I've long believed that once she became the nominee (as seems increasingly likely), Hillary!™'s past would come back to haunt her. One of the means by which this would happen would be the "Slick Grope Vets For Truth." Well, it looks like Kathleen Willey has fired the first salvo. And interestingly, I hadn't read about this in the news:

...as evidence that the Clintons haven t changed, the terror and harassment continue. Over 2007's Labor Day weekend, Kathleen's home was burglarized. Instead of taking jewelry or computers, the thief took the manuscript for Target, with its explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Sounds par for the course to me. Hopefully (and apparently) it wasn't the only copy.

Yeah, thieves broke into my house too. Incredibly they just took my car keys and left everything else alone. Even the car is still there.

Must be the Clintons.

That was a fairly big story for about 2 days, surprised you missed it. If it had been an author of a Bush expose I'm sure there would still be nightly updates on the story.

Harris: "Must be the Clintons."

Can't see past the end of his nose, must be a Clinton apologist.

Was your car keys a manuscript about the Clintons?

We all know you don't have a car becasuse you so love your free short bus rides.

I don't think anyone can be so dense as to not be at least a little suspicious when the ONLY thing taken in a break in is a manuscript detailing shading dealings etc. of a former President of the US and his wife who hopes to be a future President.

And to compare what actually happened to keys being stolen is simply ludicrous.

Heh! There I was, comment #1

Kewl!

I don't think anyone can be so dense as to not be at least a little suspicious when the ONLY thing taken in a break in is a manuscript detailing shading dealings etc. of a former President of the US and his wife who hopes to be a future President.

Well, we are talking about Jim Harris, here.

Kewl!

Given the nature of the comment, I wouldn't be that proud of it, Bill.

I don't think anyone can be so dense as to not be at least a little suspicious when the ONLY thing taken in a break in is a manuscript

There would be more reason to be suspicious if it were true. What we have in this thread is one the standard modes of group-think: The evidence is so sinister that its truth is not important.

In the first version of this story, the version that Kathleen Willey told the police, the burglars took her purse. Her purse had some credit cards, a checkbook, and some cash. The burglars dumped the purse but kept the cash. Willey did not at first tell the police anything about any missing manuscript. After the police left her property, then Willey decided that the burglars took her manuscript. And that it must have been the Clintons.

So it's just not true that the burglars only took her purse. Nor is it clear that they did take any manuscript, just because Kathleen Willey says so. You would think that if the burglars valued this manuscript, they would also want the laptop that was next to the manuscript. But Willey said that they didn't take the laptop either.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57498

A normal person in this circumstance could be suspicious of her own memory. It's easy to misplace a manuscript that is, after all, only a printout. Moreover if it's been printed out more than once. It's even easier to get distracted from your own doings if someone broke into your house.

But maybe Kathleen Willey is a superhuman with perfect recall, impervious to distractions, and carrying no grudges or personal bias. Maybe the only question with Kathleen Willey is what the Clintons did to her and when. After all, that is the topic of her book.

So it's just not true that the burglars only took her purse.

Rather, it's just not true that the burglars only took a manuscript. They took her purse for sure according to Willey's story, and they may or may not have taken a manuscript. (But if they did, then for some reason they don't care for laptops.)

So they took a purse too, that sure eliminates the Clintons involvement... why I don't know, I guess because Jim says so. And since Jim carries no bias FOR the Clintons he must be more believable than Willey.

Anyone want to buy a bridge?

So they took a purse too, that sure eliminates the Clintons involvement

I thought you said that they only took a manuscript.

What you could do is wait for the police to agree that a manuscript was actually stolen. But if instead you are waiting to eliminate the Clintons' involvement, then you might as well say that they are involved in every crime in the nation. And out of the nation.

Seriously this is rediculous. 50 years ago a manuscript might be important, but these days who in their right mind would not have 2-3 backup copies of a book they are writing?

"I thought you said that they only took a manuscript."

That is what I thought was the case, a stolen purse in addition to a stolen manuscript changes the situation very little.
I assume you are saying that Willey is lying. It would never be possible that she only noticed the manuscript missing later; how dare she be upset after her home is broken into and not be able to give a definitive accounting of her homes contents immediately!

I assume you also then believe that every woman who has accused Bill Clinton of any lascivious behavior is also lying. That would be an awful lot of lying going on. Poor old Bill, he is so misunderstood.

One draft copy could be worth stealing even if the existence of backups means publication will not be delayed. The logical nefarious motive is to prepare an aggressive defense.

I assume you are saying that Willey is lying.

No, Cecil, she might not be lying. As I said, a normal person would be suspicious of her own memory. If your manuscript vanishes from next to your laptop, but the laptop is still there, it does not usually mean that thieves took the manuscript. It could mean that you miscounted how many copies you printed, or that you put one in your briefcase and forgot, or put one in recycling, or who knows. Most people do not have perfect recall, especially not after their wallets have been stolen.

Jim,

Again I do not take offence to you position or comments but to the rotten links you post. I have followed many of the links you have posted in this comment section as well as others and at best they do not support your position or at worst lead to a waste of time.

Posting links to support your position is good, but I would strongly urge you to fully read or even look at what you are linking to before positing it. (you might try pasting the link into a browser just to be sure it goes where you want)

Is anybody else having problems with his links or am I just a blathering idiot?

So she is either lying or mistaken, there is NO WAY that a manuscript was stolen. Got it Jim.

why break in to steal a manuscript?

just implant a virus into her computer, or break in through
a network port and steal a copy to read.

there are a million ways to do this, without leaving a trace
and without risking getting busted like the Watergate Plumbers.

Funny, Nixon who had access to the best guys from the CIA managed to get busted by a security guard and the Clintons
can't seem to get touched.

That's proof they are master criminals.

Funny, Nixon who had access to the best guys from the CIA managed to get busted by a security guard and the Clintons can't seem to get touched.

That's proof they are master criminals.

It's proof of nothing except that the press hated Nixon, and loves the Clintons.