UKC Forums - What A Shame!!

Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Show all 72 posts from this thread on one page

UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=53)
-- What A Shame!! (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=928336738)

Posted by brushrunretiree on 09-05-2013 04:27 PM:

What A Shame!!

Hillary Clinton will be awarded the National Constitution Center’s 2013 Liberty Medal one day before the one year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the U.S Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Clinton, who was harshly criticized for incompetently handling the attack as secretary of state, will be rewarded for devoting “her life to expanding opportunities for ‘We the People’ not just in this country but around the globe. She's Fast Becoming "THE HANOI JANE" Of The New Millenium!!! Why Do LIARS AND TRAITORS Win These Awards???

Posted by rmcmillan on 09-05-2013 04:33 PM:

Because other liars and cheaters award them!!!

All she is is a screaming idiot!!!!

My two cents.

__________________
Home of;

Nt.Ch. Gr.Ch. Gr.WCh. Pr. McMillans Blue Crystal
Ntch. GrCh. Pr. McMillans Blue Magic
Gr.Nt.Ch. Pr. McMillans Blue Hawk
Nt. Ch. Pr. McMillans Blue Rage
all are gone now but will NEVER BE FORGOTTEN

CH. PR. MCMILLANS TREE ROCKIN BRANDY
CH. PR. MCMILLANS MIDNITES STINGIN SADIE

Posted by Triple K Kennel on 09-06-2013 01:07 AM:

Clinton......

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves talking about our NEXT President that way..................

__________________
Track B4 Tree

Quality, Dependable Coon Lights--Built by a Coonhunter for Coonhunters
==================================
** Superior Lites

** Nitehunters.com

** Zepp's--Quality Products

** Tall Timber
Lights

**Boss Lights & Boss Pro

** They Twist it until they start believing it themselves**

Purina Dog Food
** Proven Results **

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Competition Coonhunters and Politicians
** Win anyway you have to & tell everyone what they want to hear **

Posted by brushrunretiree on 09-06-2013 02:38 AM:

NO DOUBT IN MY MIND!! IF PEOPLE WERE DUMB ENOUGH TO PUT oblamo IN OFFICE TWICE, I'M SURE THEY WONT MIND PUTTING BILLY BOY BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE. AFTER ALL HE KNOWS HIS WAY AROUND AND KNOWS MOST OF THE INTERNS.

Posted by Mark V. on 09-06-2013 10:38 PM:

Just woundering if we have had better times than when (Billy Boy was in) ????? And I already know Monica had a great time.

Posted by trackdriver on 09-07-2013 01:06 PM:

Re: Clinton......

quote:
Originally posted by Triple K Kennel
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves talking about our NEXT President that way..................

X2,you can tell when a man knows he has lost,lie,crying,and name calling is the key to winning in these minds.

Posted by conhtr1 on 09-07-2013 01:16 PM:

Hillary won't win unless Oprah says she can. ....just like last time.

__________________
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him had better take a closer look at the American Indian.”

- Henry Ford, founder – Ford Motor Corporation

Posted by Triple K Kennel on 09-07-2013 02:48 PM:

Wrong......

quote:
Originally posted by conhtr1
Hillary won't win unless Oprah says she can. ....just like last time.

Hilary will win because of who her husband is, because in reality it's the same as him getting elected again.......sit and watch the show boys.....

Posted by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-07-2013 03:06 PM:

Yep: Excellence at it's best!

By Jeff Mason

GREENSBURG, Pennsylvania | Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:01pm EDT

(Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.

In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.

Several news outlets disputed the claim and a video of the trip, showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.

"I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.

"So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation."

"This is really about what policy experience we have and who's ready to be commander in chief. And I'm happy to put my experience up against Senator Obama's any day."

Democratic rival Barack Obama's campaign accused Clinton, a New York senator, of mischaracterizing the Bosnia trip and overstating her foreign policy experience, particularly during the eight years when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president.

In a speech in Washington on March 17 Clinton said of the Bosnia trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

She also told CNN last week: "There was no greeting ceremony and we were basically told to run to our cars. Now that is what happened."

Turning to a subject that has dogged Obama, Clinton said she would not have remained a member of his Chicago church where the pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made inflammatory comments about racism and the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"We don't have a choice when it comes to our relatives. We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend," she said. "Given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor."

Clinton had previously deflected questions about the topic, saying they should be posed to Obama, who gave an emotional speech last week rejecting Wright's remarks and urging Americans to move past their "racial stalemate."

A spokesman for Obama, a senator from Illinois, said Clinton was simply trying to change the subject from the Bosnia story.

"After originally refusing to play politics with this issue, it's disappointing to see Hillary Clinton's campaign sink to this low in a transparent effort to distract attention away from the story she made up about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia," spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

"The truth is, Barack Obama has already spoken out against his pastor's offensive comments and addressed the issue of race in America with a deeply personal and uncommonly honest speech."

Wright, who retired recently, has railed that the September 11 attacks were retribution for aggressive U.S. foreign policy, called the government the source of the AIDS virus and expressed anger over what he called racist America.

(Editing by Chris Wilson)

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Posted by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-07-2013 03:13 PM:

From former Clinton advisor Dick Morris:

Hillary's List of Lies
By Dick Morris

The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were "honest and trustworthy," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll? OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie -- that she endured sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.

McCain's virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others. Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter's simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush's personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama's patriotism or love of America. It will be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a "strong, decisive leader," 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama. (61 percent said it of Hillary.) Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.

Posted by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-07-2013 03:17 PM:

Yep: can't wait for President Hillary...

Hillary Clinton’s Laundry List of Lies

More than lies actually, many things bordering on criminal, somethings very possible criminal.

National Journal legal columnist, Stuart Taylor Jr., offers a list of a long list of questionable statements made by Hillary Clinton during the Clinton scandals of the 1990s.

Mr. Stuart asks, "Hillary Rodham Clinton is supposed to be smart. But how smart is it for a woman with such a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity to put those character traits at the center of the campaign?"

Let's take a careful look:

Gennifer and Monica. Former lounge singer Gennifer Flowers surfaced in early 1992 with claims -- corroborated by tapes of phone calls -- that she had had a long affair with then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who had arranged a state job for her. Bill Clinton told the media, falsely, that the woman's "story is untrue."

Although well aware of her husband's philandering history, Hillary backed his squishy denials, famously asserting on "60 Minutes" that she was not "some little woman standing by her man like Tammy Wynette."

Travelgate. The first Clinton scandal after Bill became president started in May 1993, when Chief of Staff Mack McLarty fired the seven employees in the White House office that arranges travel for the press corps. The White House cited gross financial mismanagement.

Hillary later told the General Accounting Office, in a document prepared by her attorney, that she had no role in the decision to fire the employees, did not know the "origin of the decision," and "did not direct that any action be taken by anyone" other than keeping her informed.

Cattle futures. The New York Times revealed in March 1994 that in 1978, just before her husband became governor, Hillary had made a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in highly speculative cattle-futures contracts in only nine months. Hillary's first explanation (through aides) of this extraordinary windfall was that she had made the investment after "reading The Wall Street Journal" and placed all the trades herself after seeking advice from "numerous people."

Eventually, she had to admit that longtime Clinton friend James Blair had executed 30 of her 32 trades directly with an Arkansas broker. In an April 1994 press conference, Hillary denied knowing of "any favorable treatment" by Blair.

Removal of Vince Foster documents. During the same press conference, Hillary was asked why her then-chief of staff, Maggie Williams, had been involved in removing documents from the office of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster after his suicide.

"I don't know that she did remove any documents," Hillary said. But it was reported three months later that Hillary had instructed Williams to remove the Foster documents to the White House residence.

Castle Grande. In the summer of 1995, the Resolution Trust Corp. reported that Hillary had been one of 11 Rose Law Firm lawyers who had done work in the mid-1980s on an Arkansas real estate development, widely known as Castle Grande, promoted by James McDougal and Seth Ward.

McDougal headed a troubled thrift, Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, and had given Hillary legal business as a favor to Bill. McDougal and his wife, Susan, were the Clintons' partners in their Whitewater real estate investment.

Hillary told federal investigators that she knew nothing about Castle Grande. When it turned out that more than 30 of her 60 hours of legal work for Madison Guaranty involved Castle Grande, she said she had known the project under a different name. A 1996 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. report said that she had drafted documents that Castle Grande used to "deceive federal bank examiners."

Later, Hubbell went to prison for fraud, as did James McDougal.

Billing records. Hillary's billing records for Castle Grande were in a 116-page, 5-inch-thick computer printout that came to light under mysterious circumstances on January 4, 1996 -- 19 months after Starr's investigators had subpoenaed it and amid prosecutorial pressure on Clinton aides who had been strikingly forgetful. For most of that time, Hillary claimed that the billing records had vanished.

This implausible tale, on top of other deceptions, prompted New York Times columnist William Safire to write on January 8, 1996, that "our first lady ... is a congenital liar."

The next day, the White House press secretary said that the president wanted to punch Safire in the nose for insulting his wife. Five days later, the president invited Monica Lewinsky to the Oval Office for what turned out to be one of their 10 oral-sex sessions.

Two years and 13 days after that, Hillary was on the "Today" show suggesting that her husband's Lewinsky affair was a lie concocted by "this vast right-wing conspiracy."

Hmmmmmmm....Conspiracy Indeed!

Source: Honesty: Hillary's Glass House

Posted by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-07-2013 03:24 PM:

Yep...Just really high standards for President

Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior

Posted on 14 June, 2013 by Amy

By Dan Calabrese

Bet you didn’t know this.

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.”

HouseCommittee1974 Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

HouseCommittee1974

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.

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.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/hi...hical-behavior/

Posted by brushrunretiree on 09-07-2013 05:00 PM:

And That's A REALLY GOOD CANDIDATE For You LIBERAL"S!!!

Posted by Triple K Kennel on 09-07-2013 05:12 PM:

Yes......

quote:
Originally posted by brushrunretiree
And That's A REALLY GOOD CANDIDATE For You LIBERAL"S!!!

We think so too.....!!!!.....

Posted by brushrunretiree on 09-07-2013 08:42 PM:

To Get ELECTED To OFFICE In This Country, You Have To Be DISHONEST, And Have BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS, Or Be A Better Liar Than Your HUSBAND!!! Huh, She's Three For THREE!!!

Posted by trackdriver on 09-07-2013 09:17 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by brushrunretiree
To Get ELECTED To OFFICE In This Country, You Have To Be DISHONEST, And Have BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS, Or Be A Better Liar Than Your HUSBAND!!! Huh, She's Three For THREE!!!

You never had a problem in the past voting for them types!

Posted by conhtr1 on 09-07-2013 10:41 PM:

Re: Wrong......

quote:
Originally posted by Triple K Kennel
Hilary will win because of who her husband is, because in reality it's the same as him getting elected again.......sit and watch the show boys.....

So are you saying Hillary led the nation when Bill was elected or Bill will if she's elected this time?

Posted by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-07-2013 10:58 PM:

Re: Yes......

quote:
Originally posted by Triple K Kennel
We think so too.....!!!!.....

That's an interesting statement. I don't know of any person that accepts dishonesty or tolerates liars in their daily dealings. We expect our places of employment to be honest...for the boss to be a person of integrity...for retail stores to stand behind their warranties...trust our banks to protect our assets and money...for restaurants to be clean...for a hound we buy to be sold as represented...but for a politician to be a liar and sell a bill of goods to the American people is okay as long as you aren't affected by the outcome.
Do any of you purposely deal with known liars in your daily dealings? If not, why would you want one in office representing you and this nation?
But...maybe that is acceptable behavior and maybe even admired by some...Hmmm...

Posted by Triple K Kennel on 09-08-2013 01:02 AM:

Re: Re: Wrong......

quote:
Originally posted by conhtr1
So are you saying Hillary led the nation when Bill was elected or Bill will if she's elected this time?

Bill will be running the show when she is elected.....

Posted by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-08-2013 01:22 AM:

Maybe so...

Bill To Hillary:
'No Way I'm Going To
Be Your First Lady' -
Divorce Said Coming
Drudge Report *Exclusive*

www.drugedreport.com

12-1-99

**Exclusive**

White House officials are furious that the NATIONAL ENQUIRER is planning to report that Bill and Hillary Clinton are talking divorce! Tensions escalated after a brutal fight last month in Turkey, where Bill and Hillary were touring earthquake-ravaged areas, says the report. Next week [12/14] the tabloid will unleash the report with a front page scream exclusive that quotes "family and legal sources". One senior White House official called the paper earlier this week to express his outrage at the devastating story. But compounding the matter is the fact that Bill Clinton's private attorney, David Kendall, who is overseeing much of the president and first lady's private legal affairs, is a member of the Washington law firm Williams & Connolly -- a law firm that reviewed the ENQUIRER story on Hillary Clinton's divorce demand! "It has been legally vetted for accuracy and libel -- from the inside," said one publishing source. The ENQUIRER story, obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, runs for pages. The paper quotes an insider: "It's so frosty at the White House, there are icicles hanging in the First Lady's office." Hillary is furious, claims the paper, that Bill will not take a back seat to her Senate campaign. "There's no way I'm going to be your First Lady," the president reportedly roared during the fight in Turkey. That's when Hillary told him that the marriage is over. "You'll go down in the history books as the first President to get divorced the day he steps out of the Oval Office," she fumed, according to the report. It was revealed on Wednesday that Hillary Rodham Clinton will miss next week's ceremony in which her husband will light the National Christmas Tree on the Ellipse in Washington. She will be campaigning in New York City. The ENQUIRER's sister publication STAR is planning to give the White House a double blast -- it will report that when Hillary moves out of the White House next month to live in New York where she's running for the Senate, she's really walking out on Bill -- with no intention of ever going back. Fights between the Clintons have been more intense than ever in recent weeks as their marriage dissolves, says the report. "When Hillary all but announced that she was running for the Senate last week," according to one source close to the First Lady, "it was no slip of the tongue that led her to say, 'I'm going to be moving into my house as soon as the Secret Service tell me it's ready.' She's hinting to the public what's up -- and she's telling Bill, who still doesn't want to hear it. "But this Senate run is Hillary's way out of a failed marriage. Win or lose, she gets out of it. She may yet decide to use her maiden name, Hillary Rodham, on the ballot instead of Hillary Clinton. She's that serious." The STAR reports that Hillary's friends in the White House are almost giddy about Hillary being finally free. "It's like when you've got a friend in a terrible marriage, how relieved you are when they finally smarten up and get out," said one. "You're so happy they saved themselves." The national soap opera intensifies next week. Developing... _____ Filed by Matt Drudge Reports are moved when circumstances warrant (c)DRUDGE REPORT 1999 Not for reproduction without permission of the author

Posted by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-08-2013 01:29 AM:

Maybe not...

Hillary Clinton: I'm Secretary of State, Not Bill

Published August 10, 2009
AP

Facebook36 Twitter0 LinkedIn0

ADVERTISEMENT

KINSHASA, Congo -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's temper flared on Monday when a Congolese university student asked her for her husband's thinking on an international financial matter.

A week after former President Bill Clinton traveled to North Korea to secure the release of two detained American journalists and stole the limelight from the start of his wife's first trip to Africa, Clinton was clearly displeased by the question at town hall forum in Kinshasa.

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" she replied incredulously when the male student asked her what "Mr. Clinton" thought of World Bank concerns about a multi-billion-dollar Chinese loan offer to the Congo.

"My husband is not secretary of state, I am," an obviously annoyed Clinton said sharply. "If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband." (Scroll down for video)

The question was left unanswered as the moderator of the event quickly moved on.

Sidelined for weeks after she was injured during a fall this spring, Clinton returned to a flurry of speculation that she had been shoved to the side as a diplomatic force inside the administration, overshadowed by globe-trotting President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and a bevy of heavyweight special envoys assigned to the world's critical hotspots.

Clinton launched into a series of high-profile speeches and television appearances. But just as she landed in Africa, her ambitious visit ran into stiff competition from her husband's secret mission to North Korea, which drew heavy coverage for his role in freeing the two journalists and talking with the regime's longtime leader, Kim Jong Il.

It was not immediately clear why Clinton reacted with such umbrage, and she quickly recovered her cool and moved on to other subjects Monday. Just before the question that set off her anger, another student had asked if the U.S. and the West felt a need to apologize to the people of Congo for colonialism and postcolonial interference.

"I cannot excuse the past and I will not try," she said. "We can either think about the past and be imprisoned by it or we can decide we're going to have a better future and work to make it."
Clinton is in the middle of a marathon 11-day tour of Africa and has held to a grueling schedule of official meetings and private events that have kept her busy from sunrise to well after sunset.

She returned to the public eye in mid-July with what aides billed as a major foreign policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Since then, she has traveled to India and Thailand and now to seven nations in Africa.

Hours after she left Washington for Africa last Monday, news broke that Bill Clinton had gone on the humanitarian mission to North Korea to win the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two television journalists who had been arrested there and sentenced to 12 years at hard labor.

Mrs. Clinton arrived in Kenya to find herself peppered with questions about his role in the secret mission to North Korea.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200.../#ixzz2eFxoJuQ9

Posted by conhtr1 on 09-08-2013 03:45 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Wrong......

quote:
Originally posted by Triple K Kennel
Bill will be running the show when she is elected.....

So the voters will be voting in someone that's not smart enough to be a leader? Sounds typical.

Posted by Triple K Kennel on 09-08-2013 04:06 AM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong......

quote:
Originally posted by conhtr1
So the voters will be voting in someone that's not smart enough to be a leader? Sounds typical.

Nope, but what you have is 2 Great minds working together, you can't beat it.......!!!
You know they have to be Very Smart, after all, if they are responsible for all the murders / accidents that you guys say they are involved with.......then they know what they are doing.....LOL........

.....

Posted by trackdriver on 09-08-2013 04:08 AM:

Re: Re: Yes......

quote:
Originally posted by MightyOaks'Leps
That's an interesting statement. I don't know of any person that accepts dishonesty or tolerates liars in their daily dealings. We expect our places of employment to be honest...for the boss to be a person of integrity...for retail stores to stand behind their warranties...trust our banks to protect our assets and money...for restaurants to be clean...for a hound we buy to be sold as represented...but for a politician to be a liar and sell a bill of goods to the American people is okay as long as you aren't affected by the outcome.
Do any of you purposely deal with known liars in your daily dealings? If not, why would you want one in office representing you and this nation?
But...maybe that is acceptable behavior and maybe even admired by some...Hmmm...

I do,read the post of the guys you agree with.

Posted by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-08-2013 05:43 AM:

Hi Track...

How are you? Keeping that good Walker chasing those ring tails?
Can you please point to specific verifiable facts to back up your view point?
I'm not sure that I understand your statement...other than your strong personal beliefs...

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:56 AM.

Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Show all 72 posts from this thread on one page