5 Bald Faced Lies Trump Just Told in His Anti Hillary Speech!
Jun 22, 2016 14:53:54 #
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/here-are-5-bald-faced-lies-trump-just-told-in-his-major-anti-hillary-speech/
#1 He once again claimed to be a staunch opponent of the Iraq war!
#2 He once again said the US is the highest taxed country in the world!
#3 Trump claims we can rebuild every major inner city, for all the money we are spending on Syrian refugees!
#4 Trump claimed Hillary slept through the 2012 attack in Benghazi
#5 Trump smeared the immigrants again by saying "Hundreds of recent immigrants and their children have been convicted of terrorism in the US!
#1 He once again claimed to be a staunch opponent of the Iraq war!
#2 He once again said the US is the highest taxed country in the world!
#3 Trump claims we can rebuild every major inner city, for all the money we are spending on Syrian refugees!
#4 Trump claimed Hillary slept through the 2012 attack in Benghazi
#5 Trump smeared the immigrants again by saying "Hundreds of recent immigrants and their children have been convicted of terrorism in the US!
Jun 22, 2016 15:11:30 #
Part I: Hillary's vanishing documents since WATERGATE:
CANADA FREE PRESS
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52621
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
Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
By Dan Calabrese Thursday, January 24, 2013
I’ve decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton’s performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary’s conduct at the time.
I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn’t reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary’s arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I’ve combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you’re interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it’s worth your time to read it.
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
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.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)
To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.
“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.
Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.
“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”
That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.
But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation...
Part II to follow:
CANADA FREE PRESS
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52621
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
Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
By Dan Calabrese Thursday, January 24, 2013
I’ve decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton’s performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary’s conduct at the time.
I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn’t reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary’s arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I’ve combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you’re interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it’s worth your time to read it.
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
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.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)
To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.
“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.
Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.
“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”
That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.
But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation...
Part II to follow:
Jun 22, 2016 15:12:02 #
Part II: Hillary's vanishing documents since WATERGATE:
Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52621
After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.
Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.
(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)
This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.
According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.
The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:
Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.
Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential “abuse of power” as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.
As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.
Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.
In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:
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. . . .
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.
Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.
“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.
Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.
But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.
All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.
“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”
Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.
“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”
Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.
A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.
Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.
By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.
“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”
Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.
Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52621
After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.
Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.
(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)
This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.
According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.
The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:
Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.
Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential “abuse of power” as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.
As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.
Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.
In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:
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. . . .
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.
Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.
“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.
Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.
But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.
All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.
“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”
Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.
“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”
Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.
A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.
Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.
By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.
“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”
Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.
Jun 22, 2016 15:41:46 #
And all this propaganda you posted from over 30 yrs ago have what to do with the 5 bald faced lies Trump told today??????????
CounterRevolutionary wrote:
Part I: Hillary's vanishing documents since WATERG... (show quote)
Jun 22, 2016 15:54:29 #
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
And all this propaganda you posted from over 30 yrs ago have what to do with the 5 bald faced lies Trump told today??????????
Trump is not lying. Hillary is. She has a long track record of corruption. For example, please tell us what gun control has to do with the Orlando shooting at the gay nightclub when the shooter's Pashtun Taliban father, Seddique Mateen, was visiting the Secretary of State's office and hosting a CIA sponsored TV program out of San Diego? This is a family of Afghan Taliban terrorists in exile on the CIA and State Department payroll living in America!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/father-of-orlando-shooter-is-long-time-cia-asset/5531068
Father of Orlando Shooter is Long-time CIA Asset
PS, we are fighting the terrorist Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nevertheless, America has admitted many of these Pashtun Taliban Afghans to our country as "refugees" who consistently preach hatred against our nation. This Afghan Taliban exile in waiting, Seddique Mateen, (father to Omar) is plotting the overthrow of the current Afghan regime, running for president in Kabul. Seddique Mateen hosts The Durand Jirga Show, sponsored by a U.S.-based Afghan satellite channel as a transitionary revolutionary government in exile, preaching to his Taliban compatriots in Europe, America and Asia. That's right, the terrorist network of al Qaeda and the Taliban that attacked us on 9/11/2001 is being restored to power in Afghanistan by the Obama administration today. See how Bill Clinton sponsored the rise of the Taliban back in the 1990s:
http://www.angelfire.com/on/wapha/dana.html
info@wapha.org
Statement of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher
U.S. Policy Toward Afghanistan
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia
April 14, 1999
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/orlando-seddique-Mateen.jpg
According to the article posted above, Seddique Mateen posted this photo on his own Facebook web page, yet no record of his State Department visits are in government records. How could those files vanish? How many of Hillary's 33,000 vanishing emails were State Department correspondence with Seddique Mateen, father to the Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen? Omar's neighboring Muslims reported him to the FBI. Coworkers reported him to the FBI. Yet Omar Mateen was not apprehended prior his attack. Who gave the orders to "stand down" on pursuing further investigations? No more Clintons! We have to keep this terrorist sponsoring crap out of the White House or we will lose our nation.
Jun 22, 2016 16:44:08 #
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
RAWSTORY ?? is just what its name indicates , a storybook for the left and progressives , Try Again speedbump !
Jun 22, 2016 17:15:25 #
Damn your easy! Now I know why Trump said "I love the poorly educated"
ABC News Debunks Trump's Speech Today!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-n597051?cid=sm_tw_msnbc
Proving Trump to be a pathological liar!
ABC News Debunks Trump's Speech Today!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-n597051?cid=sm_tw_msnbc
Proving Trump to be a pathological liar!
reconreb wrote:
RAWSTORY ?? is just what its name indicates , a storybook for the left and progressives , Try Again speedbump !
Trump Loves Decon!
Jun 22, 2016 17:24:55 #
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Who gives a fuck? You sure don't give a fuck about the lying Hilldebeast.
Jun 22, 2016 17:34:24 #
Don't believe the moonbats and their corporate lapdog media that protects the bitch at every turn.
Trump Unleashes Furious Beatdown on Hillary:
Donald Trump was scheduled to deliver a speech outlining the numerous weaknesses of Hillary Clinton last week, but his rhetorical beatdown was postponed due to the tragedy in Orlando. On Wednesday, however, Trump returned to the speech and laid out the many reasons why his opponent would be a disaster as president.
“Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft,” Trump said. “She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes and many others in exchange for cash. Then, when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than two years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public.”
Trump painted a picture of Hillary that rarely breaks through the mainstream media’s wall of protection, delivering one of the most withering political speeches in modern memory. At times, his attacks echoed those of Hillary’s rival in the primaries, Sen. Bernie Sanders. It was clear that those similarities were not lost on Trump.
“The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money,” he said. “That’s why we’re asking Bernie Sanders’s voters to join our movement: So together we can fix the system for all Americans.”
Trump dismissed critics of his protectionist trade proposals, citing several of the country’s most foundational figures to defend his America First policy.
“One of the first major bills signed by George Washington called for ‘the encouragement and protection of manufacturing’ in America,” Trump said. “Our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, warned us by saying: ‘The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.'”
All in all, Trump hammered Clinton and the Washington establishment on everything from domestic infrastructure to trade to terrorism. He even drew from books like Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash to shine a light on Hillary’s outrageous use of the State Department as a funnel for private donations.
The media is already covering Trump’s speech in their usual backhanded way, accusing him of throwing out conspiracy theories and distasteful attacks – as if there is anything honorable in the way Hillary Clinton has spoken of Trump.
But the words themselves are out there, and every American is free to research Trump’s claims to their own satisfaction. They might find there’s more truth there than the networks would have us believe.
http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/trump-unleashes-furious-beatdown-on-hillary-clinton/
Trump Unleashes Furious Beatdown on Hillary:
Donald Trump was scheduled to deliver a speech outlining the numerous weaknesses of Hillary Clinton last week, but his rhetorical beatdown was postponed due to the tragedy in Orlando. On Wednesday, however, Trump returned to the speech and laid out the many reasons why his opponent would be a disaster as president.
“Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft,” Trump said. “She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes and many others in exchange for cash. Then, when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than two years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public.”
Trump painted a picture of Hillary that rarely breaks through the mainstream media’s wall of protection, delivering one of the most withering political speeches in modern memory. At times, his attacks echoed those of Hillary’s rival in the primaries, Sen. Bernie Sanders. It was clear that those similarities were not lost on Trump.
“The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money,” he said. “That’s why we’re asking Bernie Sanders’s voters to join our movement: So together we can fix the system for all Americans.”
Trump dismissed critics of his protectionist trade proposals, citing several of the country’s most foundational figures to defend his America First policy.
“One of the first major bills signed by George Washington called for ‘the encouragement and protection of manufacturing’ in America,” Trump said. “Our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, warned us by saying: ‘The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.'”
All in all, Trump hammered Clinton and the Washington establishment on everything from domestic infrastructure to trade to terrorism. He even drew from books like Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash to shine a light on Hillary’s outrageous use of the State Department as a funnel for private donations.
The media is already covering Trump’s speech in their usual backhanded way, accusing him of throwing out conspiracy theories and distasteful attacks – as if there is anything honorable in the way Hillary Clinton has spoken of Trump.
But the words themselves are out there, and every American is free to research Trump’s claims to their own satisfaction. They might find there’s more truth there than the networks would have us believe.
http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/trump-unleashes-furious-beatdown-on-hillary-clinton/
Jun 22, 2016 17:50:07 #
So you are suggesting that everyone should ignore the 5 huuuuuuuuuge lies Trump told during his speech!
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/debunking-biggest-lies-trumps-speech
Fact checkers tear Trumps speech apart!
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/debunking-biggest-lies-trumps-speech
Fact checkers tear Trumps speech apart!
buffalo wrote:
Don't believe the moonbats and their corporate lap... (show quote)
Jun 22, 2016 19:12:45 #
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
So you are suggesting that everyone should ignore the 5 huuuuuuuuuge lies Trump told during his speech!
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/debunking-biggest-lies-trumps-speech
Fact checkers tear Trumps speech apart!
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/debunking-biggest-lies-trumps-speech
Fact checkers tear Trumps speech apart!
Alternet is a joke of a moonbat biased site, you idiot!
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/the-50-most-popular-liberal-websites/
Quote from your stupid fact site:
"Trump has mentioned the supposed gaps in screening potential refugees seeking asylum in the United States throughout the election. That claim has been debunked time and time again; the process to get a refugee to the United States takes about two years, and involves running names, biographical informar stupid moonbatty sourcetion and fingerprints through federal terrorism databases."
THAT is a lie! Mooslimes from Syria are being fast tracked into the US by your mullah in chief by passing the process, spending billions that could be better spent helping poor and elderly US citizens rather than on some stinking mooslime terrorists.
"Trump made this remark regarding Clinton’s assertion that while in Bosnia in 1996, she came under sniper fire upon landing. After video emerged depicting Clinton and daughter Chelsea welcomed by a warm and excited crowd, the Clinton campaign said she “misspoke” about the dangerous conditions she faced abroad."
It was still a lie SHE told. So that was an empty point by your stupid moonbatty source. Your still an idiot and your lame attempt at discrediting Trump with biased moonbat sources is laughable.
He is going to tear her ass to pieces (which will be no small task considering the size of her ass) in the coming campaign and debates, that is if she even has the nerve to debate him.
If the bitch was anybody else but the DC insider she is, she would already be in jail. THAT is a fact, whether you admit it or not. You and your fellow moonbats can set in your circle jerk and grovel over her til you puke.
Head to head, Trump will pulverize her big ass.
Jun 22, 2016 19:30:42 #
Damn you people are stupid, beyond belief! Alternet was quoting from ABC News and gave them credit for it in the article!
ABC News Calls out Trumps Blatant Lies in Today's Speech!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-n597051?cid=sm_tw_msnbc
Now if you had some balls you would at least try and prove that one of those lies told by Trump were true! And we both know that is not going to happen! Pick one puss!
ABC News Calls out Trumps Blatant Lies in Today's Speech!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-n597051?cid=sm_tw_msnbc
Now if you had some balls you would at least try and prove that one of those lies told by Trump were true! And we both know that is not going to happen! Pick one puss!
buffalo wrote:
Alternet is a joke of a moonbat biased site, you i... (show quote)
Jun 22, 2016 19:36:09 #
I am starting to worry once more....\
It is very clear that the Trump backers on OPP and---are there any others then these???, will never care about the trump lies. They rather would wish and dream that Hillary is what Trump actualy is.. 20 plus years, banging at Hillary as a lie and worst.. Never found any of those accusations to be true.. They keep trying and hoping.. Like little children hoping for a mystery gift..
But, no indication that they have yet passed the hat for Trump... He has no money for a real run for office... The dump trump people have regrouped and made much progress in having delegates change the vote...
What if Trump does not get to run???? That could cause some left leaning fine Americans to lose sleep... He may be the only dumb ass who Hillary can beat into the middle of next year.. Some other right winger might get some votes from the real American voters.. Come on left wingers, help the Donald, he is a stranger in a strange land and has never found his way..
It is very clear that the Trump backers on OPP and---are there any others then these???, will never care about the trump lies. They rather would wish and dream that Hillary is what Trump actualy is.. 20 plus years, banging at Hillary as a lie and worst.. Never found any of those accusations to be true.. They keep trying and hoping.. Like little children hoping for a mystery gift..
But, no indication that they have yet passed the hat for Trump... He has no money for a real run for office... The dump trump people have regrouped and made much progress in having delegates change the vote...
What if Trump does not get to run???? That could cause some left leaning fine Americans to lose sleep... He may be the only dumb ass who Hillary can beat into the middle of next year.. Some other right winger might get some votes from the real American voters.. Come on left wingers, help the Donald, he is a stranger in a strange land and has never found his way..
Jun 22, 2016 19:47:45 #
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Damn you people are stupid, beyond belief! Alternet was quoting from ABC News and gave them credit for it in the article!
ABC News Calls out Trumps Blatant Lies in Today's Speech!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-n597051?cid=sm_tw_msnbc
Now if you had some balls you would at least try and prove that one of those lies told by Trump were true! And we both know that is not going to happen! Pick one puss!
ABC News Calls out Trumps Blatant Lies in Today's Speech!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fact-checking-trump-s-speech-n597051?cid=sm_tw_msnbc
Now if you had some balls you would at least try and prove that one of those lies told by Trump were true! And we both know that is not going to happen! Pick one puss!
ABC is a corporate owned lapdog, just like the bitch. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
I just did!
Jun 22, 2016 19:47:51 #
You don't get do you! Here is the deal, my own projection. Let's say the Republicans dump Trump, which is a good possibility, the Trump fans will be angry and won't vote for that candidate! Then Trump would also be very angry and run as an independent! And Hillary wins by a landslide either way!
permafrost wrote:
I am starting to worry once more....\ br br It is... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.