Blue Crab Boulevard

Good Thing She Didn’t Ask For A Raise

QandO and Powerline both point to this: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior It makes for some fascinating reading:

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

It seems in the zeal to not only remove Richard Nixon, but also to keep a lid on any politically damaging information about Democrats that might have surfaced in a general airing of dirty laundry, Clinton was part of a cabal seeking to deny President Nixon the right to counsel during any impeachment proceedings.

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.

Unreal. I'm sure there is some sort of possible spin to this, that Clinton was only doing her work under the direction of a more senior person, but there seems to be a, shall we call it, "initiative" taken that is unseemly at best. All of it begs the question: I wonder when the repercussions from Watergate will come to an end?

Politics | Rich Horton Wednesday, 2 April , 2008

By Tim, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 10:42 am

It kind of makes you wonder about Mr. Zeifman’s sudden memory of this incident. Where was he when Hillary was the front runner and there was no other candidate? Could his motivation be that he has found an even more liberal candidate in Obama, and wants to kick Hillary into the gutter? Pretty suspect, if you ask me.
By Rich Horton, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 11:19 am

Well, it would seem there would be too many ways to check up on it as a story for it to be a complete fabrication. (e.g. If anyone on the committee remembers telling him to keep the diary, etc.) Plus, why come forward with it in the 90’s if you are a Democrat? Hell, he might have disliked Hillary but liked Bill.
Its never a bad idea to be skeptical about things…but there is a certainly amount of plausibility here.
By martian, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 12:01 pm

“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.

Does anyone see a pattern here? What about those Clinton records that disappeared and then mysteriously reappeared during the Whitewater investigation? Where did they reappear? In a place easy for Hillary and her staff to access. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve watched enough "Law & Order" to know that evidence of "prior bad acts" can be legally introduced in court if it shows a pattern of behavior.

Last week Dick Morris published a list of Hillary’s past lies, both admitted and unadmitted to date. The woman has a long history of lieing to further either hers or Slick Willie’s political career or to cover up wrongdoing by either of them. She is apparently a congenital liar.
By crosspatch, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 12:43 pm

"Where was he when Hillary was the front runner and there was no other candidate?"<p>And where was he when Hillary was found with all the personal security files of practically everyone who had ever worked in the White House since Nixon? She has shown a pattern over the years of doing this kind of stuff. What bothers me most is how we have had a press and a Democratic Party that has enabled it and covered up for her and they are now slipping the knife in. Why? And it also makes a mockery of their current support for Obama.
By crosspatch, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 12:45 pm

Ok, dad gum it. How does this comment editor work? When enter a "return" it does not give me a new line. <br> doesn’t work and neither does <p>. How are you people formatting paragraphs? I can’t get it to make one. Here, I will hit return three times There … and there is no "preview" either. Arrrrrgh.
By Rich Horton, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 12:59 pm

Yes, the paragraph break is a little funky.

Hit return twice to get the break.

Voila!
By martian, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 2:45 pm

Crosspatch, it may have something to do with your browser, as well. I experienced problems using Firefox to view this site. I now us IE only.
By Quilly Mammoth, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 5:14 pm

It’s all part of the Bill Gates conspiracy to force us to use the flawed IE.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 8:01 pm

I apologize for the comment editor. It’s a package deal and nothing I programmed here - or that I can do anything about. I actually got a lot more complaints with the older, html only editor. This one is pretty much WYSIWYG if you just look at the way it is laying out as you type. Space for breaks until you get it where you want it. This editor does not do html at all. If you want to paste a link, just do it without embedding it. Or rather trying to embed it.
By Tully, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 9:33 pm

It kind of makes you wonder about Mr. Zeifman’s sudden memory of this incident.
It’s not new at all. Zeifman’s been saying this <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925684/posts">for years</a>, only NOW people are paying attention. And no, he doesn’t like Bill and hate Hillary. He despises them both.
Zeifman’s a bit of a loose cannon.
By Tully, Wednesday, 2 April , 2008 @ 9:34 pm

Teach me not to read the admin comments….
By Mockinbird, Thursday, 3 April , 2008 @ 3:43 pm

I’m getting sick of those people. I want Florida to secede…again!