The True Hillary Clinton?

[ImWithStupid]

You can read this and make your own determination.

 

A Chapter from

Hillary's Scheme:

Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless

Agenda to Take the White House

by New York Times best-selling author Carl Limbacher, Jr

 

No one has written more -- nor more incisively -- about the dark side of

Hillary Clinton than the late Barbara Olson, author of Hell to Pay, one of

the most revealing books about Mrs. Clinton, and The Final Days, which

details the scandals that consumed the former first couple's last months in office

and was published a month after Olson was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks. But it's less

well known that Olson came by her depth of knowledge of Hillary not as any mere

author researching her subject, but as the lead investigative counsel in the mid-

1990s for the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, which probed

the Travelgate and Filegate scandals that swirled around the then first lady.

For two years Mrs. Olson went toe-to-toe with Mrs. Clinton and her White House

legal team and learned firsthand about the real Hillary that voters in New York never

got to know before they elected her senator -- and set her on a path to become

president of the United States.

In never-before-published comments made to NewsMax in an interview the year

before her death, Olson shared new in-sights about attempts by Mrs. Clinton to

fend off Travelgate investigators' questions about her intimate

friend, the late Vince Foster, as well as how Hillary's transparent

bid to fool probers nearly got her indicted -- and even Olson's

own suspicions about a secret sexual harassment lawsuit filed

against Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.

"Every time we were asking about discussions that any of

the people had with the first lady involving any of the [Foster]

stuff, we got cut off," the lead House investigator revealed, ex-

plaining that when it came to Foster's role in the Travelgate scandal -- or in anything

else connected with Mrs. Clinton -- "They said `we've already testified about this.'

"The White House was cordoning off things they would and wouldn't answer,"

Olson complained. "And when we got into Vince Foster questions that went an

inch beyond the part of [his suicide] note that mentioned the Travel Office and the

Travel Office files, they wouldn't answer, saying it wasn't relevant." When Olson

and her probers pressed the issue, Hillary's lawyers would stonewall, saying, "Look

we've already been questioned on Vince Foster and all the other forums and we're

not going to re-answer the same questions."

Olson also revealed never-before-reported evidence that Hillary Clinton hired

White House security chief Craig Livingstone, who got his hands on over 1,000

confidential FBI files on potential Clinton opponents, in a scandal that had even

left-wing civil libertarians howling.

The top House prober described a visit to FBI headquarters in 1996, where

she learned that White House FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene had performed the

background check on Livingstone.

"In his file Sculimbrene had asked Bernard Nussbaum about Craig Livingstone

coming in, just doing the typical background discussions. And that was when Bernard

Nussbaum said, `Well the reason Craig Livingstone is being hired is because Hillary

wants him.'" But in a sign the FBI was still under the White House's thumb, Olson

revealed "Unbeknownst to me they had shared the information [about Hillary's role]

with the White House the day before." Nussbaum later testified that he had made no

such admission even after other evidence tying Mrs. Clinton to the suspicious hire

emerged.

If Mrs. Clinton's role in hiring Livingstone seemed transparent, if unprovable, her

lies in Travelgate were of a whole different order. From the outset of her dealings

with the first lady and her lawyers, Olson said, efforts to cover up her central role

in that scandal were both audacious and pathetic. In her capacity as the Travelgate

Committee's chief investigator, Olson drew up twenty-six questions for the first

lady. Mrs. Clinton had already denied she was the instigator behind the Travel Office

firings in answers to interrogatories from the General Accounting Office, but the

answers weren't given under penalty of perjury.

"I wrote twenty-six questions, and Chairman Clinger sent them to [Mrs. Clinton]

and she then sent them back without her signature," Olson recalled. "We sent them

back and said, no, we want her to sign them. It has to be notarized under penalty

of perjury." The attempt to dodge legal responsibility for her answers might have

seemed pathetic to some, but Olson had been smart enough to tighten one legal

loophole that could have rendered Mrs. Clinton unindictable. In one of Olson's

Travelgate questions, the first lady had to swear that her responses to the GAO had

been honest and truthful.

"That tied her to all of her GAO answers," the investigator-turned-author told

NewsMax. "Before that, you could say, well, with GAO she wasn't under oath because

she had another attorney, Neil Eggleston, answer them. And she could always say,

well, he inartfully answered. That's why I made her sign the twenty-six questions

that our committee did."

The insistence that Hillary give answers under oath gave investigators

a firm basis to send a perjury referral to the Independent Counsel with

her name on it. "Chairman [William] Clinger [R-Pa.] thought long

and hard about that," Olson revealed. "But, you know, he had been in

the House for many years and he just felt as though it was improper

to name her." But did Clinger believe that Mrs. Clinton had perjured

herself in Travelgate?

"He felt as though there was a conflict between her testimony and

certain evidence," Olson explained carefully. "And if you read our White House

Travel Office report on Mrs. Clinton, throughout it we talk about her deposition in

which she says she did not have a hand in the firing of the Travel Office employees.

Well, we had huge amounts of evidence that shows she not only had a hand but she

was the driving force." Olson described another aspect of the White House Travelgate

cover-up that involved probable evidence-tampering with a set of subpoenaed

documents.

"What they did, the title was changed by deleting HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton)"

from the title of a 2,000-page Travel Office chronology. The title change, plus the

fact that the White House was invoking executive privilege to withhold the rest of

the document, made it difficult to discern how deeply Hillary was involved. But

eventually the committee got its hands on a "privilege log."

"What a privilege log does," explained Olson, "is it's supposed to give the title of

the document or a description of the document, you know, ten pages of chronology.

And what we found out on those 2,000 pages, practically every single document that

had her name in the title." Hillary's role in the firings, however, was consistently

downplayed, the chief Travelgate investigator said. "So we would see something

like HRC Chronology of Travel Office events, and it would just be characterized as

Travel Office chronology of events."

Some of the Travelgate documents were heavily redacted, said Olson, and the

redactions, they later learned, almost always came in a place where Mrs. Clinton was

mentioned. "When we saw them unredacted, and this is what really made Chairman

Clinger go forward on all of the subpoenas and contempts. He sat down and looked

and saw that what had been redacted was not national security evidence, but was

just talking about Hillary Clinton's role. And he felt as though that was a real misuse

of executive privilege, which of course it was."

Olson said the Travelgate probe also gave her new insights into the way the

Clintons shared power in their relationship. After first suspecting Bill Clinton as the

prime mover behind the Travel Office firings, "We found out it was Hillary Clinton

[behind the firings] and she was doing it because (a) she doesn't trust anybody, and

(b) she wanted the slots for her friends." Olson concluded, "In their relationship

Bill's the one who sort of skates on top of stuff. Hillary takes care of the dirty stuff."

One bit of dirty stuff Travelgate probers could never quite get to

the bottom of was a mysterious sexual harassment lawsuit settled

by the Clinton campaign in 1992. The settlement came to light in

1995, after the Federal Election Commission fined the campaign for

paying the accuser off with $37,500 in federally subsidized campaign

monies. As part of the deal, neither the accuser nor anyone else was

supposed to discuss the case. In its 1995 coverage of the story, The

Washington Post

called it "one of the best-kept secrets of Clinton's

1992 presidential campaign." But when the case finally surfaced,

the offending harasser was identified as David Watkins, a longtime

Clinton backer from Hope, Arkansas, who was later appointed to run the White

House personnel office.

[ImWithStupid]

Continued...

 

"We asked David Watkins about the sexual harassment payment," said Olson. "We

asked lots of people about it because we thought (a) we were questioning whether

this was the person to put in charge of the administration. You know, let's get a guy

that's been charged with sexual harassment to be head of personnel. And (b) it was

paid off by the campaign."

Despite the shroud of silence that had descended on the case, The Washington

Post

seemed to have little trouble getting Clinton administration aides to detail the

so-called secret settlement with Watkins and had no problem naming his accuser,

whose identity was supposedly sealed by the courts. "The woman in the case hung

up when a reporter called her and did not respond to written requests for comment,"

reported the paper. "But an account of how the campaign reacted to [her] allegation

can be pieced together from former campaign aides, administration officials and

others knowledgeable about the situation. These sources confirmed the woman's

identity and described the campaign's actions on the condition they not be named." (1)

 

Did it make sense that the 1992 Clinton campaign, which was so cash-strapped

that aides were charging expenses on their personal credit cards, would pony

up $37,500 to settle a harassment claim for Watkins, who had made millions in

the advertising business and was in no need of charity? And if, in fact, it was the

Clinton aide who was the harasser, what about all those accounts from campaign

flight attendants about Bill Clinton's eight-mile-high friskiness aboard the plane he

dubbed "Longhorn One."

"Now that we have the hindsight of the Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones cases,

that's an excellent question," Olson said. "It's one of those things now that we have

a very different view of given what was going on in '92."(2)

 

Hillary's IRS Henchwoman?

 

As Barbara Olson understood better than most, Hillary Clinton became a force to

be reckoned with largely because Republicans cringed at the thought of enforcing the

law against a sitting first lady whose election as senator would render her even more

untouchable. Still the record is clear. And that record remains the best forewarning

of how the federal bureaucracy will be used and abused under a politician whose

ruthlessness makes Nixon look like a choirboy. In an eight-year reign of terror

conducted by the Internal Revenue Service during the Clinton administration,

witness after witness in a position to testify about wrongdoing by the president --

not to mention an array of conservative organizations that opposed Clinton policies

-- found themselves targeted by tax audits.

It started in May 1993, with a full court press against Travel Office chief Billy

Dale. A nonpolitical White House worker who had served every president going

back to John F. Kennedy, Dale and his six co-workers were summarily dismissed on

Mrs. Clinton's orders because, as she told her personnel chief David Watkins, "We

need those slots for our people." In an effort to justify Dale's dismissal, the Clinton

White House hit him with everything but the kitchen sink: a federal indictment on

embezzlement charges, the illegal requisition of his FBI file, and, in a move that

would soon become familiar, an IRS tax audit. Dale was acquitted in less than ninety

minutes on the embezzlement case by a Washington, D.C., jury, but not before the

bogus Clinton probes had cost him $500,000.

 

Hillary's Fingerprints

 

As noted by conservative columnist Ann Coulter, the Dale IRS audit was ripe

with evidence of a political vendetta. A White House report detailing its own

version of the scandal inadvertently revealed that Associate White

House Counsel William Kennedy threatened FBI probers that

he would summon the IRS if they didn't immediately launch an

investigation of Dale.(3)_

 

But Hillary's own fingerprints were revealed

when Travelgate probers discovered a memo stating that IRS

Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson was personally "on

top of" the Dale audit.(4)

 

Richardson was an old chum from Hillary's

days at Yale Law School and would later become a contributor and

serve on the Clintons' 1992 transition team, a fact that IRS agents

probing Dale were made "aware" of.(5)

 

A slew of audits against Clinton administration opponents followed Dale's

audit. Because the IRS doesn't make public its audit information, and targets are

frequently reluctant to go public, the full range of the Clinton IRS blitzkrieg remains

unknown.

But just months after the second Clinton term commenced, Investor's Business

Daily

noted, "The IRS has hit some 20 conservative groups and several of Clinton's

critics with audits, audit warnings or delays in granting nonprofit status."(6)

[ImWithStupid]

Continued...

 

Other targets of IRS scrutiny included:

Hillary-care critic Kent Masterson Brown

IRS critic Shelly Davis

Patricia Mendoza, who confronted Bill Clinton after the 1996 terrorist attack on

the Khobar Towers Air Force barracks

Nationally syndicated radio host Chuck Harder(7)

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, a former Miss America who was audited after admitting

a long-denied sexual relationship with Clinton

Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, an outspoken Clinton critic Sexual harassment accuser Paula Jones, who received her audit notification a few months after she beat Mr. Clinton in the Supreme Court

The National Review and The American Spectator, two conservative publications

hostile to the Clintons

Conservative groups including the Christian Coalition, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Oliver North's Freedom Alliance, the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the Western Journalism Center, the National Center for Public Policy Research, Fortress America and Citizens Against Government Waste

 

1. Washington Post, 15 Feb. 1995

2. Author's interview with Barbara Olson, January 1999.

3. Ann Coulter, Washington Times, 8 June 2000.

4. Washington Times, 8 June 2000.

5. Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors (Washington, D.C., Regnery, 1998) p. 132.

6. Investor's Business Daily, 2 October 1997.

7. Joyce Milton, The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York: William Morrow, 2000) pp 324- 327.

8. Washington Times, 8 June 2000.

[timesjoke]

I honestly do not believe there is a "true" Hillary.

 

She is constantly changing like she has mental issues or something. Maybe all the years of conforming to what advisors say has messed her up, who knows, but I do know she will completely change again if she wins the whitehouse.

[ImWithStupid]

I took this from another board, but it appears to apply to this thread...

 

[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019]Hillary! Uncensored - The Roughcut Trailer - Banned By The Media[/ame]

[ImWithStupid]

Thank God the people of my great State of Nebraska, even if they follow the socialist, I mean, Democratic party, were smart enough to not vote for Hillary.

 

Is it just me or doesn't it seem that in all of her ads, posters, bumper stickers and everything, she is intentionally not including her last name of Clinton? Almost as if they don't want America to remember the shady tactics that go with the Clinton name.

[eddo]

Is it just me or doesn't it seem that in all of her ads, posters, bumper stickers and everything, she is intentionally not including her last name of Clinton? Almost as if they don't want America to remember the shady tactics that go with the Clinton name.

 

I was actually talking about that with a friend the other day, and had the opposite view:

 

I am surprised that she isn't using the Clinton moniker, as I really do think America would vote Bill back into office if we could. He is still a very popular and charismatic speaker.

 

I would think she would want to use it more.

[Old Salt]

MAYBE, she thinks that if she doesn't use the Clinton name in her ads, and if she's elected, that she did it without riding her husband's coattails?

[phreakwars]

I know I'd absolutely love to vote Bill back in office. I have respect for an administration that gave us an actual surplus instead of a deficit. I don't care how many complain about the guy and his policys... they worked for America... Hillary on the other hand, I'm not so sure of... To me she is the evil backstabbing Eve that would eat the poison fruit and talk her companion into doing it too.. She is not worthy of nomination but I will vote for her over McCain any day.. McCain can pull his "I WAS A POW, AND NOW I'M AN HERO, VOTE FOR ME" campaign all he wants and drag in the wanna be patriotic/fear god and terrorists vote all he wants. For that, he is an idiot. Even Hillary's serpent slithering ways can beat that. I'll give the bitch credit for getting what she wants any way she can. A true SON OF A BITCH makes a great leader. So I won't say that I honestly believe Hillary couldn't do a good job as a President either... But I still back Obama.

.

.

[snafu]

No correct me if I'm wrong but it was Bush Sr. that started the decline of the deficit. It had nothing to do with Clinton.

[snafu]

Clinton's Tax Increase Slows Revenue Growth

 

Total Increase Revenue from 1993 Revenue from In Revenues Tax Increase Economic Growth (billions) (billions) (billions) FY 1994 $104.2 $26.4 $77.8

 

FY 1995 $ 97.5 $43.5 $54.0

 

FY 1996 $ 71.6 $51.5 $20.1

 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, tax revenues from the Clinton 1993 tax hike in- creased from $26.4 billion to $51.5 billion between FY 1994 and FY 1996.2 But the total increase in tax revenues from all sources decreased from $104.2 billion to $71.6 billion. Most of the drop in the deficit from new revenues occurred before the new 1993 tax increases could be collected. The tax data suggest that Clinton's economic policies actually may have sapped the economic recovery and produced a deficit larger than it otherwise could have been.

 

 

Why Clinton Should Not Get Credit For Reducing the Deficit

 

Clinton didn't do .

[snafu]

Bill Clinton is a well rehearsed, charismatic speaker unlike Bush Jr. but he has no more ethnic values than a snake. He's a crook just like his wife.

And war will create a defect. There's no going around it. Freedom is not free. Also every president after Roosevelt that's had to deal with war has fallen into decline with popularity from the public. Nobody likes war and it costs money. But the fact is that we will always be in a state of war because there will always be disputes and corruption across the world. We can not escape it.

[phreakwars]

No correct me if I'm wrong but it was Bush Sr. that started the decline of the deficit. It had nothing to do with Clinton.

[attach=full]1596[/attach]

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

I was just talking about something similar to this today. I'm not sure about the defecit but it is a fact that the US economy was already starting it's upswing while Bush Sr. was in office, but Clinton gets the credit for it.

 

I personally don't think the President has that much of an impact on the economy in modern times. I don't think the credit should go to either one.

[timesjoke]

I was just talking about something similar to this today. I'm not sure about the defecit but it is a fact that the US economy was already starting it's upswing while Bush Sr. was in office, but Clinton gets the credit for it.

 

I personally don't think the President has that much of an impact on the economy in modern times. I don't think the credit should go to either one.

 

 

The President does effect the economy, but the problem is something as complex as the American economy is not going to show the result of all the actions until years later.

 

We can see some actions like how the Bush tax cuts "increased" collected taxes (somethign that pisses off liberals) but the result on the economy of policy is a wait and see kind of thing most of the time.

 

 

 

 

I loved the way Obama got 5 out of 5 this weekend. Hillary has fired her manager and is starting to look desperate.

 

 

When we consider how Hillary was all but assumed to be the next President a few months ago, it is a huge blow to her to see Obama gaining so much momentum. I would like to see Obama beat her just to prove that the Clinton machine is not as invincible as they have been pretending.

 

 

I don't really see any difference detween them, their both socialists who believe we need to give more to those who do less and want to raise taxes in a massive way.

 

 

Interesting news:

 

Clinton 'planned to divorce Hillary to be with one of his many lovers' | the Daily Mail

 

Not much new information but the timming is good for both book sales and helping to remind the people of just how caluulating the Clintons are.

[snafu]

...

 

I loved the way Obama got 5 out of 5 this weekend. Hillary has fired her manager and is starting to look desperate.

 

She puts in a black women too.

[ImWithStupid]

I loved the way Obama got 5 out of 5 this weekend. Hillary has fired her manager and is starting to look desperate.

 

I like how she immediately put a spin on the losses as her expecting to lose those states. My personal feeling is that she crapped herself when she lost Maine. I think she planned on taking the entire New England states and losing Maine, was a sign of concern for her that things may not be going well down the road.

[timesjoke]

I like how she immediately put a spin on the losses as her expecting to lose those states. My personal feeling is that she crapped herself when she lost Maine. I think she planned on taking the entire New England states and losing Maine, was a sign of concern for her that things may not be going well down the road.

 

I just saw a report tonight she says she does not care about recent losses because she believes certain States like Texas are in her pocket.

 

 

I don't care how much she talks about being secure with the other states, she must be concerned with the recent momentum Obama is getting. Attitudes change real fast and she could lose the states she is counting on just because Obama is seen as having that momentum.

[snafu]

I just saw a report tonight she says she does not care about recent losses because she believes certain States like Texas are in her pocket.

 

 

I don't care how much she talks about being secure with the other states, she must be concerned with the recent momentum Obama is getting. Attitudes change real fast and she could lose the states she is counting on just because Obama is seen as having that momentum.

 

Yeah on the news they said she has to win TX and I belive OH to stay in the race.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

if she loses... i believe that a republican can beat obama. the country might have hope after all.

[hugo]

Better start attacking Obama, Hitlary is history.

[snafu]

Dancing Hillary - Miniclip Games - Play Free Games

[wez]

I see a motorcycle cop died in an accident escorting her today.. bummer.

[wez]

Hillary is a cop killer.

[eddo]

I see a motorcycle cop died in an accident escorting her today.. bummer.

 

Seriously? That stinks...