Hillary Clinton opposed allowing the government to intercept foreign calls routed through U.S. equipment without a warrant, and touts new privacy proposals - but illegally intercepting phone calls was a tactic of the 1992 campaign in which she was so heavily involved. Alexander Bolton reports for The Hill :
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."
Read the whole story at the link above. Intercepting cell phone calls was already illegal years before the 1992 campaign. So, while Hillary professes concern for the rights of foreign terrorists to plot attacks in privacy, she ignores privacy laws when it comes to getting dirt on political opponents.
Comforting, isn't it?
Comments (15)
Not so comforting if you're... (Below threshold)1. Posted by marc | October 16, 2007 3:28 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Not so comforting if you're one of Slick Willie's conquests, or, come to think of it every one else if she slithers her way into the WH.
1. Posted by marc | October 16, 2007 3:28 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 03:28
2. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 6:47 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Google 'Peter Paul' and Hillary for another brewing scandal.
============================
2. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 6:47 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 06:47
3. Posted by Proof | October 16, 2007 7:33 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Wiretapping for National Security = Bad.
Wiretapping for Hillary's Financial Security = Good.
At least she's consistent!
3. Posted by Proof | October 16, 2007 7:33 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 07:33
4. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | October 16, 2007 9:10 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Re: Kim's comment. Here is the good stuff.
4. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | October 16, 2007 9:10 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 09:10
5. Posted by Mike | October 16, 2007 9:17 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
kim, I thought it was Peter, Paul, and Mary ??
This also sounds suspisciously like the incident that happened in Florida about 10 years ago, when Democrat operatives who accidentally owned a police scanner that had accidentally been modified to intercept analog cell phone calls accidentally eavesdropped on a phone conversation between Newt and some other Republican operatives while they had been accidentally tailing Newt as he drove around in his car.
They accidentally recorded the call and then accidentally distributed it to state party officials, who accidentally sent it to Washington, where some top Dems accidentally gave it to the New York Times, who accidentally published portions of it.
All of this, of course, was in violation of Federal law.
5. Posted by Mike | October 16, 2007 9:17 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 09:17
6. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 9:23 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
TNX JB
======
6. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 9:23 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 09:23
7. Posted by Rovin | October 16, 2007 10:38 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Jim, Kim, Jeff, and others:
This is nothing but "a vast right-wing conspiracy" to prevent me, (and my hubby) from impleminting the largest expansion of entitlments since social security. I intend to drive this nation into backruptcy so that I can re-shape it into the socialist society that will proudly even get Monica off her knees. And you're not gonna stop me!
Hillary Clinton
7. Posted by Rovin | October 16, 2007 10:38 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 10:38
8. Posted by drjohn | October 16, 2007 10:39 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
So why aren't Republicans yelling about this as loudly as would Democrats?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? :-(
8. Posted by drjohn | October 16, 2007 10:39 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 10:39
9. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 11:55 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Possibly because of the strictures of the presumption of innocence. Hillary will probably get to testify.
======================
9. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 11:55 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 11:55
10. Posted by 914 | October 16, 2007 12:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hillary: do as I say, not as I do.
10. Posted by 914 | October 16, 2007 12:30 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 12:30
11. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 12:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This will be a particularly poignant political point when contrasted with the Democratic induced paralysis over FISA. Apparently wrangling lawyers delayed the hunt for the kidnappers of Jimenez for ten crucial hours. There is a face on their perfidy, now.
=====================================
11. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 12:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 12:33
12. Posted by Wendy | October 16, 2007 1:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Why should someone has so may important things to do challenge a book that has no value? It is not worth the attention.
12. Posted by Wendy | October 16, 2007 1:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 13:57
13. Posted by 89 | October 16, 2007 2:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
That the facts haven't been "challenged" doesn't necessarily mean that they're all true though. I count this as a rumor, unless an investigation is launched.
13. Posted by 89 | October 16, 2007 2:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 14:18
14. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 2:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
There'll be a tipping point on her criminality. There are too many tributaries with criminal rainmakers over each. It's a rising flood that bouys Republican hopes.
============================================
14. Posted by kim | October 16, 2007 2:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 14:49
15. Posted by Spurwing Plover | October 16, 2007 4:28 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Beware the wicked witch is up to something no goood becareful of her flying mokeys just get you phaser and set it on disinstagrate
15. Posted by Spurwing Plover | October 16, 2007 4:28 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on October 16, 2007 16:28