Replies

Thanks, native texan.

However, the structure of the scenario is really mo’s! I was just spittin’ and whittling’ to see if what mo proposed was plausible. IMHO, in a lot of ways, it is.

*texokie reconvenes the Qanteen Spit N Whittle Qonjecture Qlub out on the deck*

One of our knowledgable FReeQs PM’d me [I’m willing to give credit, but have no permission to do so at this time] that the theory I wrote about yesterday really IS full of holes - like a sieve:

“One major flaw in your spit shoot was the idea that Hillary stole some case file so she could say there was no precedent for Nixon to have legal counsel.
The problem is, that case was decided in 1970. By the time Hill needed it, it had been published in any number of legal journals and magazines. Additionally, the actual case files, the REAL ONES that are the deciding legal factor, would have been filed in the clerk of whatever court the case was in. Those records would not be allowed outside the clerk’s office. Hillary no doubt had access to the prosecutor’s copy of the file. So, she couldn’t have thought that she had the only copy of the file. Even the acciliary papers (evidence, letters, even case notes) would be copies of the originals...originals are kept under lock and key, for review only, in the clerk’s office. It was a good theory tho, very interesting. I knew that JEH kept “dirt” files on people, I always thought those were kept available in the FBI system.”

I had some thoughts in response to these pertinent points.

The stealing of the Douglas papers to prevent Nixon from having counsel is actually not my theory, but supposedly comes from the guy who fired her, as to why he did so. It was his explanation for why he called her a liar, etc.

The points about Hillary surely having to know that extant documentation existed which would quickly give the lie to her seeking to hide the source materials for the precedent are valid.

HOWEVER:

Even though she has been accused of being the smartest woman alive, Hillary’s never proven it. Isn’t it true she only barely passed a bar exam? She really COULD have done something that stupid.

That being said, the point is well made. The Douglas documentation and case were very well known and much written about it, as well as having principles from it who were still living,...While she might be stupid, she is very cunning and such barriers would surely have occurred to her.... Which leads me to wonder...

I WAS FASCINATED THAT ANYONE TIED HER AT THE TIME TO MISSING FILES OF ANY KIND!

From what our fellow FReeQ was saying, I’m now wondering if the story of the purloining of the Douglas files might have been a cover story for OTHER missing files.... and who knows what THOSE could be?

Literally anything - JEH or others. Maybe that’s how she got started with her “collection.”... Stole some dirt in the Watergate Team files on then-current investigations - or other materials available....Then somehow got the JEH files from somewhere else later?

The mind boggles. I’m still in favor of thinking that she somehow used the Watergate Team position to perform some kind of self-serving (or Bill-serving - um...same thing) skullduggery and was shielded. Was this only the first in many many subsequent instances where she committed a crime and there was the invisible hand of protection?

If what our FReeQ Friend above is saying is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then what Hillary’s boss is saying here HAS to be a COVER STORY for something else and probably far worse, imho.

*texokie puts down her whittling knife and looks at the soft wood cube that she has reduced to saw dust and dearly wishes she had paid better attention when her uncle tried to teach her to whittle.*

FWIW - here is the link again with her boss’s whole story about why he fired her - and supposedly he also kept a diary, if I read it right.

https://www.westernjournal.com/hillary-clinton-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior/