Posted on 05/31/2005 2:24:51 PM PDT by kcvl
Per MSNBC
A Lefty breaking a promise? I'm shocked!
I always thought it was John Dean too.
No kidding. I just saw a clip of the daughter. IMO, her demeaner coupled with what she was saying about her "heroic" father and his place in history was, well, disturbing.
Felt cannot be questioned to prove he IS deep throat or not. If there really was NO deep throat, except in the minds of Hollyweird writers, it can't be proven one way or the other.
Has anyone ever told a story that wasn't true but, before you could make it right, the story grew and grew till it had a life of it's own, and could never be taken back now?
I'm surprised they send someone to your house to set up the box. LOL
Bill Moyers as a hypocrite and a liar...
The Johnson Administration's willingness to permit the FBI to continue its investigation of Dr. King also appears to have involved political considerations. Bill Moyers, President Johnson's assistant, testified that sometime around the spring of 1965 President Johnson "seemed satisfied that these allegations about Martin Luther King were not founded." Yet President Johnson did not order the investigation terminated. When asked the reason, Moyers explained that President Johnson:
was very concerned that his embracing the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King personally would not backfire politically. He didn't want to have a southern racist Senator produce something that would be politically embarassing to the President and to the civil rights movement. We had lots of conversations about that.... Johnson, as everybody knows, bordered on paranoia about his enemies or about being trapped by other people's activities over which he had no responsibility. 56
Intelligence reports submitted by the Bureau to the White House and the Justice Department contained considerable intelligence of potential political value to the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. The Attorneys General were informed of meetings between Dr. King and his advisers, including the details of advice that Dr. King received, the strategies of the civil rights movement, and the attitude, of civil rights leaders toward the Administrations and their policies.
snip
The Attempt to Discredit Dr. King During His Receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize
On October 14, 1964, Martin Luther King was named to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He received the prize in Europe on December 10, 1965. The FBI took measures to dampen Dr. King's welcome, both in Europe and on his return home.
On November 22, 1964 -- two weeks before Dr. King's trip to receive the prize -- the Domestic Intelligence Division assembled a thirteen-page updated printed version of the monograph which Attorney General Kennedy had ordered recalled in October 1963. 266 A copy was sent to Bill Moyers, Special Assistant to the President, on December 1, 1964, with a letter requesting his advice concerning whether the monograph should also be distributed to "responsible officials in the Executive Branch." 267 Moyers gave his permission on December 7, 268 and copies were distributed to the heads of several executive agencies. 269
snip
While there is some question concerning whether officials outside of the FBI were aware that the FBI was using microphones to cover Dr. King's activities, there is no doubt that the product of the microphone surveillance was widely disseminated within the executive branch. Indeed, dissemination of the printed "monograph" about Dr. King to several executive agencies was expressly approved by Bill Moyers, President Johnson's assistant, in January 1965.
snip
Walter Jenkins and Bill Moyers of the White House told him that Burke Marshall had called and "indicated that the Attorney General had thought it highly advisable for the President to see the Department of Justice file on Martin Luther King . . . to make certain that the President knew all about King." 304
The memorandum states that Marshall then:
told Moyers that he wanted to give the White House a little warning. He stated that he personally knew that the FBI had leaked information concerning Martin Luther King to a newspaper reporter. Marshall told Moyers that he thought the White House should know this inasmuch as information concerning King would undoubtedly be coming out before the public in the near future.
snip
Moyers testified that he had been generally aware that the FBI reports about Dr. King included information of a personal nature, unrelated to the purpose of the FBI's investigation. When asked if he had ever asked the FBI why it was disseminating this type of material to the White House, Moyers responded:
I don't remember. I just assumed it was related to a fallout of the investigations concerning the communist allegations, which is what the President was concerned about.
Question. Did you ever question the propriety of the FBI's disseminating that type of information?
Answer. I never questioned it, no. I thought it was spurious and irrelevant ... If they were looking for other alleged communist efforts to embarrass King and the President, which is what the President thought, Kennedy or Johnson, it would just seem natural that other irrelevant and spurious information would come along with that investigation.
Question. And you found nothing improper about the FBI's sending that information along also?
Answer. Unnecessary? Improper at that time, no.
Question. Do you recall anyone in the White House ever questioning the propriety of the FBIs disseminating this type of material?
Answer. I think there were comments that tended to ridicule the FBI's doing this, but no. 311
Moyers testified that he had not suspected that the FBI was covering Dr. King's activities with microphones, although he conceded, "I subsequently realized 1 should have assumed that. . . . The nature of the general references that were being made I realized later could only have come from that kind of knowledge unless there was an informer in Martin Luther King's presence a good bit of the time." 312
(4) According to Nicholas Katzenbach, on November 25, 1964, the Washington Bureau Chief of a national news publication told him that one of his reporters had been approached by the FBI and given an opportunity to listen to some "interesting" tapes involving Dr. King.
snip
The only record of this episode in the FBI files is a memorandum by DeLoach dated December 1, 1964, stating in part:
Bill Moyers, while I was at the White House, today, advised that word had gotten to the President this afternoon that [the newsman] was telling all over town . . . that the FBI had told him that Martin Luther King was [excised]. [The newsman] according to Moyers, had stated to several people that, "If the FBI will do this to Martin Luther King, they will undoubtedly do it to anyone for personal reasons."
Moyers stated the President wanted to get this word to us so we would know not to trust [the newsman]. Moyers also stated that the President felt that [the newsman] lacked integrity and was certainly no lover of the Johnson administration or the FBI. I told Moyers this was certainly obvious. 321
DeLoach testified that he could not recall the events surrounding this memorandum. Bill Moyers, after reviewing DeLoach's memorandum, testified that he recalled nothing about the incident involving the newsman or about Katzenbach's and Marshall's discussion with the President. He did not recall ever having heard that the Bureau had offered to play tape recordings of Dr. King to reporters, or ever having discussed the matter with DeLoach. He testified, however, that DeLoach's memorandum:
sounds very plausible. I'm sure the President called me or he told me to tell him whatever [DeLoach's document reflects].
They are trying to cash in on the extreme partisanship in the country. Movie deals, books, interviews, maybe a Nobel peace prize, all for the benefit of the grandkids, you know.
I'm glad the skunk revealed himself. So it was just a disgruntled employee that didn't get a job he felt he was entitled to.
The press played Nixon up to be the criminal of the century when he was actually an effective president (with a few minor blemishes) that should now get his rightful place in history.
Hillary Rodham's 1974 Watergate "Procedures were Ethically Flawed"
Jerry Zeifman sent us the letter below, which is "based largely on material previously published" in his book, "Without Honor: The impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot.''
The book is now out of print. However, a small supply of the limited first edition is still available. Information about it, and how to obtain a copy, may be found at: www.iethical.org/book.htm
Previously published in the NEW YORK POST
August 16. 1999
HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL
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.
Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously agreed not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted and published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them.
In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. This, though in our then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the Douglas files were then removed from our general files without my permission, transferred to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff, and were no longer accessible to the public.
The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should neither 1) hold any hearings with or take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon - but to rely instead on prior investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.
The committee rejected Ms. Rodham's recommendations: It agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full House. (The committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special staffers.)
The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall - in violation of committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also advocated by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had worked under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.
It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Ms. Rodham. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into a troubling set of events. That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted - at committee expense - by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.
The report was not made available to members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote that he was "especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation."
On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "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 Mr. Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form."
On the charge of willful suppression, he wrote: "That was not the case ... 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."
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.
Jerry Zeifman is the author of "Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot," which describes the above matters in more detail. (See www.iethical.org/book.htm)
It's a monitor of some sort... what I watch gets relayed to them via a telephone line between 3-5:00AM every day.
King begins to speak out publicly against the Vietnam war. Mainstream press turns on him, even without FBI manipulation. Bill Moyers, a Johnson aide and speechwriter, pens and circulates throughout the government a vicious monograph describing King and this new evolving ‘poor people’s movement’ as “unwitting dupes of Communist agitators.”
I think you are right. The whole "Deep Throat" issue was to be kept a secret until this geezers death but something happened? Even Washington Post claimed just a couple days ago said they would wait but then they broke the promise. What gives? I believe that Warren Buffet is somehow responsible for this coming clean being that he is on the Board of WP and worked for Kerry campaign. The MSM is about to find out that most people have forgotten and just don't care now days.
Ah, I see, that works sort of like the DISH Network PPV. It's connected to the phone line and when I purchase PPV movies it "phones home" and alerts DISH Network what movie(s) I have purchased. It calls out between 3:00 and 5:00 am local.
I guess so. I watch him install it the first time, and again this afternoon. All I know is that whatever I watch gets noted somehow by that device attached to my TV and is relayed by telephone each day between 3-5:00AM.
Thanks for the ping!
Victor Lasky's book, It Didn't Start With Watergate, documented that Moyers was involved in LBJ's efforts to spy on political opponents and bug Martin Luther King, Jr.
SOROS, MOYERS AND THEIR MEDIA ALLIES
Taxpayer-funded liberal media personality Bill Moyers aired a story on January 9 that purported to examine big money in politics. On the "NOW With Bill Moyers" show on public television, he interviewed Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity. Moyers, a liberal partisan of the Democratic Party who used to work for LBJ, admitted that his Schumann Foundation had funded Lewis. But Moyers didn't tell the full truth about how they both have a connection to billionaire leftist George Soros, who is spending millions of dollars to defeat Bush and the Republicans this fall.
Lewis, author of "The Buying of the President 2004," talked with Moyers about the big money supporting the presidential candidates. But little time and attention was paid to how Soros is trying to buy the White House and is pouring millions of dollars into groups such as MoveOn.org to bring this about.
Compare the respect Felt got to that of Aldrich.
A more clear example of the double standards of the left, and how 'supposed' conservative leaders accept them could hardly be made.
You should listen more.......His daughter broke the silence in an article in Vanity Fair Mag due on stand soon!
I thought Deep Throat was Linda Lovelace?
Thanks for that interesting link.
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.