DaveinBoca, thanks for the list – I was going to do a little research and do the same thing.  How can ANY politician survive all of this?  Who knows, but she and Bill somehow do, so  I never count her out, but being a good president?  Please, she has no values.  She has never led, never managed, can’t even manage a campaign. 

My favorite Kerry memory – it was seared, seared into his memory how Nixon ordered him into Cambodia on Christmas Eve of ‘68.  Nixon was not president Christmas Eve of ‘68, and he was not near Cambodia.  I’m sorry, lies like that just show zero character.

I think it has to be added that there’s nothing wrong with suggesting no council as a tactic

You have got to be kidding.  You think it would be okay if Clinton tried this ?

You are right, this is Swift Boating. Someone who was there with no obvious partisan ties is refuting the the lies that a presidential candidate is spinning.

It is indeed swift-boating as long as there is no solid evidence. Being a democrat is not evidence of no political motivation, because currently she’s running against another democrat. Look, I’m an Obama supporter, but I have standards. I’m certainly willing to believe that Clinton, with her past history, would be capable of a thing like this, and certainly think the matter merits looking into, and if true, it should be publicized widely however publicizing it before the evidence is even partially in strikes me as smearing.

You are right, this is Swift Boating. Someone who was there with no obvious partisan ties is refuting the the lies that a presidential candidate is spinning.

FWIW. The man relating this story is a life long Democrat and her supervisor at the time. The real question is why didn’t this come out sooner? Why didn’t he refer Hillary to the bar for her actions? If you are looking for the real partisan motivation look there.

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

there’s nothing wrong with suggesting no council as a tactic (personally, I find it hilarious that right wing blogs, who believe that suspects of terrorism should not receive council, have no protection against torture, and so on, cry foul about her suggestion) in a legal case. That’s what she did.

You really don’t see a difference between denying certain legal protections to terrorists vs. denying counsel to the POTUS in a political crime? Putting aside whether or not one agrees with the former, I don’t see how one could even compare the two.

The carrying off of documents is the real problem… if true.

You are aware that she has a history of this, with the Rose Law firm billing records? Or do you think it’s actually plausible that those records were just misplaced, coincidentally, for the exact time period that it took for the statute of limitations to run out?I do agree with you and Claudia, though, that we need more information on her role in the Nixon impeachment before drawing conclusions; obviously the guy who is now coming forward could have political motivations to do so at this time, and he could be overstating things or giving misleading information.

The carrying off of documents is the real problem… if true.

Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary’s recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment-inquiry staffers.

I would like it to be true and made public, but until there is actual evidence to that effect, the above is pure hearsay, no more credible than the swift boat folks. However, if Clinton actually did make such a proposal and it was voted on, that must be easily verifiable. Don’t virtually all meetings keep minutes? Wouldn’t that show up? There were a lot of people in those commitees, they could be contacted. Again, if true this is daming, but I wonder about it since like you said, it’s been around for a while and no one seems to have jumped on it, despite there being other times in Clinton’s career where there were people very interested in tearing her down.

And she?s never been exonerated about having her so-called health care task force operate in secret in direct violation of the law. In fact, that was confirmed.

Of course, she?s never been exonerated about any of the Castle Grande lies and overbillings – or how the missing Rose Law billing records just happened to show up near her office, conveniently, right after the statute of limitations expired.
Although Bill claimed she was, she?s never been exonerated for her role in the Whitewater development?but hey, that was only a simple resort scam designed to fleece seniors.

She?s never been exonerated about her role in the disgraceful Travel Office scandal, where nonpartisan career government employees all lost their jobs to make room for her friends, nor for trying to cover it up with a fraudulent IRS audit and criminal charges against Billy Dale – charges which took a jury only minutes to laugh out of court.

And of course, the Vince Foster suicide, which had her people rummaging through his office while his body was still warm tampering with evidence while the Secret Service cooled its heels outside the door.

How about the FBI files on her political opponents, which were illegally obtained by her chosen aide, Craig Livingstone? How much of that information did she copy? How much does she still have and plan to use? Exonerated? I don?t think so.

As I recall, one of the deputy independent counsels during Whitewater even prepared a draft indictment of her for perjury, which Janet Reno quashed. That?s not exoneration either.

And the Hsu campaign donation "bundling," which hasn’t really been seriously investigated. Her husband was disbarred for perjury, but so far she hasn’t had to undergo Grand Jury proceedings for dozens of serious felonious charges.

I think the Tuzla thing might have been the "tipping point" Dems like to talk about. If that’s the case, the Watergate firing, if true, would grease the skids on her political coffin already well on its way to subsoil status.