The True Hillary Clinton?

ImWithStupid · Feb 6, 2008

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.
Click to expand...

ImWithStupid · Feb 6, 2008

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)
Click to expand...

ImWithStupid · Feb 6, 2008

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.
Click to expand...

timesjoke · Feb 6, 2008

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 · Feb 9, 2008

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 · Feb 10, 2008

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 · Feb 10, 2008

ImWithStupid said:

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.
Click to expand...

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 · Feb 10, 2008

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?

Bender · Feb 10, 2008

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 · Feb 10, 2008

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 · Feb 10, 2008

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.
Click to expand...

Why Clinton Should Not Get Credit For Reducing the Deficit

Clinton didn't do ****.

snafu · Feb 10, 2008

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.

Bender · Feb 10, 2008

snafu said:

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.
Click to expand...

.
.

ImWithStupid · Feb 10, 2008

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 · Feb 11, 2008

ImWithStupid said:

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.
Click to expand...

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 · Feb 11, 2008

timesjoke said:

...

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

She puts in a black women too.

ImWithStupid · Feb 11, 2008

timesjoke said:

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

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 · Feb 11, 2008

ImWithStupid said:

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.
Click to expand...

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 · Feb 11, 2008

timesjoke said:

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.
Click to expand...

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

BrotherMan · Feb 12, 2008

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

Log in or Sign up

Forums

The True Hillary Clinton?

ImWithStupid New Member

ImWithStupid New Member

ImWithStupid New Member

timesjoke Progressive Killer

ImWithStupid New Member

ImWithStupid New Member

eddo I don't like you.

Old Salt Big Time BS

Bender New Member

snafu Big Time BS'er

snafu Big Time BS'er

snafu Big Time BS'er

Bender New Member

ImWithStupid New Member

timesjoke Progressive Killer

snafu Big Time BS'er

ImWithStupid New Member

timesjoke Progressive Killer

snafu Big Time BS'er

BrotherMan The Man

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Useful Searches

The True Hillary Clinton?

Thread Tools

ImWithStupid New Member

ImWithStupid New Member

ImWithStupid New Member

timesjoke Progressive Killer

ImWithStupid New Member

ImWithStupid New Member

eddo I don't like you.

Old Salt Big Time BS

Bender New Member

snafu Big Time BS'er

snafu Big Time BS'er

snafu Big Time BS'er

Bender New Member

ImWithStupid New Member

timesjoke Progressive Killer

snafu Big Time BS'er

ImWithStupid New Member

timesjoke Progressive Killer

snafu Big Time BS'er

BrotherMan The Man

Share This Page