Issa: Hillary is “not a target”

posted at 5:01 pm on May 12, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

To pretend that there aren’t political implications to the entire Benghazi brouhaha is, to say the least, a bit short sighted. Nothing that touches on this many highly placed political and diplomatic figures could possibly be resolved without some fallout in the political theater. Of course, that doesn’t change the nature of the current investigations or the serious aspects of the information which has been coming out, particularly regarding the shifting story from the White House. Given all that, it’s understandable that the usual list of suspects would be asking the GOP’s chief watchdog, Darresl Issa, about whether or not the upcoming round of hearings are simply a case of Hillary Hunting.

A top GOP critic pushed back Sunday on charges that Republican efforts to investigate last year’s Benghazi attack are designed to inflict political damage on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Hillary Clinton’s not a target,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on NBC’s Meet the Press. “President Obama is not a target.”

Issa, who heads a panel probing the assault on the diplomatic outpost that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, said he will seek depositions from Benghazi review board heads Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This is shaping up to be one of the more interesting face-offs in this battle. Pickering was responsible for the “investigation” done on behalf of the State Department, which found Hillary Clinton and the other major players completely free of any direct responsibility or any sort of political maneuverings, much to the relief of all, I’m sure. But the arguments being foisted from State are already turning this into a fairly dramatic He Said, She Said situation. Issa has informed everyone that Pickering refused to appear at the last hearing, while Pickering is saying he was perfectly willing to appear, but… his invitation was lost in the mail or something.

Is Hillary a target? Not of this investigation from what I’ve seen. People have legitimate questions, particularly the loved ones of those lost in the embassy attack. But does that mean that she wouldn’t wind up being collateral damage in the process?

Oh, I could do paragraphs on that. But I won’t.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Wow. Some ANGRY Hillary defenders out there. Who woulda thunk it?

Jazz Shaw on May 12, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

58,220

Detroit to D.C. night train, Capitol, parts East.
Lone young man takes a seat.
And by the rhythm of the rails, reading all his mother’s mail from a city boy in a jungle town postmarked Saigon.
He’ll go live his mother’s dream, join the slowest parade he’ll ever see.
Her weight of sorrows carried long and carried far.
‘Take these, Tommy, to The Wall.’

Metro line to the Mall site with a tour of Japanese.
He’s wandering and lost until a vet in worn fatigues takes him down to where they belong.
Near a soldier, an ex-Marine with a tattooed dagger and eagle trembling, he bites his lip beside a widow breaking down.
She takes her Purple Heart, makes a fist, strikes The Wall.
All come to live a dream, to join the slowest parade they’ll ever see.
Their weight of sorrows carried long and carried far, taken to The Wall.

It’s 40 paces to the year that he was slain.
His hand’s slipping down The Wall for it’s slick with rain.
How would life have ever been the same if this wall had carved in it one less name?
But for Christ’s sake, he’s been dead over 20 years.
He leaves the letters asking, “Who caused my mother’s tears, was it Washington or the Viet Cong?”
Slow deliberate steps are involved.
He takes them away from the black granite wall toward the other monuments so white and clean.

O, Potomac, what you’ve seen.
Abraham had his war too, but an honest war.
Or so it’s taught in school.

- The Big Parade, 10,000 Maniacs

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)

Bloody Hillary.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Notice that passage where she talks about listening to “people with opinions I trusted.” Those were the intel folks from her husband’s Administration, not the Bushmen.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Issa is never going to come right out and say Hillary Clinton is a target. That would be incredibly stupid. Just move it forward carefully. It will get to Hillary Clinton.

Mark1971 on May 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM

The real target should be Valerie Jarrett. If we take away the REB’s brain, he will spend the rest of his worthless administration golfing and vacationing.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Let’s not forget the two people with the most to gain from the demise of Hil: Joke Biden and John F’n Kerry.

They both want to be president desperately, and hearing Hil referred to as ‘inevitable’ in 2016 has to be as grating as listening to Susan Collins.

If either of them can slide a knife into Hil’s back with plausible deniability, they just may take that opportunity.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Do you think for a second they won’t make a deal out of her comments on the Benghazi snafu?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-jake-tapper-predicts-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-make-outburst-will-reappear-in-2016-campaign-ads/

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

These tea partiers are really getting tiresome. Every single thread they bring up the same tired old tropes. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Benghazi again…blah blah blah. Very similar to “non”partisan. Maybe we should set them up for a date, they both are in love with the same person. Or maybe a cage match with them and Reggie to see who wins the right to climb up Oblowme’s azz.

BeachBum on May 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM

FIFY

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Good to know Hillary is on our side…or is that yours?
/
Dimeffingwittedfool.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Jazz, re Hotlips, please review TOS.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Issa is never going to come right out and say Hillary Clinton is a target. That would be incredibly stupid. Just move it forward carefully. It will get to Hillary Clinton.

Mark1971 on May 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Shocked I tell ya.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Jay Carney-Baghdad Bob Panic Syndrome has set in amongst the left.
whatcat on May 12, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Oh no doubt. They’ve come to the realization that Benghazi has legs and they can no longer pretend it is not an issue.
CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Hasn’t been a good week for Obama – even the MSM is finally reporting on Benghazi and then it comes out the Admin used the IRS to attack pro-Constitution groups and Jews. Ya just know Dead diplomats and Final Solutions can’t be all that helpful in the way of good PR.

whatcat on May 12, 2013 at 5:59 PM

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

How’s the weather in Obama’s colon today? Better check him for polyps. He’s smoking about 4 packs a day since Reggie left him.

HumpBot Salvation on May 12, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Former Green Card Holder Cruz?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

YOU LIE, HAL!

Ted Cruz has NEVER held a green card. He has been a citizen of the United States of America from the moment he was born.

…and, don’t take my word for it, pumpkin:

8 USC § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

See (d), (e), and/or (g).

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Looking forward to hearing more about how Obama/Jarrett/Clinton Smart Power diplomacy Arab Spring policy was providing weapons to AQ. The weapons were being tracked, right? No? Oh what then, Bush did it? Death is just a part of life? The enemy (AQ) of my enemy (GOP) is my friend? “What difference, at this point, does it make” — seriously?

Kenosha Kid on May 12, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Shocked I tell ya.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Avoid the tough stuff. I realize for a person of your mental acumen it works better that way.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 6:01 PM

BeachBum on May 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM

FIFY

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

That was very painful to read, but was worth it, because it amply confirms why your side lost the College Graduate vote in 2012.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

How clever you are, but you’re still up Oblowme’s azz and you really should have a date with “non”partisan, he’s pretty young and I’ve heard and you like them like that.

BeachBum on May 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Shocked I tell ya.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM

If Killery has nothing to hide , what are you afraid of ?

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Hillary is about to acquire another brain aneurysm. When this is over ..she’s going to look like a mudfence after a rainstorm. The dems better find another closeted lesbian to run.

HumpBot Salvation on May 12, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Former Green Card Holder Cruz?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

YOU LIE, HAL!

Ted Cruz has NEVER held a green card. He has been a citizen of the United States of America from the moment he was born.

…and, don’t take my word for it, pumpkin:

8 USC § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

See (d), (e), and/or (g).

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Hotlips is derailing any thread onto Cruz.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 6:12 PM

She is as responsible for this foreign policy and human catastrophe as Obama.

Aim for the truth and hit the liars.

profitsbeard on May 12, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Reminder: Hillary Clinton Was Fired From The Watergate Committee For Lying And Unethical Behaviour

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 6:08 PM

When it comes to unethical, Barack Milhous Obama’s got nothin’ over Shrillary.

petefrt on May 12, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Poor little HAL ran off again to go get some well deserved subsistence from its mother’s teat. What better way to celebrate Mother’s Day for the little troll.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Really getting Hillary out to answer some questions would be a good idea… like why she was stinting on security for Amb. Stevens. Really, the man was a conduit of MANPADS between the Libyan rebels and the Syrian rebels via his contacts with Turkey. So finding out why the State Dept. decided to start going around all arms control treaties and shipping arms to a nation on the prohibited list would be a wonderful place to start.

Then ask her if she thought this up on her own of if she was instructed to do it.

If on her own, she has violated her Oath of office and committed multiple crimes of arms trafficking, which should get her in Club Fed for a couple of decades.

If she passes the buck, well it stops on the only person’s desk who COULD tell her to do that: the POTUS.

Then find out who’s bright idea it was to put Amb. Stevens out to dry and get him killed to cover up the arms shipments. Because there was forewarning from the CIA, the Brits and on the ground with Stevens’ own people. A hit was coming and Hillary did nothing. Time to find out why she wanted Stevens dead, isn’t it?

ajacksonian on May 12, 2013 at 6:15 PM

The target here should not be any particular person. The goal should be the truth.

Uncover the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

BTW – I am a long-time Clinton supporter but Hillary did not cover herself with glory on this one. If this ends her career she has no one but herself to blame.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:16 PM

If they ever call Hillary to testify again at some point, I’d like to hear some questions about why her staffers were going through Vince Foster’s office the night he “committed suicide.” I know it would never happen, but one can dream. I just hope karma catches up with this woman at some point in time.

MPan on May 12, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I’ve got CNN on right now. Is there a bigger hack than Don Lemon?

Mark1971 on May 12, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Reminder: Hillary Clinton Was Fired From The Watergate Committee For Lying And Unethical Behaviour

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Thank you for that info Resist! I did not know that.

Mimzey on May 12, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 6:00 PM

He knows. He’s just trying to pi$$ people off. That’s all the Left can use right now to feel better, because they can’t control the Benghazi and IRS situations. The only way they can balance their heads is by being obnoxious, as if that will change the truth.

What I think would be more soothing, actually, is some Preparation H for all that butthurt.

Liam on May 12, 2013 at 6:25 PM

HumpBot Salvation on May 12, 2013 at 6:04 PM

After that massive head trauma she suffered, is she even medically qualified to be President?

I’m very concerned. She should release her medical records, and 35 years’ worth of tax returns.

Left Coast Right Mind on May 12, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Hillary is a huge target.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on May 12, 2013 at 6:29 PM

What I don’t get is why the left is so gung ho on this woman, especially the feminists. Any feminist worth her salt would have kicked Billy boy’s azz right out the door. Just shows me that it’s expedience with these people and a means to an end.

BeachBum on May 12, 2013 at 6:30 PM

…Very similar to “non”partisan. Maybe we should set them up for a date, they both are in love with the same person. Or maybe a cage match with them and Reggie to see who wins the right to climb up Oblowme’s azz.
 
BeachBum on May 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM

 
FIFY
 
HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM

 
Wait, this was after you “fixed” it?

rogerb on May 12, 2013 at 6:31 PM

The real target should be Valerie Jarrett.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Can’t be said often enough. This woman’s getting away with murder.

Cleombrotus on May 12, 2013 at 6:34 PM

rogerb on May 12, 2013 at 6:31 PM

LOL

BeachBum on May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM

The target here should not be any particular person. The goal should be the truth.
myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:16 PM

The truth and nothing but the truth. I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

banzaibob on May 12, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Obama and Hillary had Americans killed, then covered up, for political reasons.

Why should anyone wish to serve, in any capacity?

Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president of the USA but it’s hilarious to watch the media and HAL pretzel themselves over it. For this reason alone Cruz should run. Hypocrites unite, you latrine rats of the world.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2013 at 6:41 PM

What I don’t get is why the left is so gung ho on this woman, especially the feminists. Any feminist worth her salt would have kicked Billy boy’s azz right out the door. Just shows me that it’s expedience with these people and a means to an end.

BeachBum on May 12, 2013 at 6:30 PM

A+

One of the best examples of this double standard? The feminists enthusiastically supported her husband for engaging in an adulterous relationship with a female subordinate in the workplace, then lying about it to a Federal Grand Jury. If he had been a Republican President, NOW would have taken him out back and shot him in the genitals.

Another little-known fact: Bill Clinton’s Justice Department successfully prosecuted a female Federal employee. Her crime? Lying under oath about sex.

NOW gave him a pass for that as well.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I’ve got CNN on right now. Is there a bigger hack than Don Lemon?

Mark1971 on May 12, 2013 at 6:21 PM

CNN is full of them.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Huh?!?!

Bmore on May 12, 2013 at 6:48 PM

The target is a Political Party System that has gone bad and permeated into several levels of Government. This influencing all decision for the sake of the Party elite at the expense of WE THE PEOPLE must stop. It is this system that is on trial in the Court of Public Opinion not any one individual. There will be some individuals that will be found complicit and sentenced to never serving in public office again. If this happens then the system put in place 237 years ago still works, a little slow maybe but works because a few good men of good character will stand up to be counted.

jpcpt03 on May 12, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Like you and yours ever gave a sh*t about them. I hear you crying every day for the ones that have died in Obama’s service though, right? Oh wait, I don’t.

Go f*ck yourself and hemorrhage, you worthless POS.

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Issa: Hillary is “not a target”

Translation: Hillary is not a target of the investigation … until we get definitive proof.

Realistically, Issa has to make this point so he isn’t just accused of targeting Hillary. She’s not a target yet. But once you follow the Benghazi trail, you’re going to find either Hillary or Obama at the end.

Now think about this:

1) The CIA produced Benghazi talking points that the head of the CIA described as “useless.” Talking points that make them look bad, for not anticipating something might happen on Sep 11th. Why would they do that, if they were not directed to do it?
2) The State Department completely failed to provide protection to its own employees in spite of multiple warnings that were heeded by the embassies of other nations. Why would they fail to take actions that could easily be construed as negligence or incompetence, if they were not directed to do it.
3) The Dept of Defense has made every excuse in the book about why they couldn’t intervene, but refused to deliver any supporting documentation for their decision to the Armed Services Committee. Raising two questions: a) Why would the DOD not have assets available for this contingency, considering it’s one of those contingencies they are required to plan for? and b) If they were truly unable to respond, why wouldn’t they rush to give the reasons why a response was impossible, if only to get the inquiry to pass them over?

These are 3 separate cabinet level agencies involved that all report to the president (the CIA being one of the chief organizations in Homeland Security.) The one thing they all have in common is that they all answer to the White House.

I’m willing to consider that it might not be the fault of Hillary Clinton. But if so, it’s because it was Obama’s fault instead.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 12, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Not a GD thing is going to happen to Hillary.

Sherman1864 on May 12, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Wow. Some ANGRY Hillary defenders out there. Who woulda thunk it?

Jazz Shaw on May 12, 2013 at 5:54 PM

They kind of feel like when Kobe went down for the Lakers — the second-tier talent for the Democrats on the 2016 presidential level isn’t even as good as Dwight Howard of Pau Gasol. If she becomes non-viable, the Dems have Sheriff Joe, Andrew Cuomo and Martin O’Malley waiting in the wings, and for a party that was planning to make gender in 2016 what race was in 2008, that’s not a great thought.

Issa doesn’t have to ‘get’ Hillary here. As long as the whistleblowers on Benghazi keep coming forwards and offering up new details about what did and didn’t happen in the aftermath of 9/11/12, Team Obama will be the ones trying to ‘get’ Hillary to save themselves and their guy’s legacy (It’s also why Bill Kristol on Fox today was right to say Karl Rove should be whacked in the head with a 2-by-4 for trying to raise money for his PAC off the Hillary-Benghazi connection. Rove wants to make the hearings partisan so he can fund-raise off of them, just as both Team Hillary and Team Obama would love to make the public believe the hearings are partisan, so they can discount them and discredit anything else that comes out on Benghazi).

jon1979 on May 12, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Reminder: Hillary Clinton Was Fired From The Watergate Committee For Lying And Unethical Behaviour

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 6:08 PM

That story is based entirely on the unsubstantiated word of Jerry Zeifman who had a book to sell. He can’t even point to any specific acts of alleged misconduct.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:55 PM

I’m willing to consider that it might not be the fault of Hillary Clinton. But if so, it’s because it was Obama’s fault instead.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 12, 2013 at 6:52 PM

So WHO wanted a CIA post in Benghazi and WHY ?
WHO wanted Stevens there ?
WHO wanted Stevens there on that very day ?
WHO?

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 7:02 PM

That story is based entirely on the unsubstantiated word of Jerry Zeifman who had a book to sell. He can’t even point to any specific acts of alleged misconduct.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:55 PM

He was her supervisor. Gee, waited all these years to sell a book!
Your nom is a tad misleading.

katy the mean old lady on May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM

He can’t even point to any specific acts of alleged misconduct.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:55 PM

From his site…as noted on HA in 2008…..

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip 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. However, as documented in my personal diary, 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. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff — where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethical flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with – or take depositions of — any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Departments special Watergate prosecutor

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:06 PM


myiq2xu

You do realize hi-iq guy that he did give specifics…took me 30 seconds.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:07 PM

You do realize hi-iq guy that he did give specifics…took me 30 seconds.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Think he missed 1/

katy the mean old lady on May 12, 2013 at 7:09 PM

The target is the “truth”. It will probably lead to Clinton and the Obama admin, but you can’t say that anyone is a particular target.

Ta111 on May 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM

That story is based entirely on the unsubstantiated word of Jerry Zeifman who had a book to sell. He can’t even point to any specific acts of alleged misconduct.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Actually, it has been corroborated in a piece by Dan Calabrese, interviewing folks like Franklin Polk.

Additionally, Zeifman points to *very* specific acts of ‘alleged misconduct’, including taking files from House Judiciary Committee records with regards to a specific case (where a SC Justice was allowed to have legal representation in his impeachment case in 1970), then writing a memorandum that framed events as though that specific case had never occurred (she was arguing that Nixon should be denied legal counsel due to lack of precedent, I believe).

That is a pretty specific allegation, is it not?

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM

You do realize hi-iq guy that he did give specifics…took me 30 seconds.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Nicely done, and speedy, too. :)

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Schoen and Caddell are deflecting fthe blame from Hilary to Donnalin. Thats a new one.

ctmom on May 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM

That is a pretty specific allegation, is it not?

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Your IQ’s not high enough.
/sarc

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM

That is a pretty specific allegation, is it not?

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Oh yeeaaahhh ????
Bush had a DUI and Romney tied up Seamus on top of his car…annd
and.. and …Cheney went to war to get free oil for Halliburton …and..so…so …why don’t you investigate that ??
Leave Killery alooooone ….wwhhaaaaaaaa…
/troll

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Issa is an ass, and I say that speaking as a Republican. His incompetence sickens me. Waiting until after the election only gives the libs the defense of this being a 2016 witch hunt.

We have clueless fools for miles in the GOP, and frankly looking closely at some of the young republicans waiting in line, there’s no reason to think it will be getting better.

SuperBunny on May 12, 2013 at 7:20 PM

myiq2xu is quieter than nonpartisan after one of its daily thrashings.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

Hmmmm. Stupid or sinister? Stupid or sinister? Stupid or……

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:26 PM

That story is based entirely on the unsubstantiated word of Jerry Zeifman who had a book to sell. He can’t even point to any specific acts of alleged misconduct.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:55 PM

That won’t prevent the Piccadilly Circus “independent libertarian” from quoting it you know.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 7:27 PM

That is a pretty specific allegation, is it not?

Not really. She was a committee staff lawyer and even though Zeifman was her supervisor she was answerable to others above him. Once again, where’s the proof to corroborate Zeifman’s claims??

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:29 PM

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 7:27 PM

HAL’s back. Hello HAL you’re so much fun.

This is deeee – lish.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:31 PM

So Romney (and the rest of the gop leadership undoubtedly) knew that Obama was lying and faked his outrage at the debate with Candy Crowley…..

And let Obama waltz right into a second term instead of going after him?

What did the gop leadership know…..and when did they know it???

If they knew this crap and didn’t go after him, and won’t do it now…..then the country will have to endure another three and a half years of the self-righteousness of Obama and Biden. Not to mention the damage they will do to the country.

Blame probably should be laid at the gop’s feet as well as Hillary.

PappyD61 on May 12, 2013 at 7:32 PM

I’m willing to consider that it might not be the fault of Hillary Clinton. But if so, it’s because it was Obama’s fault instead.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 12, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Absolutely, though she still was responsible for the security of the ambassador and his staff.

We still don’t know what all those people were doing in Benghazi!!

Most of them appear (?) to be CIA, and Hillary doesn’t run the CIA. If it was a scheme to run guns to Syrian rebels, Hillary certainly could be involved but she can’t be the only one and she probably was not the primary.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 7:32 PM

, where’s the proof to corroborate Zeifman’s claims??

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Actually he was pretty specific and as I noted above Polk , at least in part, supported Zeifman. Do you only comprehend what supports your contentions?

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:33 PM

That won’t prevent the Piccadilly Circus “independent libertarian” from quoting it you know.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 7:27 PM

So you still think it was that Youtube video huh ?

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 7:33 PM

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

The Douglas case was not a legal precedent and we don’t know if she was instructed to leave it out or did it herself. Apparently the Douglas impeachment was no secret – it only took place 3 years earlier. In any event Nixon was never impeached so the point is moot.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Blame probably should be laid at the gop’s feet as well as Hillary.

PappyD61 on May 12, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Smokin’ up some primo wee-wee there are you Pap?

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM

That won’t prevent the Piccadilly Circus “independent libertarian” from quoting it you know.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Sorry, kid. Some of us were in D.C. and remember Ms. Rodham. “Desperate” was a kind description as she tried to get a fingerhold in society there.
She had to settle for ol’ Billy and get the hell out of town.

katy the mean old lady on May 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM

myiq2xlessthananyonehere-

I seriously tire of f*cktards like yourself.

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip 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. However, as documented in my personal diary, 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. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff — where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethical flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with – or take depositions of — any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Departments special Watergate prosecutor

What is it with you dishonest spinning pukes? Do you not have any character?

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Do you only comprehend what supports your contentions?

Zeifman does not prove and Polk does not corroborate this:

Hillary Clinton Was Fired From The Watergate Committee For Lying And Unethical Behaviour

How did this all remain a secret until 2006?

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:37 PM

That is a pretty specific allegation, is it not?

Not really. She was a committee staff lawyer and even though Zeifman was her supervisor she was answerable to others above him. Once again, where’s the proof to corroborate Zeifman’s claims??

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Yes – the allegation that she took files out of the House Judiciary Committee files was *extraordinarily* specific. And was corroborated, as stated at least two times above.

Your nick is hilarious, by the way.

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 7:39 PM

What is it with you dishonest spinning pukes? Do you not have any character?

Just because you choose to believe Zeifman that doesn’t make me dishonest. It doesn’t make you right either.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Zeifman does not prove and Polk does not corroborate this:

Hillary Clinton Was Fired From The Watergate Committee For Lying And Unethical Behaviour

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Can you define “is”?

Hilarious. No character. My goodness the spin….after YOU LIED that he provided no specifics. You’re dishonest .

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:41 PM

LOL, the new trolls aren’t any better/smarter than the old ones, apparently.

Hmm; how do I feel today – are they jaw-droppingly stupid, or simply pathetic liars?

Decisions, decisions.

Ah well, why choose – I’m going with both.

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM

I’m willing to consider that it might not be the fault of Hillary Clinton. But if so, it’s because it was Obama’s fault instead.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 12, 2013 at 6:52 PM

So WHO wanted a CIA post in Benghazi and WHY ?
WHO wanted Stevens there ?
WHO wanted Stevens there on that very day ?
WHO?

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Indeed, who? We know that Hillary was requesting those things. what we do not know is whether they were her own idea, or at the direction of the president. The Obama administration tends toward micromanagement, so it’s entirely possible that the White House was pushing for those things rather than Hillary.

But it had to be one or the other, and could quite possibly be both.

I think it’s bigger than Hillary.

Unfortunately, she’s a known liar and completely undependable.

So the process remains: start low, and find out who gave the underlings their orders.

It will lead at least to Hillary, but will probably lead even further to Obama himself.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Yes – the allegation that she took files out of the House Judiciary Committee files was *extraordinarily* specific. And was corroborated, as stated at least two times above.

The allegation was that she moved the files to the Impeachment Inquiry office without Zeifman’s permission. Polk DOES NOT corroborate that.

Jeebus, reading is a life skill. Learn it.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Just because you choose to believe Zeifman that doesn’t make me dishonest. It doesn’t make you right either.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:40 PM

That is not why you are dishonest. Listen tard you claimed he gave no specifics. I found specifics in no time. You’re a LIAR. What don’t you get. Go back to sniffing Clinton’s butt hole you pos. Seriously tiring.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Polk DOES NOT corroborate that.

Jeebus, reading is a life skill. Learn it.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM

BUT it is still specific…you’re dumber than a rock. Do you even comprehend your own questions? Dimwit.

Dinner.Later idiot.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 7:44 PM

That story is based entirely on the unsubstantiated word of Jerry Zeifman who had a book to sell. He can’t even point to any specific acts of alleged misconduct.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:55 PM

He was the one who fired her.

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Your nick is hilarious, by the way.

Thank you. It was given to me by my daughter and I’ve been using it for over ten years. It started out as a joke but I keep it as a test. People who freak out over it fail the test.

BTW – I am not new here.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:46 PM

He was the one who fired her.

Her employment was terminated 3 days after Nixon resigned.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:48 PM

I have wasted enough of my day on an irrelevant point.

Adios!

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:50 PM

He can’t even point to any specific acts of alleged misconduct.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Did you read it?

From Mr.Zeifman’s account, Hillary and others on the Committee, including former senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation by stealing Judiciary Committee files on the only precedent case that could have stonewalled their plot and drafting a legal brief that, according to Mr. Ziefman, “was so fraudulent and ridiculous Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.”

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 7:50 PM

. It started out as a joke

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:46 PM

And continues to be.

katy the mean old lady on May 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Your nick is hilarious, by the way.

Thank you.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:46 PM

It really wasn’t intended as a compliment.

The contrast sharpened further by you claiming unspecific allegations, having them documented for you as being extremely specific, multiple times, and then you calling someone else’s reading skills into question.

Comedy gold, with just the right touch of irony. Good stuff.

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM

I have wasted enough of my day on an irrelevant point.

Adios!

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:50 PM

AKA the “just got my a$$ handed to me, I’m out of my league, get me the f*ck outta here” escape…

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 7:57 PM

So the process remains: start low, and find out who gave the underlings their orders.

It will lead at least to Hillary, but will probably lead even further to Obama himself.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 12, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Also, now that a few in the Lean Stream Media are waking up to the assasinations and the coverups,
Issa and his team should stop with all that long winded DCspeak and ask very pointed and specific questions, not about the frikin coverup but WHO set up the assasination . We know all the events that led up to 4 Americans losing their lives.
All we need to find out is WHO directed WHAT event , which led to the 4 deaths.

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Her employment was terminated 3 days after Nixon resigned.

myiq2xu on May 12, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Jerry Zeifman’s own lengthy account.

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Jerry Zeifman’s own lengthy account.

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Yeah, but he’s not very specific or anything.

*eyeroll*

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Hitlery & Nixon. Lol. The hits keep rolling in.

wolly4321 on May 12, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 8:00 PM

I know. I mean, how can you believe anyone when they only give dates and not the exact hour, minute, and second something happened?

/

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Shocked I tell ya.

HotLips on May 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM

…how many times a day do you go through Electroconvulsive Therapy ?…after every meal?

KOOLAID2 on May 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM

I know. I mean, how can you believe anyone when they only give dates and not the exact hour, minute, and second something happened?

/

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 8:03 PM

And can you believe he didn’t give details on what she was wearing at the time? I mean, how can we believe him if we don’t know the important stuff like blouse color, flats or heels, purse or handbag, etc.

Goodness, how unspecific!

Midas on May 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM

frickin squish

cmsinaz on May 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Hillary is “not a target”

…of course not!…JugEars could hit THAT with his skeet gun…or a 4 iron…at a thousand yards!

KOOLAID2 on May 12, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3