Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary Lied About the Weather Underground - No Mention at TPM
It's interesting. Obama puts his foot in his mouth when talking about voters in Pennsylvania, and "bittergate" becomes non-stop news for days.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, lies about her knowledge of Bill pardoning two members of the Weather Underground, and all is silent.
This is a big deal. Hillary Clinton continues to lie. And the hypocrisy here is that she is trying to hit Obama about his relationship with William Ayers, while she sat on her hands and did nothing to stop her husband from pardoning
two members who were actually convicted of violent crimes (Ayers, on the other hand, was acquitted at trial).
So, thanks again, news media. Fair, balanced, and unwilling to take Hillary Clinton to task for her implausible denials of any of her husband's poor judgment.
Information can be found here.
Comments (84)
"I didn't know anything about it."
Nobody should be able to lie that easily. This needs to get much, much bigger play.
April 24, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
billysumday, where is your proof that HRC has not told the truth about that? Don't have any? Thought so.
ON THE OTHER HAND: BHO's friendship and support of members of this group is well-documented.
It's pretty easy to connect the dots and see why BHO's relationship is newsworthy and HRC's comments are not.
Please try to maintain at least a semblance of objectivity. Is that asking too much?
April 25, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me go further and make an appeal: Greg, Eric, Josh, someone - do a little digging here, please? I thought you guys were muckrakers and whatnot.
April 24, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it will only truly be a verifiable lie when there is evidence that she publicly commented on the controversy or expressed an opinion. Until then, it's just conjecture. But given her track record, it won't surprise me if evidence of her knowledge surfaces.
April 24, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if they can't come up with anything? That won't prove she's telling the truth, will it? We're all going to believe what we want to believe about her. Why should Josh waste time on your hot button? You seem resourceful. Can't you do it yourself?
April 24, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
To even entertain the thought that she didn't know about it is ridiculous. Not only did the whole country know about it, it was big news around the world. There was special attention payed to the 16 Puerto Rican terrorists and 2 Weather Underground terrorists. Don't you remember the 'Clinton soft on terror' reputation?
When are her supporters going to become insulted? The disdain she shows by thinking they would be foolish enough to believe this is an insult to all voters.
Much was asked about the pardons. Her is a BBC article that references her response to questions about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1184118.stm
April 25, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad, you may not be aware of this, but we live in a country whose legal system is founded on a belief that it's citizens are innocent until proven guilty.
Your assertion that there's no need for evidence to convict HRC as a liar is very un-American and a violation of her civil rights. You must be a very closed-minded individual.
April 25, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Jackass,
That guy's one of the people who regularly puts energy in keeping it real for HRC's side.
Take second to comprehend, will ya?
April 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name calling? Isn't that a bit childish?
Instead of resorting to cursing me, why don't you instead post an actual reply to the substance of my comment without appearing juvenile?
April 25, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless there is a video of her discussing the pardons in the past, it will never get any play. At most there is circumstantial evidence that she should have known but to proof that she did know.
April 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonze and Everyon else;
Not necessarily. There could be an Obama supporter on Chuck Schumer's staff who could have access to records that could conceivably prove he discussed it with her. The recortd does show that Schumer reported that he would go as high as possible to try to get this reversed.
Was Hillary "as high as possible" or what!
Schumer helped her get elected to the Senate!
Let's all get to work-this IS after all TPM MUCKRAKER!
April 25, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
By her own admission, Sen. Clinton utters a million words per day; we can't expect all of them to be truthful.
April 24, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like the outrageous lies that BHO tells regarding not knowing his racist buddy Wright spewed racist hatred from his pulpit?
See how easy it is to call someone a liar when there's no proof needed?
April 25, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. She knew nothing about it? But she knew Obama was on the same community board as Ayers? Bullshit. She was Bill's coPresident remember?
Hilliary
April 24, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. When they first tried to tie him to Ayers last summer/fall, the first thing I mentioned on DK was how Bill Clinton pardoned him. That was like in August or September. Now, if I knew back then, and Mrs. OppoDumpenator didn't, what kind of president will she be. Or to put it another way, I knew that a war in Iraq would be a boondoogle, in Nov. 2001 when Rumsfeld and Bush both mentioned Iraq randomly. And clearly, I would have been a better president than the current twit.
April 24, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to be accurate nobody pardon Ayers because he was never charged and convicted of a crime.
April 24, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get your facts straight fabooj. Quit being lazy and do a little research before posting your outrageous lies.
April 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And BHO didn't know his racist pastor was spewing racist hatred from the pulpit after being a member and contributor for over 20 years to this so-called Church? Either he's really dense or he's lying through his teeth.
April 25, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The TV media seems to have gone pro-Hillary. They need the conflict to keep ratings. And one hears the SAME point over and over. Except for a few, expressing new ideas seems difficult. That's why I listen to Rachel on the radio.
April 24, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ding! Ding! Ding!
That's exactly what is going on. Once Clinton drops out, Cafferty will have to find something else to talk about, everyone on CNN will be scrambling, since they have 24 hours to fill -
They are keeping this whole drama alive cause once it's over, their ratings will dip.
April 24, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary claims to be the best candidate because she has "years of experience", but she seemingly can't remember (or remember correctly) many of the experiences.
April 24, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, she must have been pretty out of the NY loop since Schumer, Giuliani, Kerik all publicly came out against it.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/04/16/clinton-has-bigger-weather-underground-problem/
April 24, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And she was running for the Senate at the time. Yeah, she knew. She's way too thorough and paranoid not to have known. But don't worry, she won't have to answer for it beyond a good laugh.
April 24, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please rec this and hopefully the editors at TPM can do a little journalism on this story.
April 24, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not just email Josh. He reads and responds to all of his emails.
April 24, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did Billy!
April 25, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's Hillary?
April 24, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly remember the news about the Marc Rich pardon. I can't believe there was no news coverage at the time of the Weather Underground pardons.
April 24, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was news about it and Sen. Clinton should have known about it since it was her husband's last minute pardons that got extensive news coverage. Even remember during the 9/11 media jerkoff, in combing history for homegrown terrorist these people and Bill's pardons were mentioned.
April 24, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 24, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I haven't figured out the blockquote thing yet.
April 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep those blockquote tags on separate lines of their own. That seems to work for me.
April 24, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! I'll try that next time.
April 24, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's kinda funny, too, isn't it? Weren't these commutations? Doesn't that indicate that HRC thinks they were one thing when they in fact are another? Nice of Howard to give us that insight on HRC's legal acumen. ;-)
April 24, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's such a Condoleeza Rice response.
April 24, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary misspoke because she's 60 and it was late.
What she meant to say was, "I didn't know anything about it, you should ask one of my brothers".
April 24, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite quote on this came from howard wolfson when asked "what does hillary think about bill pardoning two members of the weather underground?"
Wolfson replied: "she thinks its a pardon by the president."
April 24, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is 60 and can't remember fwck all (Aha, she must've been the one inhaling when bill wasn't - so yeah, it's like totally not her fault). Don't worry about what she said about nuking Iran because she would probably mis-remember the codes if Iran nuked Israel anyway. If she get's a free pass because she's old and it's late we're in seriously big trouble when young Johnny McCain, 700-sumfin, answers the red phone at 3:00 AM when the black phone is ringing - he'll remember the codes but he'll be thinking he's using them on the viet-cong! Anyways, Just imagine the size of his "free pass" from the media when he accidentally orders global nuclear annhillation!
Oh wooops!?!
April 24, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, she didn't know anything about it. Just like she didn't know anything about this from January 2001:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E1DD163FF936A15752C0A9679C8B63
April 24, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her ignorance of the topic seems to be much contrived. Here was her response to questions about the pardons, again in January 2001:
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/opinions/2001/01/30/2001-01-30_unpardonable_pardons.html
April 24, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That quote actually refers to another set of pardons, the four Hasidic Jews from Rockland County. I can't find evidence via Google of any statements she made with respect to the Rosenberg and Evans commutations. Maybe someone with Nexis access can dig further. Key on Jerry Nadler and Rosenberg and Hillary.
April 24, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're right. The article was on several pardons, including the four Hasidic Jews and Marc Rich. It didn't specifically address Rosenberg and Evans, but it was talking about the outrage over the various Clinton pardons in general.
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
April 24, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're right. The article was on several pardons, including the four Hasidic Jews and Marc Rich. It didn't specifically address Rosenberg and Evans, but it was talking about the outrage over the various Clinton pardons in general.
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
April 24, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there's this, a piece from 2001 that explores how the commutation request got from Susan Rosenberg's mother to the White House:
April 24, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, billy, how do you know she lied?
You readily accept that Barack didn't hear those things Rev Do-Wright said.
Or that he and buddy Ayers don't talk about anything of importance at their weekly barbcues in the hood.
Or that Resco didn't help Barry-O buy a house.
How about the large contribution from the Chi Hospital?
Barry got you duped?
April 24, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clever! But seriously, she lied about this.
April 24, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you know that, why not prove it yourself instead of whining to Josh?
April 24, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Resco?
WTF is Resco?
If trolls can't even be bothered to spell people's names correctly when they lie, why should anyone take such blather seriously?
April 24, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What weekly bbq's are you talking about? You're making up shit as you go along and then asking for unimpeachable evidence to support the inference drawn from the facts known today? Unfuckingbeliveable.
Clintonites never cease to amaze.
April 24, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cr1992,
Hillary LIED. Why don't you address that issue instead of defecting it to something completely unrelated? SHE LIED about her knowledge of the pardons her husband gave. Deal with it!
April 24, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but there is no evidence she lied about the pardons Please stop making claims you have no evidence for.
April 24, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice attempt to change the subject!
April 24, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those extreme statements were not representative of his usual sermons and the tapes are dated. Obama's travel schedule has been checked and corroborates that he was not in town during those times - just heard it on CNN.
April 25, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The linked article lays out a lot of circumstantial evidence which suggests she may be lying, but there is no proof that she is lying in this issue.
April 24, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares? the race for voters is over.
April 24, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eh? You think the HRC campaign is going to stop dropping Ayers' name in the next two weeks? Best way to combat that crap is to tie her with the same (irrelevant) baggage. And if she's caught "misspeaking" (again), it will be worth pointing out (again) between now and May 6.
April 24, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
See?
April 24, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, there's no proof Hillary lied. Maybe she really didn't know anything about the pardons.
Of course, in order to believe she is ignorant of them, then you would have to believe she is a very poor politician and completely uninterested in the impact of pardons on perceptions. You would have to conclude that she was really stupid and uninvolved in things that impact her political future.
Hillary Clinton is many things. I have never known her to be stupid. I have known her to be a liar.
But, you're right, there is no proof.
April 24, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree, but even before the video proof she was flat-out lying about Tuzla, that lie ("sniper fire") was, like this one about Ayres, a stupid argument she was trying to make even if taken at face value which you correctly point out boils down to either she wasn't lying and was therefore politically stupid to not be aware of it, or she wasn't stupid and was aware and in the loop, and therefore is now lying.
So like Tuzla, she is lying or pushing an argument which shows how politically obtuse (her early 90s Health Care reform anyone?) neither of which is doing her any favors in showing why she should be the standard bearer of our party and/or POTUS.
April 24, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
For better or worse, the MSM won't A) validate the idea that she did know about those pardons, or B) report that she's lied, until there's video they can run. At this point, I think her denial of knowledge, like it was with Tuzla, is more important than the underlying implication (which, in Tuzla's case, was the idea she was suggesting she has more foreign policy cred than is true).
Maybe we'll never find a quote from back then in which she's asked about the Rosenberg and Evans pardons explicitly, but the circumstantial evidence, given what a huge deal the last minute pardons were at the time and the allegations of her direct involvement in bringing some of the other pardons about, is a pretty strong indication that she knew very well who was on Bill's list.
April 24, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she's lying and if it's a big deal, it should be easy to expose her. Keep the pressure on Schumer, Nadler and Bill Clinton. Maybe one of them will admit they discussed it with her. Then we can argue about whether she forgot the discussion or is lying about it. We can have another post screaming Hillary Lies and Josh Won't Beat Her Up For Me! Josh is not our mama. We have to do some of this for ourselves.
April 24, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, Josh and Greg have contacts we don't. Hell, I only have Google and whatever I can find in the free archives from the major newspapers! I don't know how strong a case one can make about Rosenberg and Evans in particlur, since they were just two of nearly 200 pardons/commutations in late 2000, and we don't have much reason to believe they would have been significant to HRC at the time. There were other pardons to which she has close ties, so I could see her just not having any involvement or interest in the balance of the actions at the time. But I think it's worth looking into given her campaign's decision to tie Obama to Ayers.
April 24, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it does take some work, but, if it's important to you, you can develop your own contacts. I have not contacted one reporter who wrote articles during this campaign who hasn't replied to my questions. Most of analysts at think tanks like the Center for American Progress will correspond with you. I've never sent Josh a non-snark email he didn't reply to. Juan Cole answers emails. Bloggers like Josh didn't start out with contacts. They developed them.
On the other hand, we all contribute to making TPM a success. One of the most innovative things Josh has done is mobilize thousands of readers to do research. For example, he posts DOJ documents. We help scour them for info.
I'd hate to see our mindset turn that model on its head by starting to demand that he take assignments from us. Balance is everyting.
April 25, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's well said, Billy, I appreciate what you're saying and I guess I don't have an excuse for not spending some of the hours I spend online reading and commenting by doing some first hand research (beyond Google, that is). The least I can do is send out some emails to ask some questions, so I'll give that a try and see what happens.
April 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To answer the question, sometimes it's not that we've missed something but that we're working on several stories and only have so many reporters to go around. In this case, we did flag this story in the campaign wire today. However, the quote struck us as ambiguous. We were sure whether she was saying that she didn't know about this until Obama brought it up in the debate, which seems highly improbable, or whether she simply meant that she hadn't known about it at the time, which strikes me as unlikely, but less clear cut. Greg put in a request for a clarification. But he had to leave early today. So I assume they had not gotten back to him by the time he left. Look forward to something on this from us tomorrow.
April 24, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification, Josh. Glad you're on it.
April 25, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Chuck Schumer, who was instrumental in getting Hillary elected, advocated against the pardons with the Clinton Justice Dept. but never discussed it with Hillary? Numerous stories in the NY Times about the potential pardons, pleas from the widows of the slain -- Hillary never reads a newspaper? The "co-president" who has all that experience, didn't know anything about these pardons?
Well maybe -- after all she didn't read the NIE either.
April 24, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are very few people in the US that read the news or were half awake to current affairs that didn't know about this. Not to mention all around the world. Bill pardoned 140 criminals on his last day in office and commuted the sentances of another 36. For many he went around the normal procedure of DoJ involvement, the 16 FALN terrorists didn't even request it - some NY politicos asked for theirs. It was shocking and egregious. As a result legislation was enacted so that a future president would not be able to do the same thing.
This was HUGE news at the time, HUGE.
April 25, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right, placing this in historical context. Which also places the issue of WJC's pardons squarely out of bounds as a campaign tactic or Obama, who has pledged not to dredge up the legacy of the Clinton presidency to take down HRC. What's different in this specific case is the Weather Underground. Obama's campaign has not foresworn responding to attacks by HRC. So the Weather Underground commutations are now on the table, for whatever that's worth in the abstract. But we need specific evidence of some link between the Rosenberg/Evans pardons and HRC or this is not something that will get any additional traction via the Obama campaign.
In the end, though, it's looking like a pretty ill-advised move on HRC's part to bring up Ayers and getting the MSM, at least to some extent, to raise the whole pardon mess that WJC created while leaving office. I guess at this point, just getting the pardons raised again could be enough to raise doubts about HRC among the undecided. Should evidence of HRC commenting on the specific commutations in questions arise, that would create a new opening on the trustworthiness front.
April 25, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You obamabots really are a funny lot. On the one hand, you scream and whine about HRC taking credit for the good things that happened during her husband's presidency. But on the other hand, you have no problem associating HRC with all of the (perceived) negatives of that presidency.
The hypocrisy is so obvious.
April 25, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you don't present here is any evidence that Hillary knew that Bill Clinton intended to pardon members of this group. You just say she lied. Well if you're going to make that kind of accusation, prove it.
Additionally, even if she knew it, what authority did she have to stop it. Persuasive authority at best.
April 25, 2008 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy - Yesterday TPM did o post the Newsday story on Talking Points Wire section. It's still up.
April 25, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
GMan- Of course Hillary knew about the pardons. Newsday did an update on their story and they said that after Clinton was elected, she wouldn't go near Rockland County for two years because she was afraid of the backlash she would get about the Rosenberg pardons.
And of course she and Jerry Nadler spoke about it. A reporter should ask Jerry what he remembers. You can't tell me that when he was campaigning with her, he didn't put in a request with her to talk to Bill about it.
I wish TPM would do some investigations on this.
April 25, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found a New York Post story, January 23, 2001 in which the reporter asks Hillary Clinton directly about the pardons. Story is "Nadler, Rabbi Behind Pardon for '81 Brinks Slay Suspect." I can't post a link because I got it from Nexis but here's an excerpt. See last line:
Nadler, who was well-regarded at the Clinton White House because he was one of the president's most ardent defenders during Sexgate, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Matalon told The Post that Rosenberg's parents belong to his congregation, and that he visited Rosenberg in prison.
"I know her quite well. I've spoken to her 30 to 40 times over a period of 10 years," the rabbi said. "They were long conversations."
Rosenberg was told by the parole board that she'd have to serve longer than a companion arrested on similar charges because she was suspected in the Brink's case.
"But she's never been charged, she's never been tried. It's never been proven," Matalon said.
The rabbi added that Rosenberg has "renounced violence as a way to effect change."
Clinton, heavily criticized for the 11th-hour pardon, yesterday refused to comment.
"I'm out of office now. I'm not talking anymore," he told reporters.
His wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also sidestepped the issue, saying it was up to her husband to explain the pardons.
April 25, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for adding real information to the thread. It helps explain the basis for the pardon in the first place.
April 25, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen All Obama Supporters;
HRC now claims that she knew nothing about her husband's pardon of the Weatherwoman Radical Susan Rosenberg! This from the SAME woman who is claiming all those years as First Lady on her experience resume'.
Let's undress this prevarication! It is simply unbelievable that she did not know about this. Since she has coma after Obama with her damn kitchen sink again-let's all do diligent searches for the proof that will expose this if it is untrue.
We must stop her by Indiana-if Obama takes In & NC this thing is over!
There must be an Obama supporter on Schumer's staff!
Let's get to work!
April 25, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
People should contact Jerry Nadler's office, since he was the one who asked Bill for the pardon and was also campaigning for Hillary. Some of us should be contacting their offices.
April 25, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
contact info for Rep.Jerry Nadler:
http://www.house.gov/nadler/contact.shtml
I just wrote to him, and to Chuck Schumer too. What do you bet I don't get a response ?
April 25, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on what you said or asked. I'd follow up with a phone call. If you are going to blog on TPM about this issue, you might tell them that. After you blog, why not send them the link? Let them know you're not alone.
April 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can stomach looking at Free Republic, they printed out the January 23, 2001 New York Post story in which Hillary is asked about the pardon:http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:7Gz-93JKg14J:www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a6e2dda7a82.htm+Nadler,+Rabbi+Behind+Pardon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
April 25, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strange... it's not a valid page on the site, but your link to the Google cache worked: Clicky.
April 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
who cares what an obscure left-radical group did 40 years ago? does anyone? i don't care about Clinton or Obama's involvement with any of it's members 40 years after the fact.
that said, yes, we know Clinton is an unrepentant hypocrite. is that news either? does it surprise anyone? do we need to rehash the corruption and thoughtlessness of the previous Clinton administration any more than we need to rehash the culture wars of the 60's?
April 25, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nadler was also one of Bill Clinton's biggest supporters during the Lewinsky crisis. So I guess Hill and Bill were returning the favor.
April 25, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my God...(sigh)....Im astonished there are some people left who honestly don't think she is a liar! Come on, conflate it, rationalize it, whatever, but to totaly deny it.....unbelievable!
April 25, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment