Anonymous ID: a9dd3a Aug. 10, 2018, 12:44 p.m. No.2542832   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2912 >>3336

Q !A6yxsPKia. 08/10/18 (Fri) 11:00:09 No.129

 

Does POTUS make statements that are false?

 

Knowing what you know now…..

 

[Start @ 12:00]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOUFsCS7xYE

 

Think Haiti [14:40]

 

Think Watergate Commission [removed_why_investigate].<<<<<<<<<

 

Listen very carefully.

 

TRUTH.

 

Surrounded by EVIL.

 

NEVER STOP PRAYING.

 

WWG1WGA!!!!!!

 

Q

 

Found this:

 

QUOTED

 

" 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.

 

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge."

 

https:// www.facebook.com/TheView/posts/this-is-a-great-piece-by-dan-calabresepolitics-watergate-era-judiciary-chief-of-/10151192957631524/