Juanita Broaddrick 30th anniversary

I believe that yesterday was the 30th anniversary of the day that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick in the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas.

I knew that it happened in 1978, but I am relying on this freerepublic post for the date.

Almost as disturbing as the actual crime was the media blackout of this story that occurred after an NBC reporter filmed an interview with Ms. Broaddrick in 1999. NBC and the rest of the MSM/DNC suppressed the story until after Bill Clinton had survived his impeachment trial.

It is amazing the amount of Clinton criminal activity the MSM/DNC was willing to ignore and cover up before it had an Obama to promote in the Clintons' place.

Juanita Broaddrick in 1978

Random thoughts on Hillary as a "monster"; Samantha Power;

A top Obama advisor has stated that Hillary Clinton is a "monster."

Samantha Power










(1) Billy Dale would probably agree.

(2) Where was Samantha Power when Hillary and her husband were selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese Communists? Why didn't Power and all of the Obama supporters who now feign outrage over photos of Obama in a muslim outfit say anything when the reputations of Bill's female victims were being ruined and cats were disappearing? I suppose it is OK with Power if one is a monster so long as the monster attacks someone else.

As I noted last year:

The Democratic establishment has known exactly what Hillary was all about for years. But they kept silent. In fact, they defended her and her husband and curried favor with her. They willingly made themselves into the drones that appear in this video. Only when she appears vulnerable do they turn against her.

(3) I noted during the Today Show coverage this morning that Power appeared with four other Obama "foreign policy advisors" at some panel discussion recently. Why does Obama need five foreign policy advisors? How many advisors does one need to advocate surrender? Surrender is easy. Just withdraw the troops from wherever Al Qaeda might be found. Rather than hire advisors, read the collected works of Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter. I hereby volunteer to provide the same services to Obama that his current team of foreign policy advisors now provides - at less than half the price. As soon as Obama fires his current advisors and mails to me a check, I will tell him that surrender is the only option and we will both have what we want.

Representative Tom Lantos; Craig Livingstone

Reuters posted the story today of the death of California Democratic Representative Tom Lantos.

Deb Schlussel posts more detailed information and some interesting facts about Lantos and his career.

Lantos at the American Hungarian Federation






My first memory of Lantos is from 1996, when Lantos confronted the Clinton White House bar bouncer and security officer Craig Livingstone, who resigned after the Clinton White House was found to have illegally obtained and kept confidential FBI files on hundreds of Republican citizens. After Livingstone became the scapegoat for this scandal, Lantos remarked to Livingstone during hearings before Congress, "With an infinitely more distinguished public record than yours, Admiral Boorda committed suicide when he may have committed a minor mistake."


Livingstone (left) being grilled by Lantos and the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee




Congressman Lantos was 80.

Quote of the day - Joe Sobran [Al Gore, Juanita Broaddrick]

Speaking of which, Al Gore was asked in New
Hampshire whether he believed Clinton had raped Juanita
Broaddrick. Any previous vice president (supposing the
question could have arisen about any previous president)
would have bellowed an indignant denial. Gore, however,
stammered a long, noncommittal answer and spoke of
"mistakes [Clinton] made in his personal life." Get that:
if your state's attorney general rapes a woman, he's just
making a mistake in his personal life.

Joe Sobran - January 2000

Quote of the day - William Safire [Hillary Clinton, Travelgate]

The Travelgate issue was and is: was [Hillary's] sworn denial of any "role" or "input" in the firings factually false? Did her pressure cause fearful aides to stimulate a besmearing F.B.I. investigation? Did this lead her Justice Department to bring criminal charges against people later found to be innocent? And did she and her White House minions delay, impede and increase the expense of revealing her improper involvement?

The inescapable answers are yes, yes, yes and yes. Read the evidence and denials in full (oicray.com) and see how her orchestrated lying continues to this day.

William Safire - 10-23-2000

Wayne DuMond; Mike Huckabee; Bill Clinton; Sheriff Coolidge Conlee; Walter E. "Stevie" Stevens; "Those were my testicles!"

Ringkasan ini tidak tersedia. Harap klik di sini untuk melihat postingan.

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter

Decent people shun Clinton, but elected Republicans keep trying to rehabilitate him.

Ann Coulter

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn [Bill Clinton as Benny Hill]

It's hard not to feel a sneaking sympathy for President Clinton as he tries to shake off Mrs Jones - the kind of sympathy one feels for Benny Hill in those speeded-up musical finales, when Benny, the leering predator-turned-prey, finds himself pursued by irate dolly birds and their menfolk. Substitute a high-speed Hail To The Chief on the soundtrack and a posse of ambitious lawyers, and that's the Clinton second term in a nutshell.

Mark Steyn - 10-19-97 [3 months prior to the beginning of the Lewinsky scandal].

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter

Reno's military attack on a religious sect in Waco, Texas, led to the greatest number of citizens ever killed by the government in the history of the United States. More Americans were killed at Waco than were killed at any of the various markers on the left's via dolorosa -- more than Kent State (4 killed), more than the Haymarket Square rebellion (4 killed), more than Three Mile Island (0 killed).

Ann Coulter

Quote of the day - Joe Sobran

THE COMEBACK KID: Bill Clinton has finally opened his new
office in Harlem. In what amounted to the inaugural
address of his ex-presidency, he announced that his new
mission will include fighting AIDS. Most of us would be
satisfied if he just refrained from transmitting it.

Joe Sobran (September 2001)

HIV - tcells - H/T Wellesley. edu

"Scooter" Libby clemency vs. payoffs for Clinton co-conspirators; Riady; Jim Guy Tucker; John Huang; Webb Hubbell; Dick Morris

The following column by Dick Morris appeared in the New York Post on or about February 1, 2001. Morris wrote this column as the stench from the Clinton pardons began to foul the air. The column provides a few hints at how Clinton and his co-defendants managed to escape punishment.

I post this column as a reminder to those who would give any credence to the Clintons' criticism of George Bush over Scooter Libby's clemency. This item should also serve as a reminder to all of us that there is no comparison between Libby's clemency and the series of events that enabled Tucker, Riady, Huang, Hubbell and Clinton to escape justice.

I saved this item before I had a blog, so I don't have the link (I don't think it would work anyway). [I have added the photos.]

Click here for previous item re: Clinton pardons.

After reading this column, try once again to remember what Libby was charged with.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

JIM GUY'S HUSH MONEY?

By DICK MORRIS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



COINCIDENCE? The Wall Street Journal reported last week that shortly after former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was convicted in the Whitewater scandal, he was hired by James Riady, head of the Indonesian Lippo Group.
Riady is a longtime Clinton friend and supporter whose illegal campaign contributions, access to the White House and possible receipt of classified materials have made him the subject of congressional and Justice Department investigations. His name came up in a tape of one of the White House "coffees" when one of the guests was heard telling President Clinton that "James Riady sent me." According to published reports, Riady's lawyers are currently negotiating with the Justice Department for a plea bargain.

James Riady

For years, Riady has eluded American investigators and stayed out of the United States. But that was no problem for Clinton. Clinton greeted him warmly in New Zealand, where he was invited to a private reception last September -- even though he knew that the Justice Department was after Riady. A friend is a friend.





Jim Guy Tucker - CNN photo

In addition to hiring Tucker in 1999 (without waiting to see if he would begin serving a long jail sentence in a few months), Riady and former Hillary Clinton law partner Joe Giroir stepped in right after Tucker was indicted by Kenneth Starr in 1996 and arranged an unusual and lucrative deal for Tucker's wife, Betty. The deal meant a minimum of $325,000 per year for the Tuckers, no doubt helping tide them over during his difficult time. According to Giroir, Tucker's hiring was "a strictly merit situation."

What's the coincidence? Well, Riady and Giroir have also helped out other Clinton confidants in trouble with the law. When former Assistant Attorney General Webb Hubbell was under investigation by the independent counsel, Riady hired him and paid him $100,000. When this was revealed, Riady and Hubbell claimed that it was just a favor for a friend, although it was later disclosed that Riady barely knew Hubbell. The payment was arranged by John Huang, a longtime Riady employee and the Democratic Party fund-raiser who pleaded guilty to collecting more than $1.6 million in illegal foreign campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign.

Huang - AP






And guess what? When Huang was under investigation, Riady provided him with $38,000 -- again, just out of friendship. He's some good friend, isn't he?

By further coincidence, Giroir and Riady were in the Oval Office at the fateful meeting that led to the transfer of John Huang from the Commerce Department to the Democratic National Committee as a fund-raiser. It was only a day or two later that Riady decided he wanted to help out Webb Hubbell. Coincidence? At Commerce, Huang had access to classified documents that investigators believe may have been improperly transferred to Riady.

Webb Hubbell - AP

For years, prosecutors have claimed that the money paid to Hubbell was "hush money" -- cash for silence. No work appears to have been done in exchange for the payment. Now Tucker must fall under the same suspicion that these payments may have been made to keep him quiet.

Tucker was facing a possible long prison sentence at the time that Riady reached out to him. It was also shortly after Kenneth Starr announced that Tucker was cooperating with the government. Yet, according to the Journal, Tucker apparently neglected to tell Starr or the federal judge about his side deal with Riady, even though he concluded the arrangement two months prior to his sentencing.

The timing of the Tucker-Riady dealings stinks to high heaven. If, as reported, the Tuckers concealed the deal, the independent counsel should reopen the Tucker case, find out all of the details surrounding the Riady "hiring" and re-examine what Tucker has revealed about Whitewater. Why is it that every corrupt Clinton official who might implicate the president and first lady ends up on the Riady payroll?

Any suspicions that the Riady-Hubbell deal (where Riady paid Hubbell large consulting fees for no work) was an effort to buy his silence should be heightened by the revelation of the subsequent Riady-Tucker partnership, and the Huang payoff.

Now we face the real issue: Is Robert Ray, Starr's successor as independent counsel, going to roll over and play dead or is he really going to prosecute? According to the Journal, Ray's office was apparently unaware of the Riady-Tucker relationship. Based on his bad health, Tucker never faced jail time, which reduced the leverage Starr presumably had over him during the plea and cooperation negotiations. But now Tucker has received a liver transplant and may be fit to go to prison. His perfidy in not telling Starr that he was on the Riady payroll could provide Ray with the reason he needs to reopen the case, this time with a credible threat of prison hanging over Jim Guy's head.

Will the independent counsel be up to the job or will he just wrap things up and get out of town? The answer to that question could determine whether these three payments were just a coincidence or much more.

Clemency for Scooter Libby versus politicized Clinton pardons; Hamilton Jordan

Many commentators have noted the irony of the Clintons criticizing President Bush' clemency for Scooter Libby. But few have really dredged up the Clinton pardons from 2001. Those pardons received almost universal condemnation, even from some in the MSM/DNC. [The Clintons really left them with no choice.] Almost no one defended the Clintons at that time. The Clinton pardon scandal was that ugly, obvious and clumsy.

The Clintons' criticism of President Bush is so hypocritical that it merits a revisit to that Clinton pardon scandal. Below is a column that Hamilton Jordan (President Carter's chief of staff) wrote in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the odor from the Clinton pardon mess overwhelmed the public airwaves. I had no blog at that time, so I did not save the URL and I cannot hyperlink it. But I have the contents, which I reproduce in full here.

The point of the story is an explanation of how the pardon power is supposed to work, and how foul the Clinton pardons look in comparison to administrations that follow the rules.



Read it all. I will print more articles from the immediate aftermath of the Clinton pardon scandal soon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The First Grifters
Clinton saw the pardon power as just another perk of the office.

by HAMILTON JORDAN
Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

It is difficult for the average citizen to comprehend how outrageous Bill Clinton's pardons are to those of us who have worked in the White House.

Let me describe the attitude and processes that were in place for pardons in the Carter administration and for all recent presidents up until Mr. Clinton. The constitutional power of a president to pardon is unique and sacred, meant to give the chief executive the ability to correct injustices. But while the president's right to grant a pardon is unequivocal, certain procedures have evolved over time that are honored and passed along from president to president.

In the Carter administration, a request for presidential pardon would have required the following:
* A formal, written analysis of the case by the Justice Department.
* A description of the crime and a history of the trial.
* The written statements and recommendations of the prosecuting team that won the conviction.
* A listing of the substantive argument for and against the pardon and a statement of any extenuating circumstances that justify the review of the case.

* The formal and written recommendations of the Justice Department (usually the attorney general in high-profile cases like Patricia Hearst or Marc Rich) and of the White House counsel.

This package of written information would be presented to the president for his study and review, and it would be normal for the White House counsel or the attorney general to be directly involved in the case.

Yet it appears there was no effort to formally collect opinions from the key parties in the Marc Rich case. Indeed, the 11th-hour presentation of the request to Mr. Clinton was made by Mr. Rich's attorney, Jack Quinn, who happens to be a former Clinton White House counsel. We do not know how, when or even if the Justice Department and then-White House counsel Beth Nolan formally weighed in with written information.

Mr. Quinn and Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder testified before a congressional committee that they had "conversations" on the Marc Rich pardon application. But these discussions were no substitute for the time-honored tradition of a formal evaluation. These conversations also did not satisfy the president's need to receive recommendations from independent, knowledgeable authorities in the Justice Department. Indeed, Mr. Holder acknowledged that based on what he has recently learned about the Rich case, he would today recommend against the pardon.

We do know that Mr. Clinton found time to confer with his political advisers, party fund-raisers, Denise Rich, her friends, and even foreign leaders about the pardon. In fact, in an op-ed piece published Sunday in the New York Times, the former president points to a combination of legal and foreign policy considerations--particularly pressure from Israel--as the main reasons for the Rich pardon. It's therefore extremely curious that he never bothered to pick up the phone and call Attorney General Janet Reno or Mr. Holder or the prosecuting attorney to get their advice and perspective. Nor did he seek input from his foreign policy advisers. He was either uninterested in their opinion or not interested in hearing what they surely would have told him.

I could not imagine walking into the Oval Office and raising the subject of a pardon with President Carter. Nor could I imagine other chiefs of staff in this modern era--e.g., Dick Cheney, Howard Baker, Jim Baker or Leon Panetta--discussing with their president the political pros and cons of a pardon for a fugitive who had renounced his citizenship and fled the country to escape prosecution on tax fraud and racketeering charges.

If I'd have had the nerve to walk into the Oval Office to discuss a pardon with Mr. Carter, I would have been peppered with questions:

"Hamilton, why on earth are you bringing this to me?"
"What does (Attorney General) Griffin Bell think?"
"Why isn't Lloyd Cutler (the White House counsel) here?"
"What is the case history and rationale for this pardon?"
"What are the extenuating circumstances that merit my overturning the judgment of a jury and our court system?"
"Do the former prosecutors favor a pardon, and if so, why?"
After a series of my answering "I don't know," President Carter would have surely given me one of his famous icy stares and admonished me, "Pardons are serious legal business and not your business, Hamilton. Don't ever come in here again to talk to me about a pardon."

If I had summoned the courage to say, "But Mr. President, this pardon is for someone who contributed generously to our campaign and has even promised to contribute to the Carter Presidential Library," he would have thrown me out of the Oval Office and probably fired me on the spot.

It is incredible that the ethical atmosphere of the Clinton White House had sunk to a level whereby the constitutional power of a president to issue a pardon was discussed among Mr. Clinton and his White House staff as just one more perk of office. It was treated in the same vein as: "Who is going to be regional HUD director?" or "Which campaign contributors are staying in the Lincoln Bedroom tonight or flying on Air Force One?"

It is a great mystery how this gifted politician could have had such an enormous lapse of judgment. I attribute it to the fact that the Clintons are terribly self-absorbed. As well, I believe they developed a feeling of invincibility and even arrogance after his impeachment trial, when the Clintons confused their short-term victory with the sense of national exhaustion and disgust that followed the scandal.

If a president can get caught having sex in the Oval Office with an intern and committing perjury about it to a federal grand jury, and still get away with it, what could possibly stop him? Bill Clinton--whose every decision was guided by public opinion polls--interpreted his high job-approval ratings following his impeachment at least as a vote of confidence and more likely as some form of national forgiveness.

Instead of leaving him for his public betrayal, Hillary Clinton exploited her public image of a wronged but loyal spouse to create a new persona for herself and win election to the Senate.

The Clintons are not a couple but a business partnership, not based on love or even greed but on shared ambitions. Everywhere they go, they leave a trail of disappointed, disillusioned friends and staff members to clean up after them. The Clintons' only loyalty is to their own ambitions.

They belong to no place. Arkansas was just a starting point for Bill Clinton and a place Hillary had to tolerate while nurturing national ambitions. It was their home for a quarter-century, the birthplace of their only child and their political base, but they left the state behind in favor of New York City, a place that can match the scale of their own egos, appetites and ambitions.

They have never looked back. One talking head recently called the Clintons "political drifters," but Webster's defines drifters as people who move around "aimlessly." There was never anything aimless about the Clintons' wanderings: Little Rock, Yale, Oxford, Little Rock, Washington, Chappaqua and now New York City. Every move was calculated, part of their grand scheme to claw their way to the very top.

When one considers pardons for political friends and donors, gifts to the White House taken by the Clintons for their personal use, and the attempt to lease extravagant penthouse offices for the former president with taxpayer money, a better word comes to mind: grifters.

Grifters was a term used in the Great Depression to describe fast-talking con artists who roamed the countryside, profiting at the expense of the poor and the uneducated, always one step ahead of the law, moving on before they were held accountable for their schemes and half-truths.

No longer able to dominate the national news with moving speeches or policy initiatives, the First Grifters have been unable to move beyond the Marc Rich pardon, White House gifts and other events related to their noisy and ungraceful departure from office. Robbed of the frills of high office, we can now examine these last-minute pardons--and the Clintons--for what they are.

Mr. Jordan was White House chief of staff in the Carter administration. He is author of a memoir, "No Such Thing as a Bad Day" (Longstreet Press, 2000).

Quote of the day - Joe Sobran

Criminal genius can be akin to artistic genius. The master criminal is not always driven by gain alone, and he may have no real desire to hurt others. But he finds the challenge of outwitting the law irresistible. It's almost aesthetic: Just as there is art for art's sake, there is crime for crime's sake. And even law-abiding people may have a sneaking admiration for the great criminal. (Please don't ask what this has to do with politics, or with President Clinton.)

Joe Sobran