FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FEMINIST LEADER ASSAILS HILLARY CLINTON

[Breeze54]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ON AND AFTER JANUARY 15, 2008

FEMINIST LEADER ASSAILS HILLARY CLINTON, NATIONAL NOW-PAC & NOW-NYS FOR BLATANT SEXISM

Web: http://www.judgewatch.org

CENTER FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY, INC. (CJA)

A national, nonpartisan, nonprofit citizens’ organization, working, pro bono, to protect the public interest in the integrity of our judicial selection and judicial discipline processes. Its mission is to ensure that only the most qualified trial lawyers become, and remain judges.

-------------

(White Plains, NY 1/15/08)-

In response to news releases from the National Organization for Women-Political Action Committee, and NOW-NYS, urging women to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, Doris L. Sassower, Co-founder and President of Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc., a former President of the New York Women’s Bar Association, honored in 1981 with a Special Award from National Organization of Women-NYS “for outstanding achievements on behalf of women and children,” and profiled as one of the “Feminists Who Changed America, 1963-1975 in a recently launched book by the same name, says:


Such sexist appeal represents outdated, divisive, un-American thinking. It is because of my longtime passionate commitment to equal rights for women that I am urging NOW’s Political Action Committee to withdraw its endorsement of Senator Clinton for President and that women’s organizations and women en masse across the country NOT endorse or vote for Senator Clinton simply because she is a woman. More than that, much as it pains me, I specifically urge them NOT to vote for the Senator Clinton at all, based on her serious malfeasance as a U.S. Senator, a record that includes corruption of the federal judiciary and complicity in gross governmental abuse in violation of law.


A previous press release, hereinbelow, issued by CJA, details how, in May 2003, Senator Clinton’s staff counsel prevented CJA’s public interest advocate, Elena Ruth Sassower, from testifying at a public confirmation hearing in opposition to the Clinton-endorsed nomination of one of President Bush’s nominees, a Republican New York Court of Appeals judge, to a lifetime federal judgeship on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears appeals from all New York federal district courts. Her respectful 23-word request to testify against this Bush judicial nominee led to her unprecedented arrest and prosecution by our government for “Disruption of Congress.”


She was tried before another recent Bush nominee, whose confirmation had likewise been the subject of a pre-arranged “no opposition” confirmation hearing. After he refused to disqualify himself notwithstanding judicial ethics rules required him to do so when his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” she was wrongfully convicted, and this judge sentenced her to the maximum six months in prison, incarcerating her immediately in a DC Jail. There she spent the July 4th 2004 weekend in solitary confinement for five days. Through all that time and even after her release six months later, Senator Clinton kept silent and did not lift a finger to help her own constituent, Elena Ruth Sassower, albeit, on her return from jail two days before Christmas 2004, she was hailed as a hero in her White Plains, NY hometown, as “Defender of the Constitution” and named “2004 White Plains Person of the Year.”

This is not just a women’s rights issue; it is a human rights issue -- a cause I fought for all my professional life as a lawyer and as president of the New York Women’s Bar Association nearly 40 years ago. At this defining moment in our nation’s history, much as it pains me to say, despite her history-making effort to become the first woman president and women’s natural yearning to see a woman do so, Senator Clinton does not deserve that high honor. She betrayed not only her constituents, but her country, by knowing disregard of sacrosanct democratic values, when she condoned by silence, inaction, and indifference the violation of constitutional rights by her own staff counsel and thereafter by others on the federal payroll. Senator Clinton bears full responsibility for that outrage and should be held accountable for her disrespect for an open, honest, and participatory federal judicial nominating process and for her collusion with those in government willing to pervert the truth and the Rule of Law for their own political and personal gain.


Perhaps, a DC Jail cell would befit the Senator’s crimes better than the Oval Office of the White House.”

:wow:

:grr: What took her so long to speak up and is NOW listening?

[cynatnite]

1. Well, that was a wasted two minutes of reading...

:eyes:

[blitzen]

2. I find this a bit "strident" (he said, with irony).

But seriously, it is lunatic fringe stuff. Not to say that it is entirely invalid, but it will have zero influence and impact on the political scene.

[lapfog_1]

3. WTF???

Let me get this straight...



Sassower claims that she wrote a 23 word request to testify at a judicial nominee's hearing and she was arrested because of the request?

Even though I'm not a Hillary supporter, I find this one hard to believe.

Perhaps her request was turned down because of the "no opposition" agreement (THAT I can believe and Hillary should have had no part in such an agreement with Bushco) and maybe she tried to disrupt the Senate hearing anyway? And then was arrested.

Keywords that need explanation...

"23-word request to testify against this Bush judicial nominee led to"

what is the "led to" part of the story?

[lapfog_1]

4. Looked it up myself

She went to the hearing anyway and when it was gaveled to a close, she stood up and asked to be allowed to testify again. At that point after engaging in a bit of verbal back and forth with Saxby Chambliss, she was arrested, tried and convicted. Certainly a bit more harshly handled than she deserved and her 6 month sentence for this "crime" is way out of line... but other than Hillary was there and was the recipient of her written request to testify, I don't see why Hillary gets the blame for this.

I would have liked to see the video of her "outburst" in the hearing. But it's academic.

OTOH, Hillary should not have entered into any "no opposition" agreements with Bushco or the repukes. Probably did so to get something in return, but whatever she got, it was a bad bargain.

[Breeze54]

6. Thanks lapfog_1 but

are there any links back to what happened? :shrug:

Sounds like she thinks HRC ignored her and treated her like crap.

:shrug:

[aquart]

9. A little more to it than that.

[lapfog_1]

13. tons and tons... here is the one I looked at

http://victimsoflaw.net/Elena1.htm

[Breeze54]

5. Good questions. I don't know but

I'm willing to try to find out! :shrug:

She definitely feels she has a beef but why wait

until this late in the game, is my question.

This might take a lot of digging, at least on my part.

[davidinalameda]

7. the game has barely started

we still have Big Ass Tuesday (or whatever they're calling it) coming up in a few weeks

[Breeze54]

11. Yeah but it feels all done to me.

When the M$M is refusing to let all speak at a debate, then to me, it's all sown up. :cry:

[davidinalameda]

22. why not have every Democratic candidate speak

there were something like 26 Democratic candidates running in New Hampshire

Did Kucinich raise a stink when the majority of them were excluded from the debate there?

I don't remember hearing that he did

you can't have it both ways

[aquart]

10. Google.

<http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/0507,letters,61137,7.html>The comments are informative.

AH. Found the article.

<http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0505,lombardi,60660,6.html>

"Elena Sassower is that rare kind of activist who presses her issues as if she won't stop—and maybe she can't. She calls, and then follows up with a fax, maybe several faxes. And then she sends e-mail, along with formal letters, multi-page motions, and box after box of documents. As coordinator of the national Center for Judicial Accountability, she has inundated state legislators, oversight agencies, national representatives, the state attorney general's office—anyone and everyone who might listen to her tales of judicial corruption. If she leaves a voice mail and hears nothing back, she just keeps trying. If she talks to you, she may stay on the phone for hours, and if she still goes away unsatisfied, she'll call your supervisor, and that person's supervisor, and so on. "I'm committed and determined," she says. "If nothing comes back, I should be satisfied?""

SHE MAY STAY ON THE PHONE FOR HOURS.

[Breeze54]

12. I just saw this posted on another messageboard and I said

I hadn't had time yet to "GOOGLE" it but thanks for doing the research.

I'll look further in the AM.

I'm quite aware of google and ASK. ;)

[elleng]

16. Incredible!

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/sassower2_box.htm

http://www.victimsoflaw.net/Sassower.htm#_ftn1

http://forums.nyjournalnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=144834&sid=5ad3639456936a0cd853cee27a0effea

http://www.markskatz.com/AmicusC.pdf

[aquart]

8. Love to hear the other side of this one.

Nowhere do I see a direct involvement. The closest contact with Senator Clinton is unnamed "staff counsel." It does NOT say how the staff counsel prevented her testimony. By failing to reply to her letters?

Has Clinton ever even heard of this woman?

This site is a hoot. <http://www.geocities.com/themis1.geo/Sassower.htm> Love the flags.

P.S. Why is she blaming Clinton because Saxby Chambliss ordered her arrest? Why ISN'T she blaming Schumer whose office, ALONG with Clinton's, called the Capitol Hill police because of her "persistent" phone calls and faxes? I email my senators all the time, but that hasn't made them call the cops on me.

Also, she's in jail because she refused to take the deal she was offered, which included leaving her senators alone for two years. Now, what incredibly dangerous act of honesty would cause that sentence to be handed down?

Google is your friend, kid. Use it.

[lapfog_1]

14. I'm not sure why she singled out Hillary

She states that she sent to written request to Hillary, but I'm guessing that she also sent it to others on the committee.

Maybe she feels that Hillary, as a woman senator from New York, would be more beholden to her because of her ties to feminist organizations (she got an award from NOW). I don't know.

As for the jail time, yeah she turned down the deal, but according to her it was a lot more than leaving her senators alone for two years, specifically this:

(1) 2 years probation; keep minute records of her work hours; (3) 300 hours of community service, 200 near her home in New York and 100 in D.C.; (4) participate in anger management therapy; (5) prohibited access to 16 buildings and and streets in the United States Capitol Complex as well as two Metro stations; (6) prohibited from communicating with a number of Senators, Judge Wesley, the prosecutors and police; (7) write letters of apology and remorse to Senators Hatch, Leahy, Chambliss, Schumer, Clinton & Judge Wesley; and (8) a penalty of $500 plus an additional $250 to the Victims of Violent Crimes fund.

which also seems a bit harsh even if she had to be dragged from the committee room by DC police.

Not defending her. She seem to have "issues"... why take it out on Hillary? I don't know other than Hillary was on the committee and listed as one of the senators she shouldn't contact.

Her point that women shouldn't vote for Hillary just because Hillary is a woman is, I think, a very valid point. We really should be beyond that sort of reverse sexism... just as African Americans should not vote for Obama just because he is African American.

[cynatnite]

15. Given the severity of the punishment...

I'm wondering if they had reason to hand these out. In this thread there were mentions of how far she went for her cause and maybe for some it was too far. She does seem on the extreme side.

[lapfog_1]

17. I have no doubt that she "acted out"

and, as an adult, should know when enough is enough. Example: It's one thing to get permits, organize and march and yell slogans and wave signs... it's another thing to deviate from the protest route and disrupt traffic and throw rocks and bottles. She would seem to have the capability to do the latter... however, in this instance, only seeing a video or some other, independent, eye witness testimony would decide for me if she went too far or was unfairly treated. However, in these days of "don't taze me bro", my inclination is to believe that the police overreacted, as they seem to do on a regular basis with dissenters who speak out. The dissent now is not nearly like it was in the sixties, and while the police don't automatically start gunning demonstrators down like Kent State, they do seem to be more like Darth Vader's imperial storm troopers and less like Andy Taylor.

My question still remains... Why did Hillary (and probably other Dem Senators) agree to a "no opposition" deal for Bush nominees to the federal bench in 2004? Were they "keeping the powder dry" for the next Supreme Court nominee? And if that is true, should our nominee for President be someone who did deals like that (as well as the now famous litany of bad votes that Hillary has made over her relatively brief career as the junior senator from New York, the IWR being the prime example)???

It's interesting to me that folks around here have been very disappointed with Nancy Pelosi because of her inability to do things to stop Bushco in any or every way possible, and yet Hillary gets a pass from some of these same posters when she "went along to get along" quite a bit more (when she wasn't out and out cheer leading for the Bushies) simply because she is the first leading female contender for President in one of the two major parties.

[elleng]

18. Hillary is HER Senator.

Absurdly harsh 'sentence' deal.

Why not defending her? She has 'issues?' Constitutional issues, it seems to me.

[lapfog_1]

19. Hillary isn't her only senator on that committee.

Schummer is also on the committee.

And constant calls and letters and faxes over and over to the same person (after they or their staff have said no repeatedly) is someone with "issues" (look up pop culture definition of insanity).

And yes, clearly some of these assholes that Bushco was pushing onto the bench needed to be opposed... it's not JUST the supreme court, all levels of federal courts are important!

In other posts in this thread, I already questioned why Hillary was making these alleged "no opposition" deals on federal bench nominees. She has and had every right to try to get her testimony heard. But after the first exchange with Chambliss after the hearing was gaveled to a close (which brought up some entertaining points in her appeal... how could she be disruptive to congress if the committee hearing had ended???) I think she should have left the chamber and tried to seek out one TV camera and crew looking for a story, not stood there and argued with him. Did she deserve the punishment she received? No, not at all. The brief filed on her behalf at her appeal outlines a number of constitutional issues with the "deal" that was offered her, especially the part where she had to write letters of apology (violates her right to presumption of innocence and no self incrimination at a later appeal).

I think the judge took it very personal for some reason, probably because he, too, was a Bush appointee and she, I think, had tried to testify against him as well!

Anyway, I don't she should blame Hillary alone for her arrest or incarceration, however, her statement today did have some very valid points.

[leftchick]

20. "for their own political and personal gain"

and the gains of the Corporations/DLC/AIPAC Mafia. that would be hillary all right.

[Perry Logan]

21. "Feminist leader assails __________." (Your name here)