[cia-drugs] Fwd: [ctrl] Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
-Original Message- From: Alamaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: CTRL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 1:13 am Subject: [ctrl] Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior Dan Calabrese Read Dan's bio and previous columns here http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm March 31, 2008 Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior 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 Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – 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 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. Why? “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.” How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – 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 – including Kennedy’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 O’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. The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970. “As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said. The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do? “Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred. The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon. Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top comm
[cia-drugs] Fwd: [ctrl] Embarrassed US Starts to Disown Basra Operation
-Original Message- From: Alamaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: CTRL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 1:13 am Subject: [ctrl] Embarrassed US Starts to Disown Basra Operation http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12613 April 1, 2008 Embarrassed US Starts to Disown Basra Operation by Gareth Porter As it became clear last week that the Operation Knights Assault in Basra was in serious trouble, the George W. Bush administration began to claim in off-the-record statements to journalists that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had launched the operation without consulting Washington. The effort to disclaim U.S. responsibility for the operation is an indication that it was viewed as a major embarrassment just as top commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are about to testify before Congress. Behind this furious backpedaling is a major Bush administration miscalculation about Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army, which the administration believed was no longer capable of a coordinated military operation. It is now apparent that Sadr and the Mahdi Army were holding back because they were still in the process of retraining and reorganization, not because Sadr had given up the military option or had lost control of the Mahdi Army. The process of the administration distancing itself from the Basra operation began on March 27, when the Washington Post reported that administration officials, speaking anonymously, said that al-Maliki had "decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies." One official claimed, "[W]e can't quite decipher" what is going on, adding that it was a question of "who's got the best conspiracy" theory about why Maliki acted when he did. On March 30, the New York Times reported from Baghdad that "few observers in Iraq seem to believe that al-Maliki intended such a bold stroke," and that "many say the notoriously cautious politician stumbled into a major assault." The Times quoted a "senior Western official in Baghdad" – the term usually used for the ambassador or senior military commander – as saying, "Maliki miscalculated," adding, "From all I hear, al-Maliki's trip was not intended to be the start of major combat operations right there, but a show of force." The official claimed there were "some heated exchanges between him and the generals, who out of hurt pride or out of calculation or both then insisted on him taking responsibility." These suggestions that it was Maliki who miscalculated in Basra are clearly false. No significant Iraqi military action can be planned without a range of military support functions being undertaken by the U.S. command. On March 25, just as the operation was getting under way in Basra, U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said "coalition forces" were providing intelligence, surveillance, and support aircraft for the operation. Furthermore, the embedded role of the U.S. Military Transition Teams (MTTs) makes it impossible that any Iraqi military operation could be planned without their full involvement. A U.S. adviser to the Iraqi security forces involved in the operation told a Washington Post reporter by telephone on March 25 he expected the operation to take a week to 10 days. Operation Knights Assault also involved actual U.S.-Iraqi joint combat operations. U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner denied on March 26 that there were any "conventional" U.S. forces involved in the operation. Only on March 30 did the U.S. command confirm that a joint raid by Iraqi and U.S. special forces units had "killed 22 suspected militants" in Basra. Some observers have expressed doubt that the Bush administration would have chosen to have Maliki launch such a risky campaign against well-entrenched Shi'ite militiamen in Basra until after the Petraeus-Crocker testimony had been completed. But that assumes that Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon recognized the potential danger of a large-scale effort to eliminate or severely weaken the Mahdi Army in Basra. In fact, the Bush administration and the Iraqi military were clearly taken by surprise when the Mahdi Army in Basra attacked security forces on March 25, initiating a major battle for the city. For many months the Bush administration, encouraged by Moqtada al-Sadr's unilateral cease-fire of last August, had been testing Sadr and the Mahdi Army to see if they would respond to piecemeal repression by striking back. The U.S. command and Iraqi security forces had carried out constant "cordon and search" operations which had resulted in the detention of at least 2,000 Mahdi Army militiamen since the August cease-fire, according to a Sadrist legislator. Resistance to such operations by the Mahdi Army
[cia-drugs] Fwd: [ctrl] Conspiracy Planet - 9-11: Who Benefits? - Italian Who Revealed Gladio Says 9-11 Solved
-Original Message- From: Alamaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: CTRL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 1:13 am Subject: [ctrl] Conspiracy Planet - 9-11: Who Benefits? - Italian Who Revealed Gladio Says 9-11 Solved http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=79 > -- Alamaine, IVe Grand Forks, ND, US of A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914) "Being ignorant is not such a shame as being unwilling to learn." - Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758 (Benjamin Franklin) ~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == ctrl is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis-directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, ctrl gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. ctrl gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. There are two list running, [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] has unlimited posting and is more for discussion. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is more for informational exchange and has limited posting abilities. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Omimited posting abilities. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. OmYahoo! Groups Links
