, in which case the statement may not be made. (2) With the exception as mentioned in para 1 the foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia also acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year after the marriage has been contracted, if within that one year her husband does not make a statement as to release his citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Said statement may only be made and only results in the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if by such a loss the husband does not become stateless. (3) If one of the statements mentioned in para 1 and 2 have been made, the alternative statement may not be made. (4) The statements mentioned above shall be made to the Pengadilan Negeri or the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person making such a statement. Article 8. (1) A woman, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, married to a foreigner loses her citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within one year after her marriage has been contracted except if, with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, she becomes stateless. (2) The statement mentioned in para 1 shall be made to the Pengadilan Negeri or the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person making such statement. Article 9. (1) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by a husband is automatically valid for his wife, except if, after the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia has been acquired, the wife possesses still another nationality. (2) The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia by a husband affects automatically his wife, except if the wife will become stateless. Article 10. (1) A woman is during matrimony not permitted to present a petition as meant in article 3 and article 4. (2) The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia by a wife affects automatically her husband, except if the husband will become stateless. Article 11. (1) A person who because or as a result of marriage looses the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, regains said citizenship if and when after the marriage has been dissolved the person makes a statement as to that effect. Such statement shall be made within 1 year after the marriage has been dissolved to the Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person. (2) The provision of para 1 does not apply in case the person, after having regained the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, still possesses another nationality. Article 12. (1) A woman who because of or as a result of her marriage acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, loses said citizenship again, if and when after her marriage has been dissolved she makes a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the marriage has been dissolved to the Pengadilan Negeri or the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at her residence. (2) The stipulation in para 1 is not applicable if said person becomes stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Article 13. (1) Children who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet, who have a legal family relationship with their father before said father has acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, also acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, after they reside and are in Indonesia. The statement as to their residence and being in Indonesia is not valid for children who because their father acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia becomes stateless. (2) The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by a mother also applies to her children who have no legal family relationship with the father, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet after they have resided and are in Indonesia. If said citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia is acquired with the naturalization by a mother who has become a widow because of the decease of her husband, the children who have a legal family relationship with said husband, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet also acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia after they reside and are in Indonesia. Statements as to their residence and being in Indonesia are not valid for children who because their mother has acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia become stateless. Article 14. (1) If the children as mentioned in article 2 and article 13 reach the age of 21, they loose the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia again, if and when they make a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the children have reached the age of 21 to the Pengadilan Negeri of Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at their residence. (2) The provision of para 1 is not applicable if said children become stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Article 15. (1) The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia by a father also affects his children who have a legal family relationship with said father, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet, except if, with their loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, these children become stateless. (2) The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia by a mother also affects her children who have no legal family relationship with their father, except if with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia these children become stateless. (3) If this mother looses the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia because of naturalization abroad and said mother has become a widow because of the decease of her husband, the provisions of para 2 also apply to her children who have a legal family relationship with her husband after these children reside and are abroad. Article 16. (1) A child who loses its citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia because its father or its mother loses said citizenship, regains the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia after the child has reached the age of 18, if and when it makes a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within one year after the child has reached the age of 18 to the Pengadilan Negeri or Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the child. (2) The provisions of para 1 is not applicable in case said child, after having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia still possesses another nationality. Article 17. The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia is lost because of: a. acquiring another nationality out of one's own free will, with the understanding that if the person concerned is, at the time that said other nationality is acquired, in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia is only considered lost if the Minister of Justice declares it lost with the approval of the Cabinet Council on its own initiative or on the request of the person concerned; b. not having rejected or having released another nationality whilst the person concerned has had the opportunity as to that effect; c. being recognized by an alien as his/her child if the person concerned has not reached the age of 18 and is not married yet and does not become stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia; d. being legally adopted by an alien as his/her child if the child concerned has not reached the age of 5 yet and it does not become stateless at the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia; e. being declared as lost by the Minister of Justice with the approval of the Cabinet Council on the request of the person concerned if the person has reached the age of 21, is domiciled abroad and does not become stateless at the declaration of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia as being lost; f. entering a foreign military service without prior permission from the Minister of Justice; g. without prior permission from the Minister of Justice, entering a foreign state's service or the services of an organization of nations not entered by the Republic of Indonesia as member, if the position held in the state's service may, according to the regulations of the Republic of Indonesia, only be held by a citizen or the position in said nation organization service requires on oath or official promise; h. taking the oath or making the promise of loyalty to a foreign country or a part thereof; i. without being obliged, participating in a vote for one and another of constitutional nature for a foreign country; j. having a passport or certificate which has the character of a passport from a foreign country in one's name which is still valid; k. other than for state's service, domiciling abroad during 5 consecutive years by not declaring one's wish as to continue being a citizen before the period has lapsed and thereafter every two years; such a wish shall be declared to the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at one's residence. For citizens of the Republic of Indonesia who have not reached the age of 18 yet, except if they are married, the five and two years' period mentioned above is applicable as of the date that he reaches the age of 18. Article 18. A person who loses the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia as mentioned in article 17 letter k. regains the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if the person is domiciled in Indonesia based on an Entry Permit and makes a statement as to that effect. Such a statement shall be made to the Pengadilan Negeri at the residence of the person within 1 year after the person is domiciled in Indonesia. Article 19. The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia granted or acquired on incorrect information may be withdrawn by the office which has granted it or the office which has received the information. Article 20. Whoever is no citizen of the Republic of Indonesia is an alien. Transitional regulations Article I. A woman who, based on article 3 of the Regulation of the Military Administrator No. Prt/P.M./09/1957 and article 3 of the Regulation of the Central War Administrator No.Prt/Peperpu/014/1958 has been treated as a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, becomes a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia if she has no other nationality. Article II. A person who at the moment of enforcement of this law is in the position as stated in article 7 or 8 may make the statement as mentioned in said article within 1 year after enforcement of this law, with the understanding that the husband of a woman who becomes a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia as mentioned in article I of the transitional regulation may no longer make the statement mentioned in article 7 para 2. Article III. A woman, who according to the legislation in force before this law is enforced would automatically be a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia were she not married, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within 1 year after her marriage has been dissolved or within 1 year after enforcement of this law to the Pengadilan Negeri or to the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at her residence. Article IV. A person, who does not acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia along with the father or mother by making a statement according to the prevailing legislation before this law is enforced, because the person is of age at the time that the father or mother makes said statement, whilst the person himself/herself may not make the statement as to opt the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, if the person, with this provision or heretofore, has no other nationality. The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by said person is valid retroactively the date that the father/mother acquires said citizenship. Article V. In deviation from the provisions of article 4 para 1 and 2, children whose citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia has been rejected by their parents between December 27, 1949 till December 27,1951, may within one year after enforcement of this Law, present a petition to the Minister of Justice through the Pengadilan Negeri at their residence in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if they are under the age of 28, article 4 para 3 and 4 are further applicable. Article VI. An alien who before enforcement of this Law, has ever entered the armed forces of the Republic of Indonesia and meets with the conditions which will be stipulated by the Minister of Defence, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if the person makes a statement as to that effect to the Minister of Defence or official designated by the latter. The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by the person mentioned above is valid retroactively the date that said person entered the armed forces. Article VII. A person, who before enforcement of this Law has been in a foreign military service as mentioned in article 17 letter f. or in service of a nations organization as mentioned in article 17 letter g. may apply for a permit to the Minister of Justice within 1 year after this law comes into force. Concluding regulations. Article I. A citizen of the Republic of Indonesia who is within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia is considered to possess no other nationality. Article II. By the understanding citizenship is included all kinds of protection by a state. Article III. In executing of this Law. Children who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet are considered to be domiciled with their father or their mother according to the specification in article 1 letter, b, c or d. Article IV. Whoever must prove that he/she is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia and has no documents which indicate that he/she possesses or acquires or possesses or acquires along with the father/mother said citizenship, may request the Pengadilan Negeri at his/her residence to confirm whether or not he/she is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia according to the usual tribunal procedure. This provision does not diminish the special provisions of or based on other laws. Article V. From statements made which cause the acquisition or loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia a copy is forwarded to the Minister of Justice by the official in question. Article VI. The Minister of Justice publishes in the State's Paper names of persons who have acquired or lost the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Article VII. One and another needed for the execution of the provision of this Law is regulated by Government regulations. Article VIII. This Law comes into force on the date of promulgation with the stipulation that the regulations in article 1 letter b to letter j, article 2, article 17 letter a, c and h are valid retroactively December 27, 1949. In order that everybody may know, the order is given to promulgate this law by insertion in the Government Gazette.
#2. To: redleghunter, out damned spot, TooConservative, tomder55 (#1)
The stinking plot thickens.
#3. To: out damned spot (#0)
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.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#5. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#6. To: sneakypete (#4)
hese Xlintons learned much from Nixon. You can't be ignorant enough to be serious!
#7. To: redleghunter, out damned spot (#0)
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?”
#8. To: nolu chan (#2)
If Hillary did not send classified info, the Guccifer hack indicated that she received plenty.
#9. To: TooConservative (#8)
Merely maintaining an unsecure channel through which such sensitive info could be channeled is criminal. If it was one or two documents, she'd get away with it. But a steady stream over a period of years demonstrates criminal intent.
#10. To: TooConservative (#8)
Merely maintaining an unsecure channel through which such sensitive info could be channeled is criminal.
#11. To: sneakypete, redleghunter (#4)
Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committeeand 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."
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.
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: 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.
#12. To: nolu chan (#11)
#13. To: nolu chan (#11)
#14. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)
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.
#15. To: TooConservative (#14)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#17. To: TooConservative (#8)
It's irrelevant whether she sent or received classified info.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#21. To: sneakypete (#19)
The way I remember it,it was Archibald Cox that fired her,
#22. To: TooConservative (#12)
Sounds like he changed his story when he realized the danger of ending up as an Arkancide.
#23. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)
Snopes? Couldn't find anything from Huffpo on this?
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
(Edited)
You complain about Snopes as a source.
#25. To: nolu chan (#21)
You left out your source for your slightly refashioned urban myth.
#26. To: sneakypete (#25)
What part of "the way I remember it" has you so confused?
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
It does not have me confused, but demonstrates you must be confused.
#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.
#29. To: Fred Mertz (#27)
Shithead.
#30. To: nolu chan (#26)
You have yet to cite a source other than your recollection of something that did not happen,...
#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.
#32. To: sneakypete (#30)
[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."
[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?
#33. To: sneakypete (#31)
So, you are now claiming a Arkansas law license was required to work on a feral impeachment committee in DC?
Kinda overlooking the fact that Bubba Bill was the Arkansas AG before he became the Governor, ain't ya?
#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.
#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.
#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?
#37. To: sneakypete (#36)
#38. To: Biff Tannen (#37)
#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.
#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.
Bubbette! got the law professor job PURELY because of his connection to Bubba
Eleanor Roosevelt Decries Congressional Black Caucus
#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?
#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.
#81. To: sneakypete, CZ82 (#72)
Thanks,and nolu chan is going to continue to tap dance around the fact that I remembered all the important details,except for the identity of the man that fired her.
November 4, 1998
First lady has seen this movie before
She worked on '74 impeachment study
By Lance Gay
Scripps-Howard News Service Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said.
#82. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#81)
#83. To: nolu chan (#64)
What do you recall Bill Clinton did in his college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
#84. To: CZ82 (#70)
You didn't happen to make a wrong turn and get stuck on a one way street that ended up in a "Homohood" yesterday did you?
#85. To: Liberator (#76)
Pete, are you willing to concede that you've been conned into supporting the pro-homo jihad (which has suddenly promoted Totalitarianism)? Or have you changed you mind yet on your misguided crusade?
#86. To: sneakypete (#84)
(Edited)
#87. To: sneakypete (#84)
#88. To: CZ82 (#86)
You hate what this country is becoming so why can't you see what one of the reasons for that is?
#89. To: sneakypete (#88)
#90. To: sneakypete, CZ82 (#85)
Not wanting to burn them at the stake is NOT the same thing as supporting them.
#91. To: Liberator (#90)
#92. To: CZ82, sneakypete (#86)
Obsessed or disgusted with?
#93. To: Fred Mertz (#91)
#94. To: sneakypete, CZ82 (#88)
(Edited)
IMHO,the prime reason our country is turning fascist is because the globalists have been successful in their efforts to turn us all against each other that we spend all our time fighting each other instead of uniting to fight the bastards taking over our country.
#95. To: Liberator (#90)
So in your twisted alleged mind....Christians -- whose livelihoods, culture, and faith are now being spit upon by homfascists and a Constititution that no longer applies to them -- are wanting burn who "at the stake"??
#96. To: Liberator (#92)
Yeah -- apparently repulsion over the homosexual fascism is ok with Pete.
#97. To: Liberator (#94)
The other is idiots like you who've been brainwashed by the media into supporting a huge part of the Left's agenda --<<
#98. To: Liberator (#94)
And btw -- "history" proves that the origins of the Nazi Party were by and large...HOMOSEXUAL. They don't call them the "gaystapo" for nothing either.
#99. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#77)
That said, can one (or both of you) of you please succinctly explain the actual gist or contention of your respective debate? A lot of energy and thought has been expended. Thanks...
I said to Doar, "And now what can I do to help?" Doar replied, "The first thing I want to do is talk to Lois alone." Surprised by his curtness, I suggested that we talk to Lois together—and then have lunch together to talk about the investigation that had been already begun under my supervision.
Doar also wanted to hire some individuals to whom he had personal ties. One of these was his longtime companion Renata Adler, who was a write. … I was particularly concerned about one applicant because of her close ties to Burke Marshall. This was Hillary Rodham, who had been Marshall's protoge at Yale and who had been recommended by Peter Edelman, a former top aide to Robert Kennedy.
Although I objected to allowing Doar to put her [Adler] on the payroll, Rodino eventually agreed.
All last week Doar insisted, "I'm going to do things my own way." I told him … [t]he impeachment of the President is not going to be done yourway, my way, Peter Rodino's way, or Tip O'Neil's or Jack Brooks's way. It is going to be done the congressional way. No one person's judgment can be relied on. The judgments of Congress are collective judgments. That is what the Congress is about! That is what democracy is all about."
When Dean was chosed to be White House Counsel, Rodino, myself, and his other Judiciary Committee friends were pleased. He had attained his position of years of intense devotion to the combined crafts of law and politics. Envied by other, less-skilled executive branch lawyers, Dean had become an extraordinarily clear-eyed legal and political counselor.
#100. To: CZ82, sneakypete (#82)
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
Twenty years later, marshall described Rodham's responsibilities to the then-First Lady's biographer: "The job required basid legal skills of analysis in an area that was quite unexplored. It also required somebody who would keep her work to herself, or within the work of the group." Rodham performed her job admirably.
Hillary Rodham was twenty-seven when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded. Since she was still a relative neophyte in law, she had no prospects of moving directly into a lucrative private practice representing multinational corporations. On her last night on the House Judiciary Committee's payroll, Rodham had dinner with a few of her younger staff colleagues at the A.V. Ristorante, a moderate-priced pasta bistro near Capitol Hill. She confided in her friends that she was still undecided as to whether to marry Bill Clinton—who was then in Little Rock beginning his climb up the political ladder by planning a campaign for Attorney General.
Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said.
Because of a number of her unethical practices I eventually decided that I could not recommend Hillary for any subsequent position of public or private trust. I also took the same position regarding her immediate supervisor, Bernie Nussbaum.
My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.
Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.
Hillary Clinton’s former boss says he fired her from an investigative position because she was a “liar” and “unethical”-Truth! & Fiction!
Truth or Fiction
03.17.15 “Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. ‘If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,’ he said.
“Well, let me put it this way: I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — were no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not — recommend her for any further positions.”
#101. To: sneakypete (#83)
[sneakypete #4] On the other hand,BOTH Clintons have been involved in treason since their college days.
1. allegedly "dodging the draft", or
2. "visiting Russia", or,
3. "visiting the North Korean embassy in Moscow"
was: [nolu chan #64] What do you recall Hillary Rodham Clinton did in her college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
"4. Allegedly working with some of the leaders in the CPUSA, and supporting them"
was: Section 3.
[nolu chan #64] What do you recall Hillary Rodham Clinton did in her college days that involved levying war against the United States, or, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort?
#102. To: nolu chan (#101)
You must be trying to get Hillary elected.
#103. To: sneakypete (#102)
BOTH Clintons have been involved in treason since their college days.
Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committee,
and hiding evidence favorable to him
and was fired for it by Archibald Cox
with the recommendation that "she never be hired or appointed to any position of trust with the government in the future."
#104. To: sneakypete, redleghunter (#4)
Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
1. Conspiracy. President Nixon, H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, John Mitchell, Herbert Kalmbach, and Maurice Stans, in concert with and abetted by others, conspired together to devise and carry out a plan or scheme to commit various crimes against numerous citizens of the United States who opposed the policies of Richard M. Nixon. President Nixon and his coconspirators thereby conspired to commit burglary in violation of 22 D.C. Code 1801; violated federal statutes making it a crime to wiretap, section 2510 et seq. of the United States Criminal Code (Title 18, U.S.C.); conspired to deprive citizens of civil rights in violation of section 241 of the Criminal Code; conspired to violate other federal statutes (e.g., the wiretap statute) in violation of section 371 of the Criminal Code; violated the President's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, article 11, section 3; violated the First amendment rights of persons to freedom of speech, and violated the Fourth amendment rights of persons to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Pursuant to the plan or scheme specified in Count 1, President Nixon and his co-conspirators:
#105. To: nolu chan (#103)
Absurd claims that Barack Obama was really Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, worked so well that you want to emulate it and drag out all the ridiculous claims about Hillary.
#106. To: nolu chan (#104)
#107. To: sneakypete (#95)
Guess what,Bucko! Christians don't run the world.
#108. To: sneakypete (#96)
I honestly don't give a damn what you,homosexuals,or anyone else thinks. I only care when you lobby to get the laws changed so the government enforces your bigotry and superstition.
#109. To: sneakypete (#97)
#110. To: sneakypete (#98)
(Edited)
Some of the strongarm "bully boys" in leadership positions with the police in the early days were homosexuals,but they were pretty much killed off once Hitler took power.
#111. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#99)
#112. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#103)
(Edited)
Absurd claims that Barack 0bama was really Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, worked so well that you want to emulate it and drag out all the ridiculous claims about Hillary.
#113. To: Liberator (#112)
#114. To: Zesta, nolu chan (#113)
Who is this all-knowing "nolu chan" anyway? Why should anyone believe someone who finds it so very important to provide "documentation" on a website that is likely to be read by less than a hundred people?
#115. To: Liberator (#109)
(Edited)
The Christian ethic and faith has indeed been the traditional foundation and underpinning on from America built its greatness.
#116. To: Liberator (#110)
You're agreeing *with* me in part:
#117. To: Zesta (#113)
Who is this all-knowing "nolu chan" anyway?
#118. To: sneakypete (#115)
(Edited)
Christianity doesn't own the patent on ethnic behavior.
#119. To: sneakypete (#116)
(Edited)
I do agree that both fundies and Hitler were/are big fans of the "Big Lie",though.
#120. To: Liberator (#118)
You mean to tell me you can't tell whether America is a better OR worst place once the homofascist agenda kicked in? `
#121. To: Liberator (#119)
So because sodomists, psychopaths, necrophiliacs, and other assorted mentally ill lunatics all declare themelvces "normal,"
#122. To: sneakypete (#120)
Linda Ronstadt
#123. To: Fred Mertz (#91)
#124. To: Biff Tannen (#122)
Linda Ronstadt
#125. To: sneakypete (#120)
You mean to tell me you can't tell whether America is a better OR worst place once the homofascist agenda kicked in? ` No,and if you were to be honest with yourself,neither can you.
#126. To: sneakypete (#120)
Jerry Brown from Ca is still in the closet,
#127. To: sneakypete (#121)
It's normal for THEM,and I would love to see every single "sodomist" (sodomite) in your church outed as sodomites and kicked out of your church. If that were to happen,there wouldn't be enough members there next Sunday to hold a bridge game.
#128. To: sneakypete (#124)
Now she has some sort of disease that can't be treated that prevents her from singing.
#129. To: sneakypete (#124)
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051214084800.htm
webcache.googleuserconten...&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
#130. To: A K A Stone (#125)
Pete look in the mirror you're and meguro are the problem.
#131. To: A K A Stone (#126)
(Edited)
Jerry Brown from Ca is still in the closet,
#132. To: sneakypete (#124)
#133. To: A K A Stone (#127)
You're obviously a homosexual. You get bent out of shape if anyone criticizes your people.
#134. To: VxH (#129)
(Edited)
Evidence Links Cocaine Abuse And Parkinson's Disease
#135. To: sneakypete (#134)
ave no evidence at all that Linda Ronstadt ever did a lot,or any,cocaine back in her glory days.
she was still woman with an incredible voice and it is a shame she has lost it.
#136. To: sneakypete (#120)
Homosexuals as a group had ZERO political influence prior to the 90's,
#137. To: sneakypete, liberator (#120)
#138. To: VxH (#136)
#139. To: VxH (#137)
#140. To: sneakypete (#139)
(Edited)
It was a local event
#141. To: sneakypete (#105)
[nc #103] Absurd claims that Barack Obama was really Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, worked so well that you want to emulate it and drag out all the ridiculous claims about Hillary.
#142. To: sneakypete (#106)
Are you really so stupid that you think a mind-numbing list of accusations that were and are partisan in nature and never proven makes the criminals and traitors you support look any better?
On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives adopted by a vote of 410-4 the following House Resolution 803:
#143. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#111)
With respect to Hitlery's "firing" or technically "let go" from her position and involvement in Nixon's Impeachment proceedings, the unofficial "word on the street" was that Hitlery was sloppy, ventured into darker gray areas, and acted inappropriately in any case (no, please don't ask for citations :-)
Mr. KASTENMEIER: In any event, I will ask our stafff, including the senior associate counsel, Joseph Woods in addition to Mr. Samuel Garrison to identify the other counsel present for the reporter and for the committee, following which I would ask you to start reading the draft to the committee.
Biographical Note
Naftali: What role did Mr. Doar play in these discussions?
Naftali: When your staff completed this memo in a month, I believe, it just took you a little over a month.
Naftali: Let me ask you before we move from the story of the memo on the constitutional grounds for impeachment, what role do you remember Hillary Rodham playing? What did she do as part of your team?
Woods: I tried not to take a position as to what the rules should be. I took a position on what the rules could be which was unlimited in their scope and let the committee express its views. Actually, it was more a subcommittee of the committee, express its views on what the rules ought to be and then we, Hillary and I, tried to write rules that reflected what we understood the committee – the subcommittee to be saying to us. I do not believe that we recommended to the subcommittee any set of rules other than to say that here is what we think you said. Committee, do we have it right? The subcommittee was chaired by Representative Casimir from Wisconsin and I remember that one of the members of the committee was Representative Hungate. I think he was from Missouri. Wherever he was from, Mr. Hungate was very clear about the importance of forwarding proper latitude to the defense and I would say that he, as much as anybody, was the architect of the spirit of the rules that were finally adopted and what Hillary and I did was try to put on paper our understanding of what was necessary. The details that were appropriate to give effect to that spirit.
Naftali: … Thank you. Mr. Woods, let me ask you whether you were involved at all in the decision to recruit Professor C. Vann Woodward to do a study of presidential abuses of power?
Naftali: Tell me a bit about – well, let me ask you this. Given the prominence that she would have later, what was it like to work with Hillary Rodham?
#144. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#112)
How can you state without reservation that ANY claim challenging either the 0webumas or the Klintoons are "ridiculous" when it's clear as day that in all cases, shenanigans is the rule rather than exception? It's easy to claim, "WHAT PROOF?!?" when people in high places are manipulating indictable evidence and eliminating witnesses. Or do you also dismiss THAT notion?
CHAPTER 3—LOSS OF NATIONALITY
#145. To: Zesta, Liberator (#113)
Why should anyone believe someone who finds it so very important to provide "documentation" on a website that is likely to be read by less than a hundred people?
#146. To: sneakypete, Zesta (#117)
A Dim drone hired to disrupt and stop any criticisms of Bubbette! as she heads off on her White House quest.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#147. To: sneakypete (#4)
[sneakypete #4] Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.
Office of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, by Hunt and Liddy.
Office of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, by Barker, De Diego, and Martinez. Hunt and Liddy stood guard outside.
Offices of the DNC, by Hunt and Gonzalez, McCord provided surveillance from across the street.
DNC, by Sturgis, Gonzalez, Barker, Martinez, McCord, De Diego and Pico. Hunt and Liddy in Watergate room. Aborted, unable to pick lock.
DNC, by Sturgis, Gonzalez, Barker, Martinez, and McCord.
DNC, by Barker, Sturgis, Martinez, Gonzalez and McCord. Hunt and Liddy in Watergate room. Busted and arrested.
Congressional Research Service
Senior Specialist in American Public Law
www.crs.gov
R41223 Conspiracy is a crime which begins with a scheme and may continue on until its objective is achieved or abandoned. The liability of individual conspirators continues on from the time they joined the plot until it ends or until they withdraw. The want of an individual’s continued active participation is no defense as long as the underlying conspiracy lives and he has not withdrawn. An individual who claims to have withdrawn bears the burden of establishing either that he took some action to make his departure clear to his co-conspirators or that he disclosed the scheme to the authorities. As a general rule, overt acts of concealment do not extend the life of the conspiracy beyond the date of the accomplishment of its main objectives. On the other hand, the rule does not apply when concealment is one of the main objectives of the conspiracy.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
Beginning in May, 1969, the White House conducted covert intelligence gathering, not for reasons of national security, but for political purposes. In May, 1969, President Nixon orer the FBI to engage in electronic surveillance of at least seventeen persons, including four newsmen and three White House subordinates whose jobs were unrelated to national security. (Book VII, 142-47, 153).
During the same period, White House personnel also engaged directly in illegal surveillance for political purposes. In 1969, Counsel to the President John Erlichman hired Anthony Ulasewicz, a retired police detective, to conduct investigations under the supervision of John Caulfield, a subordinate to Erlichman. (Book VII, 336-44) In June 1969, Caulfield, at Ehrlichan’s direction initiated a wiretap on the residence telephone of newspaper columnist Joseph Kraft. (Book VII, 314-15). Ehrlichman discussed this wiretap with the President. (Book VII, 323) During the next three years, Caulfield and Ulasewicz, under Ehrlichman’s or Dean’s direction, conducted a number of covert inquiries concerning political opponents of the President. (Book VII, 342, 346-47)
#148. To: sneakypete (#4)
Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Untied States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did receive emoluments from the United States in excess of the compensation provided by law pursuant to Article II, Section I, Clause 7 of the Constitution, and did willfully attempt to evade the payment of a portion of Federal income taxes due and owing by him for the years 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, in that:
On April 3, 1974 the White House issued a statement that the President has "today instructed payment of the $432,787.13 set forth by the Internal Revenue Service, plus interest."
H11932
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
December 18, 1998
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H11933 The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the assused from office.
Impeachment: A Handbook
39-40 (1974) ‘What is misbehavior in office? In answer to this question and without pretending to furnish a definition, I freely admit that we are bound to prove that the respondent has violated the Constitution, or some known law of the land. This, I think, is the principle fairly to be deduced from all the arguments on the trial of Judge Chase, and from the votes of the Senate on the Articles of Impeachment against him, in opposition to the principle for which his counsel in the first instance strenuously contended, that in order to render an offence impeachable it must be indictable. But this violation of law may consist in the abuse, as well as in the usurpation of authority. The abuse of a power which has been given may be criminal as the usurpation of a power that has not been granted.’
“[A]ttempts to limit the scope of impeachable offenses have rarely proposed limiting impeachable offenses only to indictable offenses. Rather, the major disagreement among commentators has been over the range of nonindictable offenses for which someone may be impeached.
He met with Republican congressional leaders soon after, and was told he faced certain impeachment in the House and had, at most, only 15 votes in his favor in the Senate — far fewer than the 34 he needed to avoid removal from office.
#149. To: sneakypete (#121)
It's not for me to accept or not accept. It's none of my business and I don't even want to know about it. *I* am not the one obsessed with homosexuality.
#150. To: nolu chan (#141)
I have stated many times previously that the absurd claims you puked up, as posted by others over the past years, are not only absurd, but absurdly untrue. If they were true, they would not be absurd. If they were possibly true, they would not be absurd. They are not possibly true, have been proven utterly untrue for ten years, and are utter garbage.
#151. To: nolu chan (#142)
Hearing him commit crimes in tape recorded conversations removes doubt in all except those who refuse to hear.
#152. To: nolu chan (#144)
There are so many valid claims that the claims made by sneakypete are unnecessary, and as inexcusably absurd as the claim that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen,
#153. To: nolu chan (#146)
Actually, I did not contest “ONE detail.”
#154. To: nolu chan (#147)
(Edited)
#155. To: A K A Stone (#149)
Liar Pete. You are the chapmpion of faggot pretend rights on this site.
#156. To: sneakypete (#150)
FACT,he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father,and had his name legally changed to Barry Soetoro.
FACT,his mother,as his legal guardian,and his father had his citizenship changed to Indonesian.
Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.
THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952
NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL PERSON ATTAINS AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FACT,there is no record of him ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Oboma.
FACT,he traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport issued to Barry Soetoro,Indonesian citizen when he was 18 and Pakistan wasn't allowing US citizens to visit.
"Before traveling to Pakistan, American Citizens should be aware of the following updated visa requirements: 30 day visas are available at Pakistani airports for tourists only. As these visas are rarely extended beyond the 30 day time per visa, tourists planning to stay longer should secure visas before coming to Pakistan. Any traveler coming into Pakistan overland from India must repeat must have a valid visa, as 30 day visas are not repeat not issued at the overland border crossing point at Wagha."
New York Times link
Passport of Call
FACT,there is no legal record every having denounced his Indonesian citizenship OR applying to have his US citizenship re-instated.
FACT,he and his handlers,because he really is a dummy and has to speak from a script,refuses to even talk about any of this.
#157. To: sneakypete (#151)
You also seem more than willing to gloss over the fact it was the Republicans that told him they would vote for impeachment if he didn't resign.
The release of the "smoking gun" tape destroyed Nixon politically. The ten congressmen who voted against all three articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee announced they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House.
No matter how many lies you spin around it,Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate break-in.
In criminal law the rule is well recognized that one who learns of an ongoing criminal conspiracy and casts his lot with the conspirators becomes a member of the conspir4acy. Once the existence of a conspiracy is shown, slight evidence mazy be sufficient to conect a defendant with it. But one odes not become a member of a conspiracy simply because of receiving information regarding its nature and scope; he must have information regarding its nature and scope; he must have what the courts describe as a "stake in the success of the venture." He "must in some sense promote the venture himself, make it his own, have a stake in its outcome. …" Although one member of the conspiracy must commit a overt act, it is not necessary that every conspirator do so.
In addition, 18 U.S.C. 2 provides that one who "counsels, induces or procures" the commission of an offense such as bribery, obstruction of justice or of a criminal investigation, or perjury by another is "punishable as a principal."
Nixon: … They [Brookings] have a lot of material. … I want Brookings, I want them to break in and take it out. Do You understand?
Nixon: Shake them up. Get them off their Goddamn dead asses and say now that isn't what you should be talking about. We're up against an enemy, a conspiracy. They're using any means. We are going to use any means. Is that clear?
Nixon: Brookings has got tons of documents in safes ov er there. Now, we have got to start protecting the security of this government. Brookings and Rand, now Goddamnit, Haig hasn't done this—because henry welshed on these, you know. He's a little afraid. He's got some friends at Brookings (unintelligible). But anyway, he said publicly—he told me he was for it. But he's dragging his feet or something. You've got to get this stuff from Rand and Brookings. John, you mop up. You're in charge of that. And I want it done today and I'd like a report.
Nixon: … Also, I really meant it when—I want to go in and crack that safe. Walk in and get it. I want Brookings cut. They've got to do it. Brookings is the real enemy here.
Nixon: Where does Krogh stand now? He's still in charge of the—
Ehrlichman: We had one little operation. It's been aborted out in Los Angeles which, I think, is better that you don't know about. But we've got some dirty tricks underway. It may pay off. We've planted a bunch of stuff with colunists some of which will be given to service shortly. I think some of this group, about Ellsbert's lawyer, about the Bay of Pigs. Some of this stuff is going to start—is going to start surfacing.
Ehrlichman: There's a lot of hanky-panky with secret documents and on the eve of the publication of the Pentagon apers those three guys made a deposit into the National Archives under an agreement of a whole lot of papers. Now I'm going to steal those documents out of the National Archives.
Nixon: And the whole Plumbers operation. I'mj going to take that. Also, I want you—I deliberately am only calling you because i don't want to talk to John. …
Huston Plan
White House horrors
#158. To: sneakypete (#152)
[sneakypete #152] He didn't "lose his citizenship",shithead. His mother gave it up for him
Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.
THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952
NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL PERSON ATTAINS AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS CHAPTER 3—LOSS OF NATIONALITY
LOSS OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY THROUGH PARENT'S EXPATRIATION; NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL PERSON ATTAINS AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
#159. To: sneakypete (#153)
Blah,blah,blah.
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.
#160. To: sneakypete (#154)
Remind us again what office Nixon is running for this election season,Bubba.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#161. To: sneakypete (#154)
After all,hits fo de chil-runs!
Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
by Peter Schweizer (Author)
Publisher: Harper (May 5, 2015)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0062369288
ISBN-13: 978-0062369284
Product Dimensions: 6 x 0.9 x 9 inches
#162. To: nolu chan (#161)
Your urban legend chain email has been debunked for about 10 years.
#163. To: sneakypete (#162)
[sneakypete #162] You are nothing but a professional liar and propagandist for the Dim Party.
[sneakypete #150] FACT, he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father
[sneakypete #152] He didn't "lose his citizenship",shithead. His mother gave it up for him.…
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS
Renunciation of U.S. Nationality
U.S. Department of State
CA/OCS/L
SA-17, 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20522-1710
#164. To: nolu chan (#163)
[sneakypete #150] FACT, he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father
#165. To: sneakypete (#164)
#166. To: A K A Stone (#165)
Chan is wiping the floor with you.
#167. To: sneakypete (#166)
Number 2,I don't give a rabid rats ass what you,Bubbette!'s Fan Boy,or anyone else here thinks of me.
#168. To: sneakypete (#164)
[sneakypete #150] FACT, he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father
F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN/INCOMPETENTS
[sneakypete #150] FACT, he was adopted by his ho mothers Indonesian father,and had his name legally changed to Barry Soetoro.
Article 2.
Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]