SubscribeGOP To Take On Hillary’s 1992 Eavesdropping
Gee, this sounds strangely familiar.
From The Hill:
GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping
By Alexander Bolton
October 16, 2007
Republicans plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to tarnish Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on the red-hot issue of government surveillance.
Government surveillance will be at the forefront of the political debate this fall as congressional Democrats and President Bush square off over legislation allowing electronic spying on U.S. soil without a warrant.
Republicans are focusing on an allegation in a recent book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters, which suggests Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents.
In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries; she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.
“The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill,” Gerth and Van Natta wrote in reference to Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. “Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.”
A GOP official said, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign hypocrisy continues to know no bounds. It is rather unbelievable that Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us. Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year.”
Gerth told The Hill that he learned of the incident in 2006 when he interviewed a former campaign aide present at the tape playing. He has not revealed the aide’s identity. Clinton’s campaign has not disputed any facts reported in the final version of his book, which became public this spring, he said.
“It hasn’t been challenged,” said Gerth. “There hasn’t been one fact in the book that’s been challenged.” …
Several legal experts said it was illegal to intercept cell phone conversations in 1992.
“It’s been clear that since 1986 it was illegal to intercept an individual cell phone call,” said Barry Steinhardt, the director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Clinton has made privacy an issue on the campaign trail. In July, she discussed her privacy bill of rights in a speech to the American Constitution Society. The proposed rights, ensconced in the Protect Act, include the right to sue when privacy rules have been violated; the right to protect phone records; and the right to freeze credit in the event of identity theft.
During the same speech, she addressed the controversy over government surveillance.
“Every president should save those powers for limited, critical situations,” said Clinton, according to a copy of the speech posted on her campaign website. “And when it comes to a regular program of searching for information that touches the privacy of ordinary Americans, those programs need to be monitored and reviewed as set out by Congress in cooperation with the judiciary.
“That is the essence of the compact we have with each other and with our government, and we cannot ignore it.” …
The Gerth and Van Natta book came out in June 8, 2007, more than four months ago.
Would it be immodest to note that nobody said beans about this somewhat buried revelation until after it was featured right here on our little corner of the world?
Here is what we posted on October 3, 2007:
**********
Hillary Eavesdropped On Phone Calls Of Critics
From “Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Jeff Gerth and Don van Natta, Jr., pp 93-4, which describes one of Mrs. Bill Clinton’s roles in the 1992 campaign:
The Defense Team
Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries;10 she vetted senior campaign aides;11 and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.12
A lot had changed since the moment eighteen years earlier when Hillary had been aghast at the suggestion that the Clinton campaign use underhanded means to garner votes in rural Arkansas.
Yet again, Bill Clinton’s chances were being jeopardized by rumors of his womanizing. And yet again, it was up to Hillary to minimize the threat — and if that meant listening to a tape that had been obtained under questionable circumstances, then she would just deal with it.
10. Numerous 1992 campaign memoranda addressed to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
11. David Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace (New York: Scribner, 2001), 20.
12. Author interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing in 2006.
That’s right. Mrs. Bill Clinton listened in on tapes of the private phone calls of critics. She eavesdropped on private citizens in order to try to head off the next “bimbo eruption.” All of which is surely highly illegal.
And mind you these aren’t allegations from the “vast rightwing conspiracy.” This is from the pens of the New York Times reporters and Pulitzer Prize winners Gerth and Van Nata.
Of course this is the same worthy who is now marshaling her surrogates and minions to silence Rush Limbaugh, and anyone else she perceives as standing in the way of her coronation. It is clear she will not stop at anything to achieve power.
This is “her way.”
**********
Once again S&L leads the way to a better tomorrow.
Meanwhile, just for a lark, let’s remember what Mrs. Clinton had to say upon the resignation of that arch-criminal Alberto Gonzales just last August, at the “Presidential Cancer Forum” (sic):
Hillary on Gonzales Resignation
“Yes, I think we should set a standard that the next Attorney General cares about the rule of law more than he cares about protecting the President.”
She’s beautiful when she’s self-righteous, isn’t she?
Or maybe not “beautiful.” What’s that other word?
Related Articles:
- Hillary Eavesdropped On Phonecalls Of Critics
- WP Tries To Knock Down 'Wiretap Delay' Story
- Wiretap Delay Hurt Search For Missing Soldiers
- NYT Admits Drop In Surveillance Spurred Law
- FISA Judge Crippled NSA Power Months Ago
- NYT Defends Hillary - From Own Reporters
- WP: Nobody Cares About New Clinton Books
- Hillary Promises To Protect Your Personal Privacy
- NYT Claims Cheney Sought To Tap US Calls
- Media Is Simply Lying About NSA's "Data Mining"
- Specter Wants To Stop Monitoring Of Al Qaeda
- FISA Court Prevented Al Qaeda Taps Before 9/11
13 Responses to “GOP To Take On Hillary’s 1992 Eavesdropping”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:01 am
What is that word? I think we’re going to have to come up with some new ones that combine her majestic smugness and that gleefully malicious slandering and her unblushing hypocrisy. She gives me the shudders.
And by the way, THIS is exactly the kind of work that should be getting attention in a best political blog contest. This, that puts her words then and now back to back and shows her for what she is: a bold-faced liar. And also S&L’s continued posting of the FULL TRANSCRIPTS of things, so we don’t have to eat the media versions. And next year, let’s be more on top of it and rig the voting.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Helena…… they are extending the voting until Wednesday. Sweetness and Light for the Best Conservative Blog. http://2007.weblogawards.org/n…..e-blog.php You can vote until Oct. 17th
Just click on Nominations, then Cons. Blog, then click on the green + button on the lower right hand side of the box to vote. S&L is eighth nomination down. Also, at the very bottom of the page there is a 2nd place to vote. (under the nomination of sheehanjihad.)
At least we can pay our to tribute to SG & S&L by making a mark in the votes?
You aren’t going to go make me join the Ronpaul people for posting this comment twice are you? LOL
October 16th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Fred Thompson and Hillary were introduced to Washington politics during the Watergate investigation, but that’s were the similarities end. Some pundits have suggested that Thompson doesn’t want it bad enough; that his life wouldn’t end if he didn’t win the White House.
Hillary, on the other hand, will do anything, not almost anything, but anything to become president, e.g., abandon feminist credentials and legal career, marry a philandering rube and move to Arkansas, bear his child and continue to live a lie in a sham marriage while being constantly humiliated by his indiscretions all in hopes of one day finally emerging from his shadow to attain her own goals.
This isn’t a presidential campaign; it’s a case study of a sociopath.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:44 am
“This isn’t a presidential campaign; it’s a case study of a sociopath.”
A great line, because it is so self-evidently true.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Just time to quickly note four things:
(1) AGAIN great work SG. You’ve got my vote for best Conservative Blog.
(2) Well its about time the Repubs grew a set and go after the lying liberal leftists!
(3) How about a new word for the political lexicon – Hilpocrisy (n) Lying to the point that to be accepted requires “willful disbelief” accompanied by the knowledge that you will never be challenged by your allies the liberal loving drive by media. If you think its worthy SG go ahead and claim it . . . I couldn’t think of a better place for this word to have its origins then right here on S & L.
(4) Now is the time to throw some more of Hitlery’s hypocrisy back in her face . . . I’m talking about her idea that the internet needs to be regulated (stop ANY truth that will expose our Stalinist regime):
http://wired-vig.wired.com/new.....30,00.html
October 16th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
SG & clifcrds …… the articles were very interesting! I love it when the Dems. tell on theirselves. It’s like the Eddie Haskell character on “Leave it to Beaver”. All one has to do is listen to what the Soros minions say between the lines or what they are accusing others of and you can figure out the schemes they are pursuing.
This explains why the Liberals play to the MSM. It’s not for Americans to hear but, rather the World! I love this quote (from clifcrds referral) :
“There used to be this old saying that the lie can be halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on,” Mrs. Clinton added. “Well, today, the lie can be twice around the world before the truth gets out of bed to find its boots.”
Keep on lying Shillery, the World hears you and they on your side! Socialism for everybody! (NOT!)
October 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Careful, there Steve. Using Beautiful with Mrs. Clinton is crossing directly opposite streams - you could end all existence as we know it (and you have no idea how true that statement actually is).
Now let’s see, we got Mrs. Clinton, illegal wiretaps & her talking about the next attorney general. Hmmm.
Doesn’t that remind you of someone?
I wonder if one of Bill’s pet names for his wife is “My Little Milhouse”.
Things that make you go BRRRRRUUGHHHH!
October 16th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
As far as the legality of it goes:
I’ve actually been studying up on wiretaps lately (law school student working on an assignment, sorry) and, although this is certainly NOT an expert opinion and should NOT be taken as legal advice, I don’t think what she did was actually illegal.
The controlling statutes, I believe, are 18 U.S.C. 2510-2520 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_119.html). If I’m not mistaken, case law has basically found that unencrypted communications over open air are free game - otherwise, you could be held liable for overhearing phone conversations on your neighbor’s cordless phone.
While probably legal, the morality of listening in on rivals is certainly questionable, and we can rest assured that if those on the other side had done it we would still be hearing about it 15 years later. It further demonstrates the Machiavellian nature of the Clintons - victory is everything, and nothing should get in the way.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I think you are mistaken, CP.
Some of what I excerpted from the article:
And that is really just for starters.
There really is no debate about this. Heck, they even want to extent this privacy to international terrorists.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Is there a difference as far as the law is concerned as to just listening to a cell phone call or recording it?
October 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Wasn’t there a case where someone inadvertently intercepted a cell phone call concerning Rush Limbaugh and after realizing what they had, sold or gave this information to a 3rd party who was later spanked by the courts? I seem to remember something like that. Just asking.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Appeals court rules against McDermott in phone call case
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ing02.html
October 16th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Thanks SG, that’s the one. Our great WA state congressweasel Baghdad Jim.