Clinton Scandal's Begin

[tke711]

This one (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html) has to do with her listening to illegally recorded tapes of phone conversations of political opponents.


In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.

Of course, the Republican's are using this to point out the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign since she's been quite vocal against the President's surveillance programs. The Republicans will say things like it's OK for Mrs. Clinton to listen in on political opponents for her own gain, but not to listen to terrorist who might harm the country.

While that is a little over the top, this latest "scandal" will just be the first of many to come given Mrs. Clinton's track record and obvious front-runner status.

[Sierra Mike]

Cool, can't wait for it all to start in earnest. :)

SM

[Steve]

Wow. Memos were received and aides were vetted. I'll bet she engaged in some surreptitious jaywalking, too!

The tape thing is a little disturbing but if they want to smear Hillary they're going to have to come up with some A-list material. These things reek of children on a playground ratting out each other over gum-chewing.

[Violet1966]

If it was considered it would be a form of blackmail or extortion, I don't blame her for wanting to hear it. And I don't like her as it is, and even I think it has to be taken in context to what was going on then.

[cdw]

I think for any of it to mean anything they would have to come up with proof. There is none.

[jimeez]

:lol: This is only the beginning. I can't wait to see what comes next. Whatever it is will make the Swift Boat Vets thing look like an Elementary School play.

[Violet1966]

And OMG Jim that av is cracking me up actually has me chuckling. All I can think of is why does it hurt when I pee, when I see a goofy Zappa pose like that, and I start to hear it in my head and laugh to myself out loud. May he rest in peace and float for all enternity in the heavens. ;)

And yeah cyd, they'd have to prove it. It is curious why it was never denied, but who wants to give credit to a lie if it is one or they want people to believe it is one?

I don't think this all that big of an issue, but agree with SM and Jim, this is only the beginning. ;)

Next that what's her name cigar girl will claim she had a threesome with Bill and Hillary and that's why she didn't leave him! :rofl:

[joseftu]

A pretty pathetic beginning. If this is their opening shot, there's not much there in the locker.

(And the Swift Boat Vets thing was an elementary school play!--only the acting was worse.)

[Stiofán]

Yes, obtaining wiretaps of your political opponents illegally isn't really that big of a deal, especially when one is leading the field by a substancial margin.

Some might consider it on par with breaking into some obsure DNC party office...........

Goodness, why should any of us expect our chief law enforcement officer, administrative head, and Commander in Chief to actually follow the law, regardless of how trivial?

[Violet1966]

It's bad Stio, but for me I find her present much worse than her past. This proves, if true, what she is capable of and adds to what I already don't like about her. ;)

[joseftu]

Goodness, why should any of us expect our chief law enforcement officer, administrative head, and Commander in Chief to actually follow the law, regardless of how trivial?
I think you mean "potential," or "imminent," or "all-but guaranteed" Commander in Chief and chief law enforcement officer, right? Getting a little ahead of yourself, otherwise.

(But I know how depressing this has to be for you, Stiofan. Another eight years of another Clinton presidency. You're looking forward to a much stronger, better, more just American society, as all your political principles are proven wrong. That has to hurt! ;) )

[Steve]

Got any proof the law was broken? The book makes allegations of something that occurred in 1992. Seems to me that 15 years is plenty of time for Hillary's enemies to dig up the hard evidence to bury her political career.

I'm no fan of Clinton but there's nothing here but 15-year-old smoke and vapor.

[joseftu]

Got any proof the law was broken? The book makes allegations of something that occurred in 1992. Seems to me that 15 years is plenty of time for Hillary's enemies to dig up the hard evidence to bury her political career.

I'm no fan of Clinton but there's nothing here but 15-year-old smoke and vapor.
They're hoping, Steve, that just smoke and vapor will be enough. The Swift Boat fiasco showed them that if you throw enough crap, hard enough, it matters not at all that there's no substance there.

[Stiofán]

I think you mean "potential," or "imminent," or "all-but guaranteed" Commander in Chief and chief law enforcement officer, right? Getting a little ahead of yourself, otherwise.

(But I know how depressing this has to be for you, Stiofan. Another eight years of another Clinton presidency. You're looking forward to a much stronger, better, more just American society, as all your political principles are proven wrong. That has to hurt! ;) )

Not getting ahead of myself at all. Its obviously went a mile over your head, but my post was referring to any candidate running for President, not just the Queen Bee. However, for someone with your less than stellar record predicting Presidential winners here in the past, I'm surprised you're so cocky.

Got any proof the law was broken? The book makes allegations of something that occurred in 1992. Seems to me that 15 years is plenty of time for Hillary's enemies to dig up the hard evidence to bury her political career.

I'm no fan of Clinton but there's nothing here but 15-year-old smoke and vapor.

I'm not investigating her so no I don't have any evidence. What kind of a question is that? I'm responding to the OP, which you immediately poo-pooed out of hand, without any evidence that it wasn't true. Funny how I didn't question your post asking to see your PI license.

I will say, her past behavior lends credence to it being more true than not, so I'm not making any earth shattering leap here.

[Steve]

I took a 15-year-old allegation as false on the face of it, untrue by default, thus I lent it no credence. You don't need a PI license to know that Hillary's got enough enemies that this would have been brought up during her Congressional race if there was any merit to it.

[ravital]

You don't need a PI license to know that Hillary's got enough enemies that this would have been brought up during her Congressional race if there was any merit to it.

You're making just one logical mistake: Empirical evidence shows, clearly, that what sticks to one politician, slides off another one quite easily. The public credibility or acceptance of one charge or another has very little to do with evidence or merit, when it comes to public opinion, and particularly political campaigns. The same empirical experience shows this to be even more consistent with democratic candidates.

I don't lend much credibility to these charges either, but you don't need rock-solid irrefutable evidence to at least be extremely suspicious of this particular candidate.

[Steve]

I'm plenty suspicious of her for a variety of publicly-known reasons; the last thing I need is stale allegations like this one. Mind you, I'm not saying she didn't listen to the tapes. I'm only noting that if there was any substance to these allegations, her plentiful and powerful opponents would have used them to quash her Presidential ambitions years ago.

[ravital]

I'm plenty suspicious of her for a variety of publicly-known reasons; the last thing I need is stale allegations like this one.
Good point. Those tend to make martyrs and saints out of the most unsavory politicians. My bad.

[Steve]

Exactly! This is the precisely the sort of thing that backfires. The instant genuine malfeasance is reported, the immediate riposte is to point out how past attempts at "slander" failed because there was no truth behind them, etc., etc. Words like "witchhunt" get tossed out and, amid all the smoke, noise, and confusion the very real possibility of wrongdoing gets lost.

[Violet1966]

I don't like someone questioning my intelligence pointing out that since it was in a book, it must be true.

I need to see hard evidence to believe something is true.

Until then, this is a non issue for me. I'll be concentrating on her dopey universal insurance like proposals to give me enough reason to not vote for her. Politicians are all scum and all do underhanded stuff. I think if you did into every single one of their pasts, you'll find something that would exclude them from being taken seriously and deserving the votes.