INDICTING HILLARY - the trailer for the documentary is online now ...... film release in May 2006

google videos ^ | 1-28-06 | Doug from Upland

[tiredoflaundry]

BTTT

[napscoordinator]

You are so funny. Hillary is not shaking in her boots why should she. Everyone said the same thing about the Barrett Report and it hardly made a sound. This won't either. I found it poor quality and not enough gun powder. Go back to the drawing board and get something from her years as a Senator.

[jslade]

If Hillary gets power, she will be able to do whatever she wants to do with the full force of the government against her political and social enemies, and there will be no consequences for her at all.

I would think that a "Lee Harvey Oswald" for the times would arise. Not advocating. But, she's that dangerous.

[sono]

Thanks doug ... looks like powerful stuff ... you think Madame DeFarge's ritzy ditzy friends knew they were indirectly involved in illegal activity? Court TV would get a major ratings boost to have Cher et al to testify in open court. Maybe the FEC violation aspect would interes John Stossel?

[sono]

Perhaps a second Barrett Report on the redacted info should be read into the Congressional record. Alternatively, Barrett should be interviewed for a piece on "What They Didn't Let Me Investigate."

[Grateful One]

This is a great film, Doug, but I don't see what good it does.................. Hillary's unraveling has begun in earnest, drip, by drip, by drip-into the national consciousness.

This is a very large drip!

Kudos to those who keep up the fight against this conniving empty-suit!

[doug from upland]

We expect the witness list in the civil case to bring out all the entertainment media to the trial.

[doug from upland]

This invitation claims it was paid for by the New York Senate 2000 campaign. That is a lie. Peter paid for the invitations. Sending out this information in the mail with the claim that Hillary's campaign paid for it is mail fraud.

[doug from upland]

We hope to add to the unravveling. Hillary's opponent in New York needs to get a million DVDs out to voters there. Yes, he would get a great package deal. :)

[doug from upland]

Ping

[doug from upland]

When you see Hillary sitting next to Peter at Spago, she is telling him how she doesn't use email anymore. As you may recall, they claimed that millions of emails were mysteriously missing.

---

NSC e-mail also missing
Letter 'D' anomaly, other 'glitches' scuttled records on issues like China

---

Posted: September 1, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Paul Sperry
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON -- Computer contractor Yiman F. Salim must have felt like a plumber. The White House e-mail-archiving system had sprung yet another leak, and Salim was called in again to help fix it.

It was April 1999, and she'd found a new problem with the Automated Records Management System put together by the Clinton-Gore team to store and search electronic messages, as required by a 1994 law.

This time, ARMS was rejecting all in-coming e-mail sent to White House users whose first name starts with the letter "D."

The "bleeding" started in November 1998 -- the same month, curiously enough, that a more than two-year gap in records for e-mail sent to the White House server used by President Clinton and his staff had ended. Some 500 users were affected.

So just as Salim and other Northrop Grumman technicians had fixed one leak, another one started (though the letter "D" leak sprung across all five main White House e-mail servers).

Congress, a federal court and the independent counsel have demanded the White House search for the missing e-mail from Clinton's server and turn it over to them as part of their outstanding subpoenas in various scandal investigations.

Of the estimated million e-mails missing, some are said to involve the Jones-Lewinsky case, Filegate and 1996 Clinton-Gore fund-raising.

Meanwhile, scarce attention has been paid to all the letter "D" e-mails that escaped White House archives from November 1998 to June 1999.

But they may carry national security significance.

Internal White House documents recently obtained under subpoena by Congress show that the letter "D" problem affected 10 times more White House users working at the National Security Council than did the previous archiving problem.

ARMS failed to capture e-mail sent to just two NSC staffers from August 1996 to November 1998.

But from November 1998 to June 1999 -- a tense period for the White House, which covered the run-up to the May 1999 release of the Cox report on Chinese espionage -- ARMS rejected incoming messages to 21 National Security Council staffers.

One of them is David Halperin, then a director of foreign-policy speechwriting at NSC. His father, Morton Halperin, works at the State Department. He became director of State policy planning in 1998.

A long-time China booster, the senior Halperin urged in the '60s that the U.S. extend diplomatic recognition to Red China and work for its admission into the United Nations.

In the '70s, he traveled with pro-China lobbyist Henry Kissinger to then-Peking as an NSC staffer before heading the Center for National Security Studies, a spin-off of the pro-Marxist think tank Institute for Policy Studies. CNSS also is aligned with the National Lawyers Guild, which was formed with the aid of Comintern, or Communist International.

A recent book has linked Halperin to the KGB. And a former State expert on the former Soviet Union told WorldNetDaily recently that Halperin showed up on U.S. embassy briefing cards during the height of the Cold War as a "communist agent."

Halperin, a Clinton appointee, has worked tirelessly for banning U.S. nuclear weapons, as well as any U.S. spying on groups suspected of un-American activities.

Fifteen State laptops containing highly classified intelligence information have gone missing recently. One of them was checked out to Halperin's office. Two officials have been punished, but not Halperin.

It's not clear if the Halperins exchanged e-mails in late 1998 or early 1999. During that time, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and others on his team were locked in fierce negotiations with the bipartisan Cox Commission over how much of the explosive findings to declassify. Berger, a former China lobbyist who argued for censoring most of the report, managed to redact about a third of it.

Berger spokesman David Leavy's e-mails also are missing for that period.

Adding to suspicions is the White House's recent admission, overlooked by the press, that still another computer "glitch" -- only recently discovered -- knocked a two-year hole in all National Security Council e-mail records over a period covering the full length of the Cox investigation, which was launched in early 1998 to look into Clinton approving rocket technology transfers to China.

The gap, as revealed in U.S. court testimony by lawyers for the White House, stretches from June 1997 to August 1999 -- a period that also covers the Thompson committee's Chinagate fund-raising hearings, which began in early July 1997, as well as the belated FBI investigation of Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, now on trial for mishandling nuclear secrets.

The gaps mean there is no searchable computer record of any messages sent during that time to the National Security Council from outside government agencies, including the FBI, the Attorney General's office, the Pentagon, Energy, State or the CIA. Any e-mails sent by the Democratic National Committee would also be out of reach.

One of the technicians working on the NSC's e-mail archiving system at the time was none other than Tung "Eric" Duong, the contractor the White House has hired to head the court-ordered e-mail reconstruction project that's been hampered by technical setbacks and delays.

Tung, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Vietnam, worked with NSC staffer Brian Cooper, according to a Sept. 4, 1998, memo from White House computer-records manager Tony Barry.

Duong's Small Business Administration profile, which lists Barry as his lead reference, also shows he's been cleared by White House security to handle "Secret" information. He worked in the White House from July 1997 to September 1999.

[krunkygirl]

BUMP

Excellent work!

[doug from upland]

Dave Schippers definitely disagrees with Hillary's assessment. She made the comments below in the home of Zev Braun. In the trailer, that is where you see the first image of Hillary with Peter and Andrea.

============================================================================

Hillary Clinton told Hollywood crowd that impeachment of her beloved husband was unconstitutional
video footage | 4-30-05 | dfu

Posted on 04/30/2005 7:33:07 PM PDT by doug from upland

Hillary Rodham Clinton was not happy that Richard Nixon said some critical things about her in his final years. At an event in a West Coast home with some of the Hollywood elite, she had some interesting comments.

As she was introduced to the assembled guests, the man introducing her commented that Richard Nixon had said: "Watch out for Hillary Rodham Clinton. She is the next Eleanor Roosevelt."

And then, Hillary begins ---

"In fact...um...a little aside...um, that a...Nixon, um, spent quite a bit of time in his later years, a, criticizing me for all kinds of things without necessarily disclosing that I was on the impeachment staff...um...in 1974. You remember, that was the constitutional impeachment staff." Big laughs come from the leftist lapdog crowd.

Unfortunately, Hillary didn't necessarily disclose to her Hollywood pals what the Democrat chief counsel who supervised the attorneys investigating Nixon has subsequently disclosed.

For those who do not yet understand the danger posed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, read what Jerome Zeifman has written. I have spoken a couple of times on the phone with him. ZEIFMAN ARTICLE

Zeifman's book is Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot

(Here are some excerpts from his 1999 NY POST article)

By Jerry Zeifman
IN December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.

Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by as "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.

In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel.

Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses.

During my 14-year tenure with the House Judiciary Committee, I had supervisory authority over several hundred staff members. With the exception of Ms. Rodham, Doar and Nussbaum, I recommend all of them for future positions of public and private trust.
-end excerpt-

Zeifman is a lifelong Democrat, not a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The lesson for all is that, if it serves her interest and agenda, there is literally nothing that she will not do. She believes herself to be above the law.

[doug from upland]

'Stop Hillary' bandwagon gathers pace
The Sunday Times ^ | January 29, 2006 | Sarah Baxter


Posted on 01/29/2006 12:49:56 AM PST by MadIvan


THE frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton, is heading into a hail of opposition from within her own party after a poll showed last week that most Americans would “definitely” not vote for her.

Aides in Bill Clinton’s White House are warning she could be a risky choice. To their left, an anti-war “stop Hillary” bandwagon is gathering momentum, threatening her ability to unite the Democrats.

Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton’s White House press secretary, fears the 2008 campaign could be brutal for the former first lady, now a senator for New York. He remembers how she became a “lightning rod” for the right during her husband’s years in office.

“She has proven that she works hard at being senator and does that job well, but bringing the country together and moving it in a different direction is an entirely different matter,” McCurry said. “It is very hard to reinvent yourself in politics.”

A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll last week found that 51% of Americans “definitely” would not vote for her and only 16% said they definitely would. Among men, 60% said they would not vote for her.

Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, said there was “nervousness” among Democrats about backing such a controversial figure at a time when many Americans believe President George W Bush had polarised the country.

Like McCurry, he wondered whether Clinton was “the kind of lightning rod that would stimulate all of the opposition” and resurrect the “hate side of the political agenda”.

“Ultimately the issue is: do we turn to something new? We’ve been through the Clintons, we’ve been through the Gores, we’ve been through the Kerrys, all of whom are known quantities in politics,” Panetta said.

Bush described Clinton as “formidable” in an interview ahead of his annual State of the Union address this Tuesday. Republicans are determined not to underestimate her voter appeal in 2008, particularly as they are short of well-known candidates.

“This is an unusual year because this is the first time there hasn’t been a kind of natural successor in the party,” Bush said.

The Democrats have a new rising star in Mark Warner, who recently stepped down as governor of the conservative state of Virginia. His proven appeal to moderate voters is attracting Democrats of all shades who are anxious to win, but he remains little known on the national scene.

The doubts about Clinton’s electoral viability have surfaced as she romps towards re-election as New York senator this year.

She has already seen off one Republican challenger — whose campaign was reduced to tatters — and last week dispatched another, Ed Cox, the son-in-law of former president Richard Nixon. He turned down his party’s increasingly desperate pleas to stand.

Clinton’s modest success with voters in small-town upstate New York is taken by some as proof that she can win over conservatives, although according to last week’s poll, 90% of Republicans will “definitely” not vote for her.

New Republic magazine, the left-of-centre weekly, argues in its current issue that the voters of rural New York bear little comparison to diehard Republican voters in the South and Midwest. “She is going to have to bring something else to the national stage,” it warned.

Clinton’s hawkish stance on the war on terror, Iraq and Iran has infuriated the anti-war movement. Molly Ivins, a left-wing commentator, wrote last week she would not support her for president. “Enough,” she fumed. “Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone.”

McCurry believes that, contrary to legend, Clinton is a conviction politician rather than “a wild-eyed liberal”, yet were she to become president her divisive reputation could get in the way of her programme for government. “It would not be a comfortable place to be hunkered in a bunker for four to eight years getting pelted by the Republicans with rotten tomatoes,” he said.

Clinton is waiting for her Senate race to be over in November before making a final decision on whether to stand. There is no doubt she would love to return to the White House, this time with Bill as “first gentleman”.

The further away he is from the centre of power, the more Bill Clinton has gained in popularity. If he returns to the fray, the cash-for-pardons scandal at the end of his presidency and the minutiae of his sex life are likely to be re-examined. And after two Bushes in the White House, two President Clintons could be regarded as overly dynastic.

In the Senate, Clinton has forged political alliances on such issues as heathcare with the rightwinger Newt Gingrich and on the environment with Senator John McCain, a 2008 Republican contender. According to McCurry, she is enjoying the role of consensus-maker.

“She clearly understands there is a real need to re-establish some sense of bipartisan co-operation and has to assess, ‘Could I be that kind of leader?’ That takes you to the question the polls raise, which is: would she get that opportunity?”

Clinton has raised more than $15m (£8.5m) for her Senate re-election campaign, which could be diverted to a White House run. She has all the name recognition, money and ambition a candidate could want, but is keeping her options open about whether to stand.

“Sometimes presidential campaigns take on a momentum of their own and they become inevitable,” said McCurry, “but she is wise enough to avoid that predicament.”

[doug from upland]

A great, great big thank you to Jeremiah Films for the use of their cameras, their editing equipment, and their editing studio. They went out of their way to accommodate us, even though they are working on their own projects. When we had technical questions and difficulties, they were always ready to help.

[doug from upland]

[luvie]

Ping!

[doug from upland]

We are working out the details. We are still raising money to finish the film, and it is likely to be fairly expensive to give a message to Hillary in the final credits. We are also working out the details for pre-sales of the DVDs and sales of the gala concert DVD.

[operation clinton cleanup]

Thanks and keep up the good work!