Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Many Straws on Hillary’s Back?
National Review ^ | 3/10/2015 | Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on 03/10/2015 10:24:15 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross

She is the star of the Democratic party — and for Democrats that’s a big problem.

Hillary Clinton’s pre-campaign for the 2016 presidential race is predicated on three givens: her landmark status as the likely first female presidential candidate of one of the two major parties; her name recognition as a Clinton; and the fact that no Democratic strategist is yet willing to risk turning over a presidential campaign to Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

Polls show that right now Hillary would both win the Democratic nomination and be elected president. But that likelihood assumes that four considerations will go her way.

The first is that she will not have to run on her record as secretary of state. Instead, she is betting that her iconic status and her years in Washington as first lady and then as a senator will trump her four years as Barack Obama’s chief foreign-policy architect.

Her record as secretary was dismal — perhaps the worst since the tenure of Cyrus Vance under Jimmy Carter. The Obama/Clinton reset diplomacy with Russia ended with Vladimir Putin gobbling up Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and starting a bitter new Cold War. Her idea of bombing Libya without congressional approval and in excess of the limited U.N. resolutions proved a disaster, especially when the U.S. let the ensuing mess on the ground fester.

Pulling every American peacekeeper out of a quiet Iraq at the end of 2011 green-lighted radical Islamist terrorism and helped to birth the Islamic State.

On her watch, Israeli-American relations became the worst since the founding of Israel. Most Sunni states in the Middle East do not trust the United States any more; they are confused only whether we are naïve about Iran or are trying in clumsy fashion to forge some new strategic partnership ...

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clintoncrimefamily; finalstraw; hillary; hillaryemails; hillaryemailserver; vdh

1 posted on 03/10/2015 10:24:15 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

With those thighs, she can handle it ALL.


2 posted on 03/10/2015 10:28:30 AM PDT by matthew fuller (The ONLY Democrat candidate is a felony flawed candidate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Now’s the time to PILE IT ON. She accepted MILLIONS from Saudi Arabia, for heaven’s sake!


3 posted on 03/10/2015 10:39:02 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
because she has no Democratic rival like Barack Obama this time around No one thought she had a serious rival in 2008 until after the first primaries. Who has the Saudi backing and long preparation this time around.
4 posted on 03/10/2015 10:41:18 AM PDT by arthurus (it's true!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
The more Hillary talks the less Democratic support she will get. Democrats loved Bill, even with his bimbo's. They imagine a Hillary Presidency as really two more terms for Bill to control the country. She is not going to let that happen and ultimately the Democrats are going to realize this.
5 posted on 03/10/2015 10:55:47 AM PDT by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Investigation For ‘Lying, Unethical Behavior’
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.

6 posted on 03/10/2015 2:07:09 PM PDT by MacNaughton (" ...it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism." Whitaker Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson