It never seems to fail in politics. No matter what sort of unethical political or personal misdeeds a politician might have sought to get away with in years gone by, regardless of how deep they may believe they’ve “buried the bodies”, you can practically wager that those allegorical “bodies” will eventually erupt up out of the ground later in dramatic Poltergeist fashion at the height of advancing political ambitions & during the least opportune of moments to cast their grievous shadow upon said political aspirations. Although in the case of Hillary Rodham Clinton, any politicizing intimations alluding to”buried bodies” transcends mere allegory when taken in context with one of the former Secretary of State’s more recent & notorious political transgressions. An offense that’s immediately recognized for its conjured notoriety in just one word: Benghazi.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Even as dispute rages over Clinton’s role in what many suspect was a gunrunning operation to al-Qaeda insurgents in Syria gone bad & the subsequent cover-up stemming from the fatal events of September 11th, 2012, in an attack by al-Qaeda linked Islamic terrorists on our Libyan compound in Benghazi which left our U.S. Ambassador & 3 other Americans murdered, along with dozens of CIA operatives on the ground at the time injured, portents of yet another political squall appears to be brewing on the horizon & bearing down on the beleaguered former Secretary of State.
This latest political squall I refer to centers on the content of an August 14th, 2013 article published in The New York Times, titled: “Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions”. In an excerpt, authors of the expose, Nicholas Confessore & Amy Chozick go on to detail the following:
~Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.
The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.
And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.~
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh mentioned the article during his August 14th, 2013, program & posited some unique theories on the motives for the Times to even publish this article to begin with:
~RUSH LIMBAUGH: “The UK Telegraph asks today if I am editing the New York Times… The New York Times, for some reason, has done a thorough expose on the Clinton Global Initiative… This piece essentially points out that this thing is losing money left and right, it raises money out the wazoo, it’s running deficits, and the Clinton’s are getting rich.”
“Okay, here we are in 2013. Presidential campaign, 2015. Maybe the Clintons and the New York Times got word that Hillary rivals were gonna really make a big deal out of this. So the Clintons and the Times get together, “You know, let’s do the story now so that we can say in 2015 it’s old news, it’s been reported, there was nothing there. I mean, it ran in the New York Times and nothing happened. We didn’t lose any donors. There was nothing there. There was nothing to it. It’s been done. It’s old news.”
“That’s also a distinct possibility. We just don’t know. But the one thing we do know is that it is really unusual, because Democrats are not exposed this way in the New York Times, unless they are under orders to be taken out by party hierarchy.”~
Lets hearken back to Hillary Clinton’s formative years as a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon’s Watergate scandal investigation, & her subsequent firing from that job for, among a diversity of things, lying. In excerpts from an article going all the way back to April 2nd, 2008, at americanthinker.com by writer Rick Moran, Moran goes on to detail this early, little known, “bump” in Hillary’s road to the Presidency:
~Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair.
When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
One has to be convinced that if it were a Republican who had a past like this, the politician’s career would never have gotten off the ground. Such a revelation – so easily discovered by simply asking her boss on the Committee – would have been all over the media if a Republican had been fired for “lying” amd violating “the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality.”
Regardless, among Clinton’s transgressions while on staff at the House Judiciary Committee were her apparent lying about not seeking to change House rules by assuring her boss she had no intention of doing so and then later being discovered that she was already advocating radical changes including a recommendation to deny President Nixon the right to counsel. Ziefman wrote on his own website:
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.
As Ed Morrissey points out:
If all she did was to propose that as a tactic, that would not make it terribly concerning — but she did much more than just spitball ideas. When informed that public evidence showed a precedent for the right to counsel, she absconded with the files to eliminate the evidence.
Does that remind anyone of later incidents in the Clinton narrative, such as the billing records for the Rose Law offices and the 900+ raw FBI files on political opponents of the Clinton’s?
Hillary’s advocates could accuse Zeifman of conjuring up these stories in order to draw attention to himself in the middle of a presidential campaign. However, Calabrese reports that Zeifman kept diaries during this period, urged on by friends mindful of the historical nature of the Watergate investigation. No one would have known at the time that this 27-year-old barracuda would have any sort of national significance — which makes Zeifman’s testimony all the more compelling.~
Now lets return to present day & all of the disputation presently surrounding Obama’s Benghazi scandal & Hillary’s role in that affair as his former Secretary of State. As a lot of us know, several Capitol Hill lawmakers suspect Benghazi was in reality a gunrunning operation being overseen by Ambassador Stevens (& facilitated by the dozens of CIA operatives we know now were on the ground & subsequently injured during the terrorist attack of September 11th, 2012) to al-Qaeda insurgents posing as rebel fighters in Syria. The genesis of this alleged gunrunning operation had its beginnings last year after international diplomatic negotiations fell apart in an effort to bring the Syrian civil war to an end. The parties credited for being the brain trust of this proposed gun smuggling operation were then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus. However, Obama appeared to initially reject this proposal, but in hindsight & looking back now over the Benghazi massacre, it would appear there was more going on than met the eye.
Now here we find ourselves presented with a corrupt & habitual liar of breathtaking enormous proportion in Hillary Rodham Clinton, already being trumpeted by sycophantic halfwits as a potential Democrat candidate for the 2016 Presidential election. A woman of such opprobrious reputation you can’t help marvel in disbelief by her supporters total lack of pretense to even feign reproval for any of Clinton’s past & present misconduct. A telling presentment in their own words & deeds to the sweeping deficit of character & moral integrity we’re confronted with as a Nation by those whom constitute this Democrat Party. Is this “the new America” they would offer? Let me accredit my assertion in the words of a particularly low-information homo-centric lounge lizard named “Billy”. Billy summarized my belief in a comment he posted to a previous article I had wrote where he so eloquently expressed it thus:
~”It’s not 1960 anymore, the America you loved is dead and buried and its not coming back. In this new America, you the homophobic bigot, not the gay people, will be the ones despised and mocked. That’s reality, now deal with it.”~
Considering the article I had wrote which Billy posted this comment to made scant reference to homosexuality other than a remark about Anthony Weiner’s last name standing out like Sylvester Stallone in a gay pride parade for drive by satirists. Billy obviously has some gender identity issues he needs to work on that I must have plucked a nerve to with my remark, but that’s beside the point. This is our Nations future. Billy is just a by-product of this decades long “Progressive” engineered decline by design of our Country. Barack Hussein Obama is viewed as the Crown Jewel of intended consequences & whose emperial lawlessness is perceived by many as an accelerated push towards an “end game” in this orchestrated subversion.
Hillary Clinton once referred to herself as a “modern Progressive”, which has a “real American meaning” as she put it :
We live in a country now that has become fundamentally indescribable in the face of so much fundamental “Progressive” transformation & with so much ridiculous credibility afforded “Progressive” people more deserving of criminal prosecution for their flagrant abuses of power than they are of being allowed to hold political office for even one more day. Conducted under the auspices of Democrat instigation, subsidized by a submissively complacent GOP establishment, & foisted on us through the complicity of a malign media & press. Hillary Clinton is simply another crowning achievement to the noxious depredations of a Progressive Party wallowing in its own illicit Progressive depravity which the Nation as a whole is being force fed day in & day out.
Is there any other way really to describe this prevailing absurdity by lunatics lauding a political candidate for President of the United States, who (in reality) is actually more deserving of being indicted on numerous counts of aggravated negligent homicide?!