Skip to comments.HILLARY REMEMBERS: the clintons commit perjury with impunity
Posted on 04/25/2006 3:10:04 AM PDT by Mia T
HILLARY REMEMBERS: the clintons commit perjury with impunity
KnowNothing's brother, Hugh Rodham, secured two of the 141 clinton midnight pardons, one for a cocaine kingpin and the other for a snake-oil swindler. Rodham netted a quick $400,000 for his "work" according to various rodhams and clintons and their assorted lawyers. KnowNothing's campaign treasurer, William Cunningham III, himself a law partner of longtime KnowNothing adviser Harold Ickes, helped obtain last-minute pardons for two convicted felons.
Displaying a willingness to throw her brother (along with her husband) to the wolves, Sen. Victim Clinton was quick to make a distinction between her big, bad brother's pardon "work" and that of her campaign treasurer, "a fine lawyer and a fine man." The "family" connection of brother Rodham to Clinton rendered Rodham's "work" offensive, whereas the campaign treasurer Cunningham's connection to the senator and her campaign coffers made his securing of two pardons in record time a sterling example of highminded, effective public service.
KnowNothing has apparently not thought this thing through. If the "family" connection makes lobbying for cocaine-kingpin and snake-oil-swindler pardons unsavory for brother Rodham, then the "family" connection makes lobbying for the Hasidim 4 (see Keating 5) pardons even more distasteful for the wife, First Lady and senator-elect. Moreover, pardons for votes is arguably a greater offense than pardons for cash.
EFFECTIVELY PLEADS FIFTH BY INVOKING SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE
KnowNothing specifically declined to answer when asked whether she discussed the pardons with her husband, effectively pleading the fifth. Turning aside questions about the pardon decisions her husband had made, she told reporters they should address those issues with him and his staff. She refused to say whether he should agree to appear voluntarily before congressional committees investigating the pardons. Interestingly, no one asked her whether she would agree to appear voluntarily before those same congressional committees.
"I did not have any involvement in the pardons that were granted or not granted," insisted Sen. KnowNothing, seeming to forget her presence at the New-Square/Oval-Office schmooze that secured pardons for the four Hasidic felons who set up a phony school in Brooklyn to swindle the government out of millions intended for the poor.
KnowNothing noted that her"best memory" was that she never spoke to her brother or to Mr. Cunningham about the pardons. With variations of "I don't have a memory" and "my best memory, and avoiding the more obvious "I don't recall" and "my best recollection," KnowNothing reprised the Ruffian standard used during the clinton years to commit perjury without penalty.
I GET LETTERS
...or more precisely, envelopes. During her denials of involvement in any of the pardons, KnowNothing made the curious claim: "People handed me envelopes, I passed them on [and never opened a single one. Honest.]"
Reprising the role of victim that enabled her to win a senate seat in spite of low poll numbers, high personal negatives and consistent public failures, the senator peppered her answers about big, bad Hugh (understanding that the subtext was big, bad Bill) with "saddened" and "disappointed" and "heartbroken" and "shocked."
UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE
This session today was cut short by a staffer when reporters appeared dissatisfied by Senator KnowNothing's lack of candor.
In the end, this press conference full of poses, poll-tested phrases and prevarication was just another display of the clintons' utter contempt for the people. Bill Clinton committed the same error last Sunday in his shameless, lie-filled New York Times Pardongate Apologia.
The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
Mia T. Bump.
A glaring legal omission appears on the face of the tendered declaration. An omission, the absence of which amounts to and implied but inescapable admission/assertion of a prior history of unlawful/illegal conduct.
A Declaration requires not only that the witness state facts known to her to be true, but that she also state the basis upon which such facts could be known to her, i.e., how she was in a position to have heard, seen, thought, felt, or otherwise perceived the asserted fact.
The Declarant, one Hillary Rodham Clinton, states "she believes" she would have recalled what was alleged to have been discussed, had it in fact been discussed, despite an admitted, inability to recall what was actually discussed, presumably because the Declarant, correctly apprehends that had the discussion occurred as alleged, she would have been enaging in illegal acts. The only possible basis, however, for the Declarant "believing" she would have remembered such discussions, had they in fact occurred, is that she has prior experience committing illegal acts and based on that experience, she knows she tends not to forget such conduct at the same rate of mental deterioration as casual conduct not amounting to an illegal or wrongful act.
Thus, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton appears to be asserting, under oath, that she knows from prior experience that when she commits crimes of this magnitude, she remembers such facts, notwithstanding any loss of memory as to concurrent details not rising to the level of such criminal/unlawful activity.
posted on 04/24/2006 6:25:32 PM EDT
Good people of New York State ... the Nation needs you, now more than ever before, ...
Vote ... vote early ... vote often ... in Novemebr 2006 ... against "I cannot recall" Tubba!!!
Wouldn't it be wonderful if New Yorkers finally see the light?
It wont happen. new Yorkers will elect Hillary just like Mass. will elect Kennedy.
You CAN fool some of the people ALL of the time.
Let's think positive.
There is always the very real possibility that the clod will be the agent of her own demise.
Hillary-the-person isn't running. The idea of hillary is, the idea of hillary as put out on a daily basis by all manner of proxy, from simple spinner to elaborate Hollywood production.1 QUESTION: When was the last time you observed "the smartest woman in the world"2 partake in our process of political discourse, or, as Charles Kuralt once put it, relish in "the raucous give and take of American democracy?" ANSWER: Never. Hillary-the-person answers to no one.3 Hillary-the-person never shows her face. Hillary-the-person never talks. Part of the reason is substance-- or more precisely, the lack of it: The clintons are a truly banal bunch. But, as the husband amply demonstrates, banality, in and of itself, is not a nonstarter if you have a semblance of style. But, sadly, missus clinton doesn't have that, either. The upshot of all this vacuity are positive numbers for hillary (such as they are) that are inversely related to appearance frequency, and, more specifically, inversely related to the following... variables....
All her opponent has to do is to force her onto the public stage.
The bottom line is this paradox: In order for hillary clinton to have any chance of winning elections, she must all but vanish from the public stage.5
Hillary-the-person isn't running. The idea of hillary is, the idea of hillary as put out on a daily basis by all manner of proxy, from simple spinner to elaborate Hollywood production.1
QUESTION: When was the last time you observed "the smartest woman in the world"2 partake in our process of political discourse, or, as Charles Kuralt once put it, relish in "the raucous give and take of American democracy?" ANSWER: Never. Hillary-the-person answers to no one.3
Hillary-the-person never shows her face. Hillary-the-person never talks. Part of the reason is substance-- or more precisely, the lack of it: The clintons are a truly banal bunch. But, as the husband amply demonstrates, banality, in and of itself, is not a nonstarter if you have a semblance of style. But, sadly, missus clinton doesn't have that, either.
The upshot of all this vacuity are positive numbers for hillary (such as they are) that are inversely related to appearance frequency, and, more specifically, inversely related to the following... variables....
Dear Concerned Americans,
Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.
We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?
In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?
Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.
What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.
December 7, 1941+64
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
Madonna remembers ping
Hillary a master of lies.
She's a compulsive liar. I don't know about her being a 'master,' tho.
If she were a master, then we wouldn't know about it, would we? The clintons are overrated as crooks, too. ;)
They've survived only because of the entrenched power in DC. If we are to cure our serious problems, we must first vote out every single professional politician.
Of course, in order to do this, we must have credible citizen politicians at the ready. Wanna run? ;)
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.