What will be in store with a clinton white house win

[SmokeALib]

This thread is irrelevant. There is no way Billary gets into the white house after the "It was because of a video" clown show. 3 incompetent presidents in a row? Don't see it.

 

[The T]

An indepth artice...about the Hildebeast when she was working to Impeach NIXON...

Politics: 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.

Read more at the link provided...
The woman is EVIL.

 

[The T]

This thread is irrelevant. There is no way Billary gets into the white house after the "It was because of a video" clown show. 3 incompetent presidents in a row? Don't see it.

And her statement to congress regarding Benghazi and four dead people...ONE our Ambassador..."What difference does it make..."!?

What difference?

Indeed...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This thread is irrelevant. There is no way Billary gets into the white house after the "It was because of a video" clown show. 3 incompetent presidents in a row? Don't see it.

regardless if you think it's irrelevant we must keep her down at all cost. If she can people to relate to her and her situation nothing will stop her

 

[JoeB131]

[

Fair- what we had before Reagan.

That was completely fair.

facts and history have shown carter to be just a little bit better than obama and Carter was at one time considered to be the bottom five worst presidents. But of course you are drawn to failure because you are failure.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Carter was a weak president because after Nixon, people WANTED a weak president.

Kind of like the gal who dates a nice guy after an abusive boyfriend, before she goes back to another abusive guy.

I was spefically talking about what was a fair tax rate on the rich. 70% on the top bracket, where most people really didn't pay more than 48% if they were using their money constructively, was a fair bracket.

In the 200 years of history up to that point, with numerous wars and huge infrastructure projects, the entire US Debt was only 900 Billion. That was it.

Your boy Reagan cut taxes on the rich, and the debt ballooned up to 3 Trillion in 8 years. It increased to 5 Trillion by the time Bush-41 left and had to bail out the banking system.

 

[Geaux4it]

[

Fair- what we had before Reagan.

That was completely fair.

facts and history have shown carter to be just a little bit better than obama and Carter was at one time considered to be the bottom five worst presidents. But of course you are drawn to failure because you are failure.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Carter was a weak president because after Nixon, people WANTED a weak president.

Kind of like the gal who dates a nice guy after an abusive boyfriend, before she goes back to another abusive guy.

I was spefically talking about what was a fair tax rate on the rich. 70% on the top bracket, where most people really didn't pay more than 48% if they were using their money constructively, was a fair bracket.

In the 200 years of history up to that point, with numerous wars and huge infrastructure projects, the entire US Debt was only 900 Billion. That was it.

Your boy Reagan cut taxes on the rich, and the debt ballooned up to 3 Trillion in 8 years. It increased to 5 Trillion by the time Bush-41 left and had to bail out the banking system.

You state a 'fair' tax on what you call the rich is $7 out of every $10 goes to the government? Maybe I misunderstood.

-Geaux

 

[Freewill]

Sounds Awesome. the rich have too much to start with.

You have too much, give it up now.

 

[JoeB131]

Is English not your first language?

Here, let me translate that into redneck for you.

"Gosh darn, Cleetus, them there rich folks should pay 70% if they are just the idle rich and ain't be doing nothing with that money, anyway. If they be putting people to work, they only pay 45%. Weeee-haaa."

 

[Geaux4it]

Is English not your first language?

Here, let me translate that into redneck for you.

"Gosh darn, Cleetus, them there rich folks should pay 70% if they are just the idle rich and ain't be doing nothing with that money, anyway. If they be putting people to work, they only pay 45%. Weeee-haaa."

Nice.. But driving down from 70% to 48% is characterized by liberals as 'loopholes' ? However, you called it using the money 'constructively'.

Which is it?

BTW- 48% is still to much. The government has no right to ~1/2 of our hard earned money. Not even close.

 

[Freewill]

[

Fair- what we had before Reagan.

That was completely fair.

facts and history have shown carter to be just a little bit better than obama and Carter was at one time considered to be the bottom five worst presidents. But of course you are drawn to failure because you are failure.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Carter was a weak president because after Nixon, people WANTED a weak president.

Kind of like the gal who dates a nice guy after an abusive boyfriend, before she goes back to another abusive guy.

I was spefically talking about what was a fair tax rate on the rich. 70% on the top bracket, where most people really didn't pay more than 48% if they were using their money constructively, was a fair bracket.

In the 200 years of history up to that point, with numerous wars and huge infrastructure projects, the entire US Debt was only 900 Billion. That was it.

Your boy Reagan cut taxes on the rich, and the debt ballooned up to 3 Trillion in 8 years. It increased to 5 Trillion by the time Bush-41 left and had to bail out the banking system.

Were you alive back then? No one wanted a weak president because Nixon was driven out of office by something that today if Obama did people would be laughed at for even bring up the subject.

What the truth is Carter was weak because he was weak. Carter won because he seemed to be kind, caring and a good man. Turned out his presidency was a disaster and America elected the strongest President in my life time.

The freaking Reagan debt that the left keeps harping about ushered in the greatest peace time expansion of the economy in history. At least we got something for the very little debt, by today's standard, then we did with Obama's massive stimulus that did nothing but stimulate the debt. For all his flaws Reagan never, NEVER, let there be a doubt what country he loved, very unlike Carter or what we have today.

the real truth is Clinton screwed the working man like no one before or after. The results of the free trade agreements that only he could get passed was predicted. The prediction has come true. I always vote Clinton as the worse president in my lifetime.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[

Fair- what we had before Reagan.

That was completely fair.

facts and history have shown carter to be just a little bit better than obama and Carter was at one time considered to be the bottom five worst presidents. But of course you are drawn to failure because you are failure.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Carter was a weak president because after Nixon, people WANTED a weak president.

Kind of like the gal who dates a nice guy after an abusive boyfriend, before she goes back to another abusive guy.

I was spefically talking about what was a fair tax rate on the rich. 70% on the top bracket, where most people really didn't pay more than 48% if they were using their money constructively, was a fair bracket.

In the 200 years of history up to that point, with numerous wars and huge infrastructure projects, the entire US Debt was only 900 Billion. That was it.

Your boy Reagan cut taxes on the rich, and the debt ballooned up to 3 Trillion in 8 years. It increased to 5 Trillion by the time Bush-41 left and had to bail out the banking system.

Who gives a shit about what percentage of taxes someone pays when they are paying millions in taxes to be wasted? Poor people don't invest in jobs rich people do. FUCK YOU if you can't comprehend that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

facts and history have shown carter to be just a little bit better than obama and Carter was at one time considered to be the bottom five worst presidents. But of course you are drawn to failure because you are failure.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Carter was a weak president because after Nixon, people WANTED a weak president.

Kind of like the gal who dates a nice guy after an abusive boyfriend, before she goes back to another abusive guy.

I was spefically talking about what was a fair tax rate on the rich. 70% on the top bracket, where most people really didn't pay more than 48% if they were using their money constructively, was a fair bracket.

In the 200 years of history up to that point, with numerous wars and huge infrastructure projects, the entire US Debt was only 900 Billion. That was it.

Your boy Reagan cut taxes on the rich, and the debt ballooned up to 3 Trillion in 8 years. It increased to 5 Trillion by the time Bush-41 left and had to bail out the banking system.

Were you alive back then? No one wanted a weak president because Nixon was driven out of office by something that today if Obama did people would be laughed at for even bring up the subject.

What the truth is Carter was weak because he was weak. Carter won because he seemed to be kind, caring and a good man. Turned out his presidency was a disaster and America elected the strongest President in my life time.

The freaking Reagan debt that the left keeps harping about ushered in the greatest peace time expansion of the economy in history. At least we got something for the very little debt, by today's standard, then we did with Obama's massive stimulus that did nothing but stimulate the debt. For all his flaws Reagan never, NEVER, let there be a doubt what country he loved, very unlike Carter or what we have today.

the real truth is Clinton screwed the working man like no one before or after. The results of the free trade agreements that only he could get passed was predicted. The prediction has come true. I always vote Clinton as the worse president in my lifetime.

He's like always is full of shit. There was Ford if people wanted a weak president.

 

[Freewill]

Is English not your first language?

Here, let me translate that into redneck for you.

"Gosh darn, Cleetus, them there rich folks should pay 70% if they are just the idle rich and ain't be doing nothing with that money, anyway. If they be putting people to work, they only pay 45%. Weeee-haaa."

Response back, "Gosh darn it bubba you gots three possums I only gots me one. You need to give me one o yourin."

 

[Freewill]

That has nothing to do with my point.

Carter was a weak president because after Nixon, people WANTED a weak president.

Kind of like the gal who dates a nice guy after an abusive boyfriend, before she goes back to another abusive guy.

I was spefically talking about what was a fair tax rate on the rich. 70% on the top bracket, where most people really didn't pay more than 48% if they were using their money constructively, was a fair bracket.

In the 200 years of history up to that point, with numerous wars and huge infrastructure projects, the entire US Debt was only 900 Billion. That was it.

Your boy Reagan cut taxes on the rich, and the debt ballooned up to 3 Trillion in 8 years. It increased to 5 Trillion by the time Bush-41 left and had to bail out the banking system.

Were you alive back then? No one wanted a weak president because Nixon was driven out of office by something that today if Obama did people would be laughed at for even bring up the subject.

What the truth is Carter was weak because he was weak. Carter won because he seemed to be kind, caring and a good man. Turned out his presidency was a disaster and America elected the strongest President in my life time.

The freaking Reagan debt that the left keeps harping about ushered in the greatest peace time expansion of the economy in history. At least we got something for the very little debt, by today's standard, then we did with Obama's massive stimulus that did nothing but stimulate the debt. For all his flaws Reagan never, NEVER, let there be a doubt what country he loved, very unlike Carter or what we have today.

the real truth is Clinton screwed the working man like no one before or after. The results of the free trade agreements that only he could get passed was predicted. The prediction has come true. I always vote Clinton as the worse president in my lifetime.

He's like always is full of shit. There was Ford if people wanted a weak president.

Good point, but compared to Carter Ford would have been a better president. Unfortunately he was too tainted by Nixon thus the malaise years with Carter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Were you alive back then? No one wanted a weak president because Nixon was driven out of office by something that today if Obama did people would be laughed at for even bring up the subject.

What the truth is Carter was weak because he was weak. Carter won because he seemed to be kind, caring and a good man. Turned out his presidency was a disaster and America elected the strongest President in my life time.

The freaking Reagan debt that the left keeps harping about ushered in the greatest peace time expansion of the economy in history. At least we got something for the very little debt, by today's standard, then we did with Obama's massive stimulus that did nothing but stimulate the debt. For all his flaws Reagan never, NEVER, let there be a doubt what country he loved, very unlike Carter or what we have today.

the real truth is Clinton screwed the working man like no one before or after. The results of the free trade agreements that only he could get passed was predicted. The prediction has come true. I always vote Clinton as the worse president in my lifetime.

He's like always is full of shit. There was Ford if people wanted a weak president.

Good point, but compared to Carter Ford would have been a better president. Unfortunately he was too tainted by Nixon thus the malaise years with Carter.

Don't get me wrong Ford was a better president in his short 2 and a half years as president than carter was for 4 years lol

 

[Freewill]

facts and history have shown carter to be just a little bit better than obama and Carter was at one time considered to be the bottom five worst presidents. But of course you are drawn to failure because you are failure.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Carter was a weak president because after Nixon, people WANTED a weak president.

Kind of like the gal who dates a nice guy after an abusive boyfriend, before she goes back to another abusive guy.

I was spefically talking about what was a fair tax rate on the rich. 70% on the top bracket, where most people really didn't pay more than 48% if they were using their money constructively, was a fair bracket.

In the 200 years of history up to that point, with numerous wars and huge infrastructure projects, the entire US Debt was only 900 Billion. That was it.

Your boy Reagan cut taxes on the rich, and the debt ballooned up to 3 Trillion in 8 years. It increased to 5 Trillion by the time Bush-41 left and had to bail out the banking system.

Who gives a shit about what percentage of taxes someone pays when they are paying millions in taxes to be wasted? Poor people don't invest in jobs rich people do. FUCK YOU if you can't comprehend that.

The only answer that the liberal left has is not to fix the insitutions they created that are killing the economy but to take more. As can be seen in the following chart there is no problem with revenue, there is a problem with our government and what that government has done to our economy:

 

[Freewill]

He's like always is full of shit. There was Ford if people wanted a weak president.

Good point, but compared to Carter Ford would have been a better president. Unfortunately he was too tainted by Nixon thus the malaise years with Carter.

Don't get me wrong Ford was a better president in his short 2 and a half years as president than carter was for 4 years lol

The one thing good that Carter didn't do that Obama has done is drive us into useless debt that we may never be able to recover. In my opinion most of what happened during Carter's years was beyond his control. The Iran hostage rescue was perhaps his stupidest decision but he was trying hard to save his Presidency. He rolled the dice and lost.

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm still waiting for Joe to come back and answer my question.

He stated that the 'rich' should be taxed at 70% but then said by using their money 'constructively', they could drive it down to 48%. Then in another thread he calls the previous mentioned ' constructive' reduction of tax liability as a 'loophole' that needs stopped. LMAO

Which is it?

-Geaux

 

[Freewill]

I'm still waiting for Joe to come back and answer my question.

He stated that the 'rich' should be taxed at 70% but then said by using their money 'constructively', they could drive it down to 48%. Then in another thread he calls the previous mentioned ' constructive' reduction of tax liability as a 'loophole' that needs stopped. LMAO

Which is it?

-Geaux

Bottom line to people that think like Joe, tax someone else.

 

[Freewill]

If Mrs. Clinton wins it will show to me that America truly has hit rock bottom.

She has no success in her life that is her own.

She is going to be 68.

Her only business experience is Whitewater and making a large sum of money in the stock market.

If she wins it proves without a doubt that people only vote party and the welfare state is here to stay and grow consuming the entire country and destroying it.