Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #107 The Starr Chamber

Listen: One Segment

This program details some of the questionable (and probably illegal) activities of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr. In addition to touching on Starr’s relatively well-publicized connections to right-wing financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the program presents information concerning a shady real estate deal that Starr may have arranged in conjunction with Saudi weapons dealer and Iran-Contra participant Adnan Khashoggi. The broadcast also discusses Starr’s apparent conflict of interest in an aspect of the S & L scandal., intimidation of potential witnesses (including a veiled death threat allegedly made to one figure in the investigation), Starr’s legal work on behalf of the Tobacco Lobby (another conflict of interest) and the white-supremacist heritage of figures involved in the smearing of Clinton.

Discussion

6 comments for “FTR #107 The Starr Chamber”

  1. Scaife died:

    Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife Dies At 82

    OE MANDAK – July 4, 2014, 2:15 PM EDT

    PITTSBURGH (AP) — Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire heir to the Mellon banking and oil fortune and a newspaper publisher who funded libertarian and conservative causes and various projects to discredit President Bill Clinton, has died. He was 82.

    Scaife died early Friday at his home, his newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reported. Scaife’s death comes less than two months after he announced in a first-person, front-page story in his Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that he had an untreatable form of cancer.

    “Some who dislike me may rejoice at the news,” wrote Scaife, who acknowledged making political and other enemies. “Naturally, I can’t share their enthusiasm.”

    He was the grand-nephew of Andrew Mellon, a banker and secretary of the Treasury who was involved with some of the biggest industrial companies of the early 20th century. Forbes magazine estimated Scaife’s net worth in 2013 at $1.4 billion.

    The intensely private Scaife became widely known in the 1990s when first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said her husband was being attacked by a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” White House staffers and other supporters suggested Scaife was playing a central role in the attack.

    Several foundations controlled by Scaife gave millions of dollars to organizations run by critics of Clinton, including $1.7 million for a project at the conservative American Spectator magazine to dig up information about his role in the Whitewater real estate scandal.

    Scaife rarely gave interviews, but in a sit-down with George magazine editor John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1998, he called President Clinton “an embarrassment.”

    In the interview, Scaife denied that his money helped support an effort to hurt the president, but he suggested Clinton might be linked to the deaths of dozens of administration officials and associates, including White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster and onetime Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Foster’s death was determined to be a suicide; Brown died in a plane crash.

    Scaife also accused Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation led to Clinton’s impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, to be a “mole working for the Democrats.”

    Scaife’s stance toward the Clintons softened years later. In an interview published in early 2008, he told Vanity Fair magazine he and the former president had a “very pleasant” lunch the previous summer, and “I never met such a charismatic man in my whole life.”

    Clinton gave Scaife an autographed copy of his book, and Scaife said he later sent $100,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative. (Scaife also said philandering “is something that Bill Clinton and I have in common.”)

    Scaife’s newspaper also endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for president in 2008.

    Despite funding many causes dear to conservatives, Scaife was libertarian on many social issues. He supported Planned Parenthood and abortion rights, supported legalizing same-sex marriage and marijuana, and opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    Scaife bought the Tribune-Review in suburban Pittsburgh in 1969, using its editorial pages to trumpet his views.

    “I fell in love with newspapers as a boy, when my father bought me editions from around the country and abroad,” Scaife told readers in the column announcing his cancer diagnosis. “The day I became a newspaper publisher, buying the Tribune-Review, remains one of the proudest, happiest moments of my life.”

    Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said in a statement Friday that Scaife’s passing “marks the departure of a man whose vision and generosity shaped the city’s progress and our nation’s course.” He said his contributions helped to preserve Pittsburgh’s landmarks.

    Corbett also cited Scaife’s investment in think tanks that he said “reshaped our nation’s political dialogue and delivered the opening salvos in the Reagan revolution, replacing tired nostrums with vigorous new ideas for progress.”

    Scaife was a longtime supporter of Republicans, backing presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964 and heavily funding the 1968 campaign of Richard Nixon.

    In 1972, Scaife donated $1 million to Nixon in 334 separate checks to avoid paying gift taxes. After The Associated Press wrote a story about the money, Scaife insisted the Tribune-Review get rid of its AP service.

    “He ordered us to come in and take out the wire machines that night,” Pat Minarcin, then AP’s Pittsburgh bureau chief, told The Wall Street Journal for a 1995 story.

    Yes, Richard Mellon Scaife is dead, but his spirit lives on…

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | July 4, 2014, 6:33 pm
  2. Check it out: Fox News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post have all signed a contract for exclusive agreements with the author of an upcoming book about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It wasn’t surprising that Fox signed up for the deal since the author, Peter Schweizer, runs a right-wing knock off of the Government Accountability Office (called the “Government Accountabiltiy Institute”) and previously served as an adviser to Sarah Palin. For the New York Times and Washington Post, the decision raised a few eyebrows

    Politico
    New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News strike deals for anti-Clinton research

    By DYLAN BYERS | 4/20/15 12:22 PM EDT

    The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have made exclusive agreements with a conservative author for early access to his opposition research on Hillary Clinton, a move that has confounded members of the Clinton campaign and some reporters, the On Media blog has confirmed.

    “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” will debut on May 5. But the Times, the Post and Fox have already made arrangements with author Peter Schweizer to pursue some of the material included in his book, which seeks to draw connections between Clinton Foundation donations and speaking fees and Hillary Clinton’s actions as secretary of state. Schweizer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative research group, and previously served as an adviser to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

    Fox News’ use of Schweizer’s book has surprised no one. The bulk of the network’s programming is conservative, and the book’s publisher, HarperCollins, is owned by News Corporation. But the Times and Post’s decision to partner with a partisan researcher has raised a few eyebrows. Some Times reporters view the agreement as unusual, sources there said. Still others defended the agreement, noting that it was no different from using a campaign’s opposition research to inform one’s reporting — so long as that research is fact-checked and vetted. A spokesperson for the Times did not provide comment by press time.

    In an article about the book on Monday, the Times said “Clinton Cash” was “potentially more unsettling” than other conservative books about Clinton “both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.”

    Both the Times and the Post initially did not respond to requests for comment on Monday. However, at 2 p.m., hours after the initial publication of this item, spokespeople from both newspapers sent statements in which editors defended the decisions to work with Schweizer.

    “We had access to some material in the book, but we wanted to do our own reporting,” Times Washington bureau chief and political director Carolyn Ryan said.

    “We made an arrangement with Peter Schweizer’s publisher so we could read his book before publication because we are always willing to look at new information that could inform our coverage,” said Post National Editor Cameron Barr. “Mr. Schweizer’s background and his point of view are relevant factors, but not disqualifying ones. What interests us more are his facts and whether they can be the basis for further reporting by our own staff that would be compelling to our readers. There is no financial aspect to this arrangement.”

    On Monday, a source with knowledge of the arrangements told the On Media blog that CBS’ “60 Minutes” and ABC News turned down offers for similar exclusive access to portions of the book’s contents. A “60 Minutes” spokesperson said only, “We do not discuss the stories we are working on.” An ABC News spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

    HarperCollins is marketing “Clinton Cash” as a “meticulously researched” book that “raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.” In it, Schweizer seeks to show how donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees paid to former president Bill Clinton may have influenced Hillary Clinton’s decisions at the State Department.

    Clinton’s defenders are already slamming the book. Media Matters For America, the liberal watchdog group founded by Clinton ally David Brock, published a report on Monday detailing “ten incidents of significant errors, retractions, or questionable sourcing by Schweizer.”

    “Schweizer is a partisan right-wing activist whose writings have been marked with falsehoods and retractions, with numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that ‘do not check out,’ sources that ‘do not exist,’ and a basic failure to practice ‘Journalism 101,'” Brock said in a statement. “Buyers should beware and consider the source.”

    “Still others defended the agreement, noting that it was no different from using a campaign’s opposition research to inform one’s reporting — so long as that research is fact-checked and vetted. A spokesperson for the Times did not provide comment by press time.” LOL.

    So with the New York Times and Washington Post also jumping on board with this book, the question is raised of whether or not we’re about to see a full blown zombie ideas apocalypse of Clinton-era conspiracy theories already or if this is just a teaser for the 2016 zombie invasion?

    After all, one of the biggest threats to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is probably some sort of dormant 1990’s PTSD manifesting itself as a vague ‘Clinton Fatigue’. But ‘Clinton Fatigue’ is just not very likely to be a major factor unless the GOP scandal machine can create a new scandal that has some legs (which is what this new book seems to be attempting). But if they can’t dig up a new scandal with teeth, the obvious back up plan is to just throwing everything at the fan and hope the splatter ends up making Hillary unelectable and that’s obviously going to include a big rehashing of the scandals, real and otherwise, from the 90’s. Will The New York Times and Washington Post be on board for a full fledged 90’s rehash? Based on signing up for exclusive deals with a former Palin adviser it seems like the answer is a ‘maybe’.

    But just throwing old s@#t at the Hillary-fan doesn’t come without enormous risks that don’t exist for most other politicians. Why? Because the other side of a story from the 90’s, the Clintons’ side, is that a vast right-wing conspiracy spent eight years doing everything they could to destroy the Clintons and it didn’t work. And it’s not some casual risk for the GOP that the ‘right-wing conspiracy’ historical interpretation wins the day because we’ve just spent the eight years watching the GOP go even crazier than they were were in the 90’s while operating in ‘Taliban’ mode.

    That’s all why, in a strange way, Hillary Clinton is a kind of nightmare candidate for the contemporary GOP specifically because getting attacked by a vast right-wing conspiracy is sort of her ‘brand’ at this point and the GOP has spent the last 6 1/2 years blatantly behaving like a vast right-wing conspiracy against Barack Obama. Granted, it was pretty blatant in the 90’s too, but this is now fresh in people’s minds. And don’t forget: the GOP’s crazy far right “firebrand”s from from the 90’s are now the moderates of a party that publicly acts like a vast right-wing conspiracy. The party has just gotten so much crazier over the past two decades and anyone like Hillary that prompts a ‘then and now’ comparison of the 90’s GOP with today’s GOP just invites a very unfavorable comparison because the GOP of the 90’s was totally insane by objective standards and yet so much more sane then than it is today.

    So, the way the political chess board is set at this point, just as the Clinton-era 90’s scandals are bound to be targets of media focus, the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ itself, which was always in part a media-based phenomena, is also guaranteed to be part of the discussion. It’s really just a question of whether or not Fox News and the traditional right-wing mediasphere compromise the bulk of the vast right-wing conspiracy this time around or whether or not the mainstream media institutions like The New York Times and Washington Post decide to jump on board too. This recent decision by the New York Times and Washington Post may not bode well but there’s a lot of time between now and the 2016 elections with many, many more zombie ideas that they’ll get to choose to promote or ignore. A Clinton-conspiracy zombie apocalypse takes a while to play out. Whether it involves or few missteps or one long shamble remains to be seen.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 20, 2015, 1:42 pm
  3. Guess where Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash”, gave one of the featured speeches last summer. Hint: the folks putting on the event are just a pair of citizens that plan to spend almost a billion dollars from their personal cash piles on uniting the country in 2016. It’s a pretty big hint:

    Hullabaloo
    Look who was featured speaker at the Koch Summit

    by digby
    5/01/2015 03:30:00 PM

    Peter Schweizer author of “Clinton Cash”, who they humorously call a “researcher.” And there’s audio of it:

    [A]ccording to audio obtained by The Undercurrent and Lady Libertine from a source who was present, Schweizer spoke at a political strategy summit for the Koch brothers last summer, urging donors to relentlessly pursue the left and rallying them ahead of a big fundraising pitch. His own organization, the Government Accountability Institute receives funding from Koch-funded groups.

    Schweizer told the crowd:

    That debate is going to come down to the question of independence versus dependence… The left and the academic sphere is not going to let up. The question is, are we going to let up? And I would contend to you that we cannot let up.

    Asked if “Clinton Cash” was motivated by this strategy of relentless pursuit, Kurt Bardella, whose firm, Endeavor Strategies, represents Schweizer, said:

    As he has in several speeches as a lifelong conservative, Schweizer was espousing his view that conservatives should be informed, engaged, and active.

    Kevin Gentry, the emcee and a vice president of the Charles Koch Foundation, later named “competitive intelligence,” the business terminology equivalent of opposition research, as one of the enumerated Koch political investment areas.

    You can find a transcript at the link

    He’s a Koch hitman:

    Schweizer’s speech, entitled “The Stakes: Who Will Define the American Dream,” teed up the Kochs’ appeal to raise $290 million in donations for their fundraising hub, Freedom Partners, its affiliated network of non-profits, and a newly created super-PAC called Freedom Partners Action Fund. Bardella declined to answer whether Schweizer was speaking in a fundraising capacity for GAI, or whether Schweizer or GAI received any funds from Koch-affiliated organizations.

    Stephen Bannon, the director of conservative propaganda films like the Sarah Palin biopic “The Undefeated” and a frequent collaborator with Citizens United Productions, chairs GAI’s board. Another GAI board member is Ron Robinson, who also sits on the boards of Citizens United and Citizens United Foundation.

    Citizens United Productions was the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – the decision that rolled back significant campaign finance law pertaining to independent expenditures. At the center of that landmark case was a political documentary-cum-attack ad on Hillary Clinton called “Hillary: The Movie,” released ahead of the 2008 primary. Now nearly eight years later ahead of the 2016 primary, Schweitzer has published what could be considered the follow-up, Hillary: The Book.

    And Citizens United goes all the way back to Whitewater..

    As the saying goes, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

    Brace yourselves. An abundance of horrible historical rhyming is on the way

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 1, 2015, 5:54 pm
  4. Is it already time to start speculating about who Billary will bump off next? Yes. It is time:

    Media Matters
    Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer And Dana Loesch Wonder If He’ll Be Murdered By The Clintons
    Schweizer On If He’ll “Be Vince Fostered”: “We’ve Touched On A Major Nerve Within The Clinton Camp. They Are Very, Very Upset”
    Blog ››› May 4, 2015 3:29 PM EDT ››› ERIC HANANOKI

    Peter Schweizer and conservative radio host Dana Loesch speculated that Schweizer could be murdered by “the Clinton machine” over his new book Clinton Cash.

    During a May 4 appearance on The Dana Show, Loesch told Schweizer “there is always that concern for anyone who goes up against the Clinton machine that they could be Vince Fostered” and asked if he considered that possibility when “getting himself security.” Schweizer replied: “Yeah, I mean look — there are security concerns that arise in these kinds of situations.”

    Schweizer added that the security decision was made by his group, the Government Accountability Institute, and the “reality is we’ve touched on a major nerve within the Clinton camp. They are very, very upset, and they are pulling out all the stops to attack me in an effort to kill this book off.”

    Anti-Clinton pundits have for years pushed the deranged conspiracy theory that the Clintons had then-deputy White House counsel Vince Foster killed in 1993 and covered it up. Multiple investigations concluded that Foster actually died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in Northern Virginia’s Fort Marcy Park.

    There are over 20 errors, fabrications, and distortions in Clinton Cash, which is being released on May 5. Schweizer is a Republican activist and consultant who has worked for Republican politicians like George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal.

    From the May 4 edition of KFTK’s The Dana Show:

    LOESCH: We’re going to have more on the terror attack in Garland, Texas, last night. I’m glad that they had security, well-thought-out security for that event. And I was reading an article just the other day where author Peter Schweizer, whose new book Clinton Cash — and this book is just, is really making a lot of people uncomfortable — Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. I was reading the other day that Peter Schweizer who, the author who joins us by phone right now, was very smart and ended up getting himself security. And I know that Peter, first off, thanks so much for joining me. I know you don’t want to talk too much about it, but there is that, there is always that concern for anyone who goes up against the Clinton machine that they could be Vince Fostered, and I’m sure that that was something that you took into consideration.

    SCHWEIZER: Well, Dana, first of all thanks for having me on the show. I always love doing it. Yeah, I mean look — there are security concerns that arise in these kinds of situations. You know, you don’t like to go into too much detail, there were some things that were going on that we felt needed to be addressed. The decision on security wasn’t actually made by me, it was made by board members of Government Accountability Institute, and you know, it’s I think showing an abundance of caution. The reality is we’ve touched on a major nerve within the Clinton camp. They are very, very upset, and they are pulling out all the stops to attack me in an effort to kill this book off.

    LOL! Yeah, the vast right-wing conspiracy has spent the last two and an half decades super concerned about getting ‘Vince Fostered’. Under that premise, one wonders what kind of acrobatics the right-wing ‘journalists’ must be going through to avoid an inevitable Obama ‘hit’. Presumably they just lived every day like it’s their last which might help explain why the US right-wing has gone even more insane and more nihilistic than they were during the post-Clinton era: they all assumed someone’s hitmen were just around the corner because and it drove them all mad! That’s Clinton Derangement Syndrome for you. You try so hard to get the public to believe it all that you and up believing it too and now you’re all paranoid. There are some types of self-deluding fire you really don’t want to play with.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 5, 2015, 3:09 pm
  5. Given the alarming levels of Hillary Derangement Syndrome already afflicting much of the US media establishment, you have to wonder if Steve Burke, the Comcast executive who oversees the NBCUniversal TV and entertainment unit (and who also happens to have been a major George W. Bush fundraiser), is in any way trying to ensure stuff like this happens, or if he even has to bother at this point:

    Media Matters
    MSNBC’s Morning Joe Edits Out David Ignatius’ Debunking Of Clinton Email “Scandal”
    Ignatius: “I Couldn’t Find A Case Where This Kind Of Activity Had Been Prosecuted… Legally There Is No Difference Between [Clinton] Using Her Private Server And If She’d Used State.gov”

    Blog ››› September 4, 2015 12:17 PM EDT ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON & TIMOTHY JOHNSON

    During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius thoroughly debunked arguments that Hillary Clinton should be charged with a crime as a result of her use of a private email system while serving as secretary of state. When MSNBC re-aired the first hour of its program later in the morning, the bulk of Ignatius’ debunking had been edited out.

    On the September 4 edition of Morning Joe, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski continued their efforts to stoke controversy around Hillary Clinton’s email practices while serving as secretary of state. Both Scarborough and Brzezinski suggested that guest David Ignatius was simply “getting tired” of the wall-to-wall media coverage directed at Clinton after the columnist authored an August 28 op-ed in The Washington Post arguing that “this ‘scandal’ is overstated.” Ignatius responded by explaining that experts he spoke with dismissed as far-fetched claims Clinton committed a criminal offense.

    But during the rebroadcast of the segment, Morning Joe cut away from Ignatius’ explanation mid-sentence. During the initial broadcast, Ignatius said (emphasis added), “As I talked to a half dozen of lawyers who do nothing but this kind of work, they said they couldn’t remember a case like this, where people informally and inadvertently draw classified information into their phone conversations or their unclassified server conversations, where there had been a prosecution.”

    When the segment re-aired, Ignatius is heard saying, “As I talked to a half dozen of lawyers who do nothing but this kind of work, they said they couldn’t remember a case like this,” before the show skipped forward to a remark by co-host Mika Brzezinski about Clinton aide Cheryl Mills.

    Significantly, the rebroadcast failed to include the conclusion of Ignatius’ thought, which is that Clinton’s email practices do not amount to a prosecutable offense, according to several expert attorneys he talked to. Here are Ignatius’ unedited remarks (emphasis added):
    [see video of full]

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: David, so you have over the past week or two turned a bit in some of your editorial, in some of your op-eds, you’ve said you would rather hear Hillary’s policy positions than more talk about the servers, you said you don’t think she faces any criminal prosecution. You haven’t exactly said nothing is here, move along, move along, but you’ve certainly —

    MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Getting tired of it, which is what they’re hoping.

    SCARBOROUGH: — Yeah, I mean aren’t you playing into what the Clinton sort of scandal response team wants, which is so much stuff comes at you that at some point you just say, “Come on, let’s just move on.”

    DAVID IGNATIUS: Joe, I’ve tried to respond as a journalist but in particular I’ve tried to look at what is a real prosecutable offense here. There are violations clearly both of administrative procedure and probably technically of law and how classified information was handled. As I talked to a half dozen of lawyers who do nothing but this kind of work, they said they couldn’t remember a case like this, where people informally and inadvertently draw classified information into their phone conversations or their unclassified server conversations, where there had been a prosecution.

    [CROSS TALK]

    SCARBOROUGH: But this isn’t happenstance. This is a very calculated move to say if you want to communicate with the Secretary of State, as Edwards Snowden said, whether you are a foreign diplomat or a spy chief from another country or a leader of another country, which they all did, you’ve got to come to this unsecured server, whether it is in Colorado or wherever it is, and there is a standard in the U.S. Code under prosecutions for this sort of thing which is gross negligence. It’s not a know or should have known –

    […]

    IGNATIUS: This issue comes up surprisingly often because there is an administrative problem where people do these things and their security officers summon them and warn them and issue reprimands and it goes in their file and it’s a serious personnel administrative problem. My only point is I couldn’t find a case where this kind of activity had been prosecuted and that’s just worth noting as we assemble our Clinton e-mail – and more thing, Joe, legally there is no difference between her using her private server and if she’d used State.gov, which is also not a classified system. The idea that, oh this would have been fine if she used State.gov, not legally, no difference.

    Here is how Morning Joe re-aired the segment:

    [see replayed video of above segment where where everything after “As I talked to a half dozen of lawyers who do nothing but this kind of work, they said they couldn’t remember a case like this” is edited out]

    Scarborough, a former Republican member of the House of Representatives, has a long history of hyping the supposed Clinton email "scandal" despite all evidence to the contrary. He recently claimed that Clinton intentionally timed a press conference to coincide with a mass-shooting in Virginia and falsely claimed that Clinton whitewashed a foreign country’s ties to international terrorism in exchange for a charitable donation to her family foundation.

    As we can see, the truth the truthiness can be deafening:

    As I talked to a half dozen of lawyers who do nothing but this kind of work, they said they couldn’t remember a case like this, where people informally and inadvertently draw classified information into their phone conversations or their unclassified server conversations, where there had been a prosecution.

    “This issue comes up surprisingly often because there is an administrative problem where people do these things and their security officers summon them and warn them and issue reprimands and it goes in their file and it’s a serious personnel administrative problem. My only point is I couldn’t find a case where this kind of activity had been prosecuted and that’s just worth noting as we assemble our Clinton e-mail – and more thing, Joe, legally there is no difference between her using her private server and if she’d used State.gov, which is also not a classified system. The idea that, oh this would have been fine if she used State.gov, not legally, no difference

    That’s one more for the truthiness pile.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 8, 2015, 3:13 pm
  6. What do you get when you combined the GOP’s presumed “Taliban-like insurgency from day one” plan to undermine a future Hillary Clinton administration, should she become the next president, with a hefty dose of Clinton Derangement Syndrome? Well, if Representative Mo Brooks is any indication of what to expect, it’s probably something like this:

    Talking Points Memo Livewire
    GOP Congressman Wants To Impeach Clinton On Day 1 Of Her Presidency

    By Catherine Thompson
    Published October 19, 2015, 1:36 PM EDT

    If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) wants to impeach her on day one.

    Brooks made the comment in a recent interview with conservative talk radio host Matt Murphy on WAPI, which was flagged Monday by The Huffington Post.

    Brooks told Murphy that he thought Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account as secretary of state violated “all rules of law that are designed to protect America’s top-secret and classified information from falling into the hands of our geopolitical foes who then might use that information to result in the deaths of Americans.”

    “In my judgement, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November,” he added. “Because the day she’s sworn in is the day that she’s subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    While the FBI was reportedly conducting an inquiry into the security of the private email server that housed Clinton’s email account, the agency was not said to be targeting Clinton specifically. A referral to the Justice Department related to the potential compromise of classified information on the private email account similarly was said not to suggest wrongdoing on Clinton’s part.

    Keep in mind that this may not be solely due to a case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome impacting Representative Brooks’s judgement on such matters. It’s more of a general derangement syndrome.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 19, 2015, 8:23 pm

Post a comment