Category Archive 'Watergate'
12 May 2017
Michael Goodwin, in the New York Post, defends Trump and mocks democrat hysteria.
Comeyâ€™s power-grabbing arrogance is why I called him â€œJ. Edgar Comeyâ€ two months ago. His willingness to play politics, while insisting he was above it all, smacked of Washington at its worst. He was the keeper of secrets, until they served his purpose.
As such, the president did to Comey what no president had the courage to do to J. Edgar Hoover. Five presidents wanted to fire Hoover, with Harry Truman accusing him of running a police state and of blackmail. But all were afraid of Hoover, so he died in office.
Trump acted before Comey could get that kind of lifetime protection, which has no place in American democracy. At our best, we are a nation of laws, not of people who accumulate power and ruthlessly wield it without accountability. …
Democrats who not so long ago were furious with Comey over the Clinton probe [are seen now] rushing out condemnations of Trump for firing him.
â€œNixonianâ€ was a common theme, a shot both cheap and predictable. When youâ€™re a hammer, everything is a nail. When youâ€™re a Democrat, everything is Watergate.
23 Jun 2014
Peggy Noonan recently marveled at the partisan-induced somnolence of the establishment media at the revelation of the IRS destroyed hard-drives.
[T]he Obama administration is experiencing what appears to be its own Eighteen-and-a-Half Minute moment. In a truly stunning development in the Internal Revenue Service scandal, the agency last week informed Congress that more than two yearsâ€™ of Lois Lernerâ€™s email communications with those outside that agencyâ€”from 2009 to 2011, meaning the key years at the heart of the targeting-of-conservatives scandalâ€”have gone missing. Quite strangely. The IRS says it cannot locate them. The reason is that Lernerâ€™s computer crashed. …
And what is amazingâ€”not surprising, but amazingâ€”is that if my experience of normal human conversation the past few days is any guide, very few people are talking about it and almost no one cares.
The IRS scandal as a news story carries a stigma, and the stigma is in part due to the fact that when it broke, when Lois Lerner last year made her admission, with a planted question at an American Bar Association gathering, that the IRS had made some mistakes with conservative groups, and disingenuously suggested the blame lay with incompetents in a field office far from the Beltway, conservatives and partisans jumped. The mainstream press was inclined to believe Lerner, or believe at least that a series of mistakes had produced a small if embarrassing so-called scandal. Some conservatives, activists and partisans, not all of them sincere and not all of them serious, viewed the story primarily as another cudgel to use against the president and his party. Some no doubt viewed it as a fundraising opportunity.
The press viewed it not as a story but as a partisan political drama. And in partisan political dramas they are very rarely on the Republican side.
I havenâ€™t ever met a reporter or producer who wasnâ€™t a conservative who didnâ€™t believe the IRS scandal was the result of the bureaucratic confusion and incompetence of some office workers in Cincinnati who made a mistake.
But the IRS scandal is a scandal, and if you canâ€™t see the relation between a strangely destroyed key piece of evidence in an ongoing scandal and what happened 41 years ago with a strangely destroyed key piece of evidence in an ongoing scandal, something is wrong not with the story but with your news judgment. …
It would be very good to see the mainstream press call for a special prosecutor, fully armed with the powers to get to the bottom of the case. …
The mischief of the Nixon administration was specific to it, to its personnel. When Chuck Colson left, he left. All the figures in that drama failed to permanently disfigure the edifice of government. They got caught, and their particular brand of mischief ended.
But the IRS scandal is different, because if it isnâ€™t stoppedâ€”if it isnâ€™t fully uncovered, exposed, and its instigators held accountableâ€”it will suggest an acceptance of the politicization of the IRS, and an expected and assumed partisanship within its future actions. That will be terrible not only for citizens but for the government itself.
02 Apr 2008
Dan Calabrese published the account provided by Hillary Clinton’s former boss.
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillaryâ€™s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther â€“ and goes much deeper â€“ than anyone realizes.
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 Kennedyâ€™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 â€“ one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifmanâ€™s 17-year career.
â€œBecause she was a liar,â€ Zeifman said in an interview last week. â€œShe 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.â€
How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldnâ€™t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals â€“ including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum â€“ who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.
Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach â€“ including Kennedyâ€™s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.
The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip Oâ€™Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
Read the whole thing.
Can Hillary Clinton possibly survive this news story? Tune in for the next episode in Campaign 2008: the Bloodbath.
Via Ed Morrissey.
07 Jan 2007
Alan Nathan compares the MSM’s coverage of Sandy Berger’s theft and destruction of documents from the National Archives to the media’s treatment of Watergate (which brought down a sitting president) and asks (not unreasonably):
Why is robbing national security documents less important than robbing campaign documents?