Clinton was her own worst enemy and deserved to lose...

That said, Comey deserves to be imprisoned for his interference in the election.

That said, Comey deserves to be imprisoned for his interference in the election.

Comey didn't interfere with anything. Hillary brought her troubles upon herself with her defiance of legal process. She should have been sent to the slammer some time ago.

That said, Comey deserves to be imprisoned for his interference in the election.

Nope. Seems clear to me he made the announcement about her when he did because Lo-Retta and Obomber were setting him up as the fall guy to take the blame for a botched investigation.

She should have been sent to the slammer some time ago.

She SHOULD have been arrested and sent to prison when caught destroying evidence favorable to Nixon,and even manufacturing evidence harmful to him when she was working with the Senate Watergate Committee.

Instead she was just fired with the recommendation that she never again be hired for any position of public trust,so after flunking the DC bar exam she moved to Arkansas to marry bubba and have him arrange for her to be given a license to practice law in Ark so she could work for the Rose Law Firm and launder his bribe money. Since then every job or position she has ever had has been a "gimme" because she was married to Bubba.

The woman has never accomplished a single thing on her own in her entire life.

Hillary, Bill and Chelsea belong in prison for the criminal activities of the 'Foundation' alone.

Hillary, Bill and Chelsea belong in prison for the criminal activities of the 'Foundation' alone.

Chelsea didn't do anything. From what I've seen on Wikileaks, she was actually CHALLENGING things that were getting done, and that caused one of the corrupt enablers to melt-down and write down in detail all of the influence peddling and money HE HIMSELF had obtained for Bill Clinton.

Chelsea is their kid, and so benefited indirectly and directly from them having amassed this ill- gotten fortune. But you don't put John Gotti's daugher in prison because she grew up in a house made with mob money.

Chelsea didn't do anything. Leave her alone.

Chelsea didn't do anything.

Yes she did.

Chelsea's wedding, townhouse and living expenses were ALL paid out of the Clinton Foundation. She is the product of two malfunctioning parents: she's a bratty little bitch who now plans to run for Congress!

She SHOULD have been arrested and sent to prison when caught destroying evidence favorable to Nixon,and even manufacturing evidence harmful to him when she was working with the Senate Watergate Committee.

Instead she was just fired with the recommendation that she never again be hired for any position of public trust

Amen!You'll get no argument from me about that.

If I go out to dinner with a group from Goldman Sachs, and they pay for my lavish dinner and put it on Goldman Sachs, but they didn't actually have the permission to charge my meal to Goldman because of Goldman's policies or the tax law, I'M not a thief, and I'M not in trouble. They are.

Chelsea got a wedding paid for by the Foundation. That's certainly a misuse of foundation money. But if she didn't have the power to authorize that and her parents just did it, she's not legally liable.

Now, a really zealous prosecutor could require her to pay it BACK, but he couldn't prosecute her for it unless she actually was the one with the authority to make the foundation pay.

I didn't read into the situation, because it's not very interesting.

I want to see the prosecutions continue apace. If Obama pardons them, he pardons them. If he doesn't, then justice should be done.

I want to see the prosecutions continue apace. If Obama pardons them, he pardons them. If he doesn't, then justice should be done.

Great Caesar's ghost!

You're a freaking Clintonian !

You're saying that if the anti-American Jackass currently squatting on the White Hut's Oval Orifice crapper pardons any of these weasels then it's a legitimate act.

You are beyond contemptible.

Don't like it?

Republicans control, effectively, 35 state legislaturesm are practically evenly split in two more, and control 68 of 99 legislatures overall. It takes 34 to call a Constitutional Convention of the States, and 36 states to ratify whatever it does.

Republicans would DOMINATE a Constitutional Convention called right now, and the whole Constitution can be amended to get rid of excesses.

Think that Presidential pardons should be subject to Senate approval? Put it in the Constitution. Think that the Second amendment should be clearly established as a national right that is absolute and cannot be overridden? Put it in the constitution.

Think Kelp and "private eminent domain" is a travesty? Get it right in the constitution.

Thnk that Roe v Wade is a travesty? Strike it down as part of the slate of amendments.

Think that the Supreme Court and federal justices should be term limited or have retirement ages? Put it in the Consttution.

Think that anchor babies should not be citizens? Get that in the Constitution.

Think that treaties cannot override Constitutional protections? Make that clear in the Constitution.

Think that the taxing power should be limited? Get that in the Constitution.

Think that the "Commerce Clause" cannot mean that Christians have to bake gay wedding cakes, and that gay marriage is not a Constitutional right? Get that into the Constitution.

Think that wars should have to be FORMALLY DECLARED or no forces go? Clarify that in the Constitution.

The Republicans could change everything, for good, right now, by a Convention of the States, than by trying to amend the Constitution a piece at a time, and trying to pass legislation piece by piece.

You've been handed absolute power. You are so dominant that states rights can return, for there is no Presidential veto, nor Congressional oversight, nor Supreme Court judicial review, of a Constituteioal Convention.

If it "runs away", with 35 of the delegations controlled by state-level Republicans, it's going to run away states rights Republican.

Which is what you guys always say you want. So DO IT. Use the power that Trump has given you with his victory to have the people take back their government, as Republicans at the STATE level, rewrite the Constitutional rules, and in that way cut the Federal government down to size in a way that it is powerless to block,

she's a bratty little bitch who now plans to run for Congress!

I didn't know that,but it's not surprising. She is their last gasp at being able to keep sucking at the government tit.

Not to mention keep their crimes covered up.

BTW,she won't really be "running". It will be more like "Stepping into a rented room" because her parents ain't about to let her run unless they can buy her a seat with a 100 percent guarantee she will win.

There are the minor discrepancies that Hillary Rodham was never fired from the Senate Watergate Committee, and this is all previously debunked fiction.

Yeah,and there are people still claiming the moon landing was fake,too.

You're saying that if the anti-American Jackass currently squatting on the White Hut's Oval Orifice crapper pardons any of these weasels then it's a legitimate act.

Uhhhh,it IS a "legitimate act" if a sitting President uses the power of his office to issue a pardon. You DO understand that a "pardon" is the same thing as saying "it didn't really happen",right?

At first blush this forum appears to be small, so there shouldn't be room for leftist shills like yourself. Go haunt another forum: the leftist communist Democrats have several.

Who died and made YOU Chief Shithead in Charge?

At first blush this forum appears to be small, so there shouldn't be room for leftist shills like yourself. Go haunt another forum: the leftist communist Democrats have several.

And who are you? I don't recall the name before.

This forum is owned by a man who calls himself A K A Stone. He, not you, decides who may and may not post here.

Leftist shill? You are not very discerning. No, I am really very much like Trump (but without the great hair). I am a nationalist - I believe in strong defense. I am an economic nationalist - I believe in protecting American jobs, particularly the blue collar jobs that employ massive numbers of people. I think that peace with Russia is a really good idea, because the opposite is expensive and pointless. I broadly believe in personal liberty, but there is no personal liberty to murder babies in the womb.

So, I'm a pro-life nationalist supporter of the working class who believes in a strong defense, a border wall, and peace with Russia.

If that's Leftist. That isn't leftist. If you're CALLING that Leftist, then your understanding of American politics requires recalibration. As far as there being no room on a forum like this for the likes of me, that's A K A Stone's call, not yours.

Oh. On reconsidering, you should go to (Un)Free Republic. You'll get along splendidly there.

They banned me long, long ago (2007) for being too critical of George H. W. Bush. (I liked W a lot better than H.W.) That was a crime then. Over time, I've seen them come around to every position I had. They even eventually became Trumpists. But they won't take me back, at least not under my proper name.

e room for leftist shills

Go haunt another forum

Buzz off comrade n0oB!

Psychologist Leon Festinger compounded the theory of cognitive dissonance which is applicable in this instance.

She's at it again today, blaming Comey for interfering with her doners. She's conducting her own psychotic psychodrama and using it to whip and ifluence her supporters into a hysterical condition preperatory to revolution and overthrow of the government for purposes of installing her as President.

A large part of it is to gain support for a congressional run for her daughter,Howdy Doody.

Howdy is their only hope of keeping their beaks dipping into the public treasury,and being a congresscritter might just be her only hope of staying married into the billionaire family of her husband. You didn't REALLY think he married her for her beauty,wit,and charm,did you?

It is not legitimate to pardon prior to being charged. Who cares if Ford did it.

"Legitimate" isn't the question. The question is "Does a sitting president have the authority to grant pardons,and the answer is "YES!"

Show me where in the law it makes exceptions for blanket pardons covering a period in time.

There are the minor discrepancies that Hillary Rodham was never fired from the Senate Watergate Committee, and this is all previously debunked fiction.

Yeah,and there are people still claiming the moon landing was fake,too.

I notice you evade identifying anyone as having done the firing, notabgluy because you know for a fact that your recycledd bullshit is still bullshit.

As you choose to make an assiten comment, I will revisit the issue one more time to see if you have any new evidence to support your bullshit.

Here you fantasized that Hilary Rodham was fired by Archibald Cox.

#4. To: redleghunter (#1)

These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.

You can't be ignorant enough to be serious!

I am no fan of Richard "Wage and Price Controls,and lets open relations with China while we are at it!" Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.

On the other hand,BOTH Clintons have been involved in treason since their college days. Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committee,and hiding evidence favorable to him and was fired for it by Archibald Cox with the recommendation that "she never be hired or appointed to any position of trust with the government in the future."

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-03-30   6:42:40 ET

http://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=38764&Disp=45#C45

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.

[...]

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

Hillary worked for that committee until it dissolved. She was not fired. She was hired by, and worked for, John Doar.

I notice you evade identifying anyone as having done the firing, notabgluy because you know for a fact that your recycledd bullshit is still bullshit.

ESAD,you pompous asshole. I didn't mention who fired her and wrote that recommendation because I couldn't remember. I DO remember that Cox was the head of the committee,and his signature would most likely be the one on the document,but she obviously worked for one of his aides.

Hillary worked for that committee until it dissolved. She was not fired. She was hired by, and worked for, John Doar.

And WHERE did you get that little tidbit from,Team Hillary?

ESAD,you pompous asshole. I didn't mention who fired her and wrote that recommendation because I couldn't remember. I DO remember that Cox was the head of the committee,and his signature would most likely be the one on the document,but she obviously worked for one of his aides.

You ESAD, you stupid, ignorant jackass. Hillary never worked for the Special Prosecutor or the Watergate committee. Do let me know when you get done extracting your head from your ass.

The confirmation of Elliott Richardson as Attorney General was conditioned on the appointment of a special prosecutor. Elliott Richardson was confirmed on May 25, 1973. His selection for Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, was sworn in on May 25, 1973. Special Prosecutor Arcibald Cox was in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, under the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

On October 20, 1973 came the Saturday Night Massacre. AG Elliott Richardson resigned rather than carry out President Nixon's order to fire Cox. Deputy AG William Ruckleshaus similarly resigned rather than carry out the order. Next in line, Robert Bork carried out the order.

The HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE met and proceeded to authorize, fund, and create, within the committee, the Impeachment Investigation Task Force. Rep. Peter Rodino, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, brought attorney John Doar on board to head up the Impeachment Investigation Task Force. John Doar brought on Hillary Rodham on the recommendation of high powered attorney Burke Marshall of Yale.

Hillary Rodham worked for the Impeachment Investigation Task Force within the House Judiciary Committee. Archibald Cox worked in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH until he was fired on October 20, 1973. Archibald Cox was fired before the House Impeachment Investigation Task Force was even created, and before Hillary Rodham was hired.

Archibald Cox was a Special Prosecutor. John Doar was Special Counsel to the Task Force. The Task Force was investigating to see if evidence existed to justify the bringing of articles of impeachment before the House. Before he was fired, Archibald Cox was investigating crimes related to Watergate. Not only did Hillary not work for Archibald Cox, she did not even work in the same branch of the government. And Cox was fired well before she was hired.

Only a moron would conclude that Hillary Rodham obviously worked for one of the aides of Archibald Cox.

See also, Leon Jaworski, The Right and the Power, The Prosecution of Watergate 1976, The Leon Jaworski Foundation, page 1:

I WAS WORKING at my desk on the morning of October 30, 1973, immersed in a stack of mail to which I was dictating replies, when my phone rang. It was a friend of mine, an attorney. He was speaking from New York.

"Leon," he said, "you're going to get a call shortly from General Alexander Haig at the White House. He's going to try to persuade you to accept the job of Watergate Special Prosecutor."

"After what happened to Archibald Cox?" I answered with a wry chuckle.

"He wants you, Leon."

"Perhaps," I replied. "But I was approached about the job before Cox took it. I told them at the time that the job didn't have enough independence to suit me. What happened to Cox is evidence that I was right."

"It doesn't make any difference," my friend said. "Haig, and the others at the White House, seem determined to get you. Hear him out, anyway."

Leon Jaworski was the successor to Archibald Cox as Special Prosecutor. As with Archibald Cox, he was selected by the administration. Appendix B of the book lists the four who served as Special Prosecutor and their dates of service, and every member of the staff, and their dates of service. Hillary Rodham is not listed as she had nothing to do with that staff. She worked for a special staff in the House Judiciary Committee.

As is evident, you do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Also never on the staff of the Impeachment Investigation Staff in the House was one Jerome Zeifman. He was counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. He was a hack civil service attorney. When they got to considering impeachment, they brought in a Top Gun attorney, John Doar to act as Chief Counsel to the Task Force.

Jerry Zeifman, Hillary's Pursuit of Power, 2006, page 32:

One of the first lawyers to be hired by [John] Doar was [Burke] Marshall's star pupil Hillary Rodham.

Jerry Zeifman, Without Honor, Thunder's Mouth Press, 1995, 1 ed., p. 220:

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.

By the next morning Rodham had made her decision. She took the train down to Little Rock, Arkansas.

Hillary was let go when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/zeifman-20080404.pdf

Library of Congress Newspaper Room

First lady has seen this movie before

She worked on '74 impeachment study

By Lance Gay
Scripps Howard News Agency

Hillary Rodham was one of 43 attorneys hired by the House Judciary Committee in 1973 to work on an impeachment inquiry....

"We were the drones -- the junior-level lawyers," [Fred] Altshuler said, recalling that the course of the committee's probe was set by more senior staff lawyers....

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.

Yeah, Zeifman said, "If I had the power to fire her..." He did not have the power because she did not work for him. Zeifman was not even a member of the staff she was on.

On 2 April 2008, Zeifman gave an interview to Neil Boortz and bullshitted as follows:

BOORTZ: You fired her, didn't you?

ZEIFMAN: 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, Hillary's Pursuit of Power, 2006, page 11:

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.

Obviously, Zeifman never had the authority to fire Hillary Rodham. Hillary worked for John Doar and worked with Yale professor C. Van Woodward on a study for the Impeachment Inquiry Staff. Hillary couldn't possibly have cared less about what the lowly civil service attorney did, or did not, recommend. She never worked for Zeifman. As a civil servant, Zeifman had delusions that he had lucked into an impeachment investigation. And then John Doar was hired and he was frozen out of it. Presumably, he went back to getting advice from Eleanor Roosevelt.

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

Eleanor Roosevelt Decries Congressional Black Caucus

Jerry Zeifman — February 20, 2008

Exclusive to Accuracy in Media

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

Last night the former First Lady came again to me in dream.

Following is a sequel to our prior conversation.

What are your thoughts on the current controversy in the Congressional Black Caucus as to whether to support Obama for President?

Eleanor Roosevelt: I was pleased to see an article on that subject titled “Criticism of Black Politics” in the New York Amsterdam News of February 15—which saddens me, but with which I agree. As you know, that paper is one of our leading Afro-American publications and has long been in the front lines of civil rights causes.

[snip]

- - - - - - - - - -

Hillary worked for that committee until it dissolved. She was not fired. She was hired by, and worked for, John Doar.

And WHERE did you get that little tidbit from,Team Hillary?

Zeifman documented it quite nicely, and it is a matter of historical record.

Even a casual reading of Wikipedia could have relieved your state of abject ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_of_Richard_Nixon

The House Judiciary Committee takes up the case

Congressional Democrats found themselves under much pressure to hold hearings on Nixon's alleged abuse of presidential powers. Representative Peter W. Rodino of New Jersey, a Democrat, had only been Judiciary Chairman for a few months when his committee began to hear the case for Nixon's impeachment. Until the Watergate scandal, Rodino had spent his political career largely below the radar screen. Watergate put Rodino front and center in the political limelight. "If fate had been looking for one of the powerhouses of Congress, it wouldn't have picked me," Rodino told a reporter at the time.[15]

After the Saturday Night Massacre, Rodino began his committee's investigation. On October 30, 1973, the House Judiciary Committee began consideration of the possible impeachment of Richard Nixon. The initial straight party-line votes by a 21–17 margin were focused around how extensive the subpoena powers Rodino would have would be.[16]

By early January 1974 there was sufficient chance of impeachment moving forward that Nixon wrote in his diary that his main approach to defending against such a move would be to "act like a president" with respect to foreign and domestic duties.[17] At the end of his January 30 State of the Union address, Nixon asked for an expeditious resolution to any impeachment proceedings against him, so that the government could function fully effectively again.[18]

The Judiciary Committee set up a staff, the Impeachment Inquiry staff, to handle looking into the charges, that was separate from its regular Permanent staff.[19] Based upon the recommendations of many in the legal community, John Doar, a well-known civil rights attorney in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who was a long-time Republican turned Independent, was hired by Rodino in December 1973 to be the lead special counsel for the Impeachment Inquiry staff.[20] Albert E. Jenner, Jr. was named in January 1974 as top counsel on the Impeachment Inquiry staff for the Republican minority on the committee.[21] The four Senior Associate Special Counsels to the Impeachment Inquiry staff were Joseph A. Woods, Jr., Richard Cates, Bernard W. Nussbaum, and Robert D. Sack[22] (who originally served as Associate Special Counsel).

Much research needed to be done, as there had not been an actual impeachment in the House since that of Judge Halsted L. Ritter in 1936.[23] House Librarian Emanuel Raymond Lewis provided critical historical references to guide the committee in its work.[24]

With pressure growing and a new Vice President, Gerald Ford, in place since December 6, 1973, the House passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, on February 6, 1974, that formally ratified the impeachment inquiry by giving the Judiciary Committee authority to actually investigate charges against the President.[25][26] As part of the discussion over this measure, which was not a measure of actual impeachment sentiment and which passed by a 410–4 vote, Rodino said, "Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of the American people, and their children after them, will say: This was the right course. There was no other way." House Republican leader John J. Rhodes said that Rodino's vow was "good with me".[27]

In March 1974, the D.C. grand jury that had been involved in the case since the original 1972 indictments against the Watergate burglars, handed up its most significant indictments in the case, including Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and others. Because prosecutors informed the grand jury that the Constitution likely prohibited the indictment of an incumbent president, with impeachment thus the only recourse, the jurors recommended that materials making a criminal case against President Nixon be turned over to the House Judiciary Committee.[28]

Talk of possible impeachment included considerations of how it might affect U.S. foreign relations. During the spring of 1974, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger publicly proclaimed his expectation that the president would neither be impeached nor resign, but privately he worried that the country's ability to deal with foreign problems would be significantly damaged by an impeachment.[29] Kissinger later said this fear manifested itself during SALT II negotiations in April 1974, when Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko asked him how the U.S. government would function if impeachment came to pass. Kissinger assessed that the Politburo was unlikely to extend concessions given the uncertainty.[30]

The Impeachment Inquiry staff hired 34 counsels reporting to Doar or the other senior lawyers on the staff.[22] One who later became well-known was William Weld.[22] Another was Hillary Rodham.[31] Under the guidance of Doar and Nussbaum,[32] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[31] As part of this she wrote a brief supporting Rodino's belief that during the initial evidentiary hearings to determine whether potential grounds for impeachment exist, the target of the possible impeachment has no right to representation by counsel during the hearings.[19] Altogether there were 44 lawyers on the staff, of whom only 3 were women, and close to a 100 total people when researchers, clerks, typists, and other support personnel were enumerated.[33] Like other committee staffers, Rodham worked long, sometimes tedious hours.[33] She and some of the other women on the staff had to post a sign telling the male staffers that they were not there to make coffee for them.[34]

(The lead counsel for the regular, non-impeachment staff of the Judiciary Committee, Jerry Zeifman, decades later made charges without evidence that the committee had intentionally dragged out the impeachment process, hoping to keep a politically wounded Nixon in office for his full second term and thus facilitate the election of Ted Kennedy to the presidency. Zeifman also claimed that Rodham had behaved unethically on the committee and that he had fired her; both claims have been thoroughly debunked.[19][22])

The committee spent eight months gathering evidence and pushed Nixon to comply with a subpoena for conversations taped in the Oval Office.[35] Its quarters were in the old Congressional Hotel,[33] which had become the O'Neill House Office Building. The case was put together on more than 500,000 five-by-seven-inch notecards that were cross-indexed against each other.[36] A constant worry among committee leaders was that leaks from their research, deliberations, and preliminary conclusions would leak to the press; Doar in particular had the junior lawyers on the inquiry working on isolated areas so that only a few of the senior counsels knew the big picture.[23] Opinions differ as to how successful they were at preventing leaks, with some saying they were[36][37] and some saying they were not.[35]

In the view of Doar, Chairman Rodino "insisted that [the inquiry's work] be bipartisan, it not be partisan. There was no partisanship on the staff. In fact, it was remarkably non-partisan. And that is the result of good leadership. And although Congressman Rodino was a quiet man, he had the knack of leading, of managing, and he did it very well, in my opinion."[37]