Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
And another story of Hillary’s past emerges
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, April 01, 2008

If you thought sniper-gate was bad, check this out.

Ed Morrissey has taken a look at a Dan Calabrese column and finds what he reads to be rather damning:
Dan Calabrese’s new column on Hillary Clinton’s past may bring the curtain down on her political future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer’s behavior during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings.
As Ed points out, the right to counsel is a pretty basic right of any defendant in any sort of legal procedure. And, as you'll see, Zeifman clearly feels Clinton was both unethical and and a liar.

Ziefman, according to the Calabrese article, was her immediate supervisor.
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.”
Ziefman's laid it all out here (see "Hillary's Crocodile Tears in Connecticut).

Ed's right - pretty damning stuff. It ought to be fun watching the HRC campaign spin this one.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
She didn’t lie, she "misspoke".

And to her credit, she’s no Obama!
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
Presuming it’s the same basic story I saw somewhere or other in Blogistan (sorry, can’t remember which one) a few weeks ago, this is a bubble in a teacup. It was gone over in detail there, and among the points raised was that Zeifman did not have the power to fire her, and that the consipiracy amounted to nothing more than HRC following the directions of higher ranking staffers and committee members. There were other points raised regarding Zeifman’s credibility and various other details of his account, but I don’t remember enough to summarize them in any usable fashion. The basic conclusion there was simply that the story provided evidence of nothing beyond Zeifman’s dislike of HRC.

For the moment, Tuzla is still the best smoking gun—recent enough and obvious enough for people to understand.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Some of the details are obviously checkable, and I’m not sure Zeifman didn’t have the authority to fire how. How do you know? If he was chief of staff he might well have in 1974. I don’t know about now. And, as I remember it, "I vas chooost followink orrrrrders" is not regarded a an adequate defense for criminal acts.

While the story proves nothing, it offers clues which could be followed up. Why the rush to dismiss what appear to be plausible charges. Going over in detail is not quite the same as thoroughly investigating, is it?
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
Earlier, I was tempted to write that I would be careful with this. Here is a point:
"Some of the details are obviously checkable, and I’m not sure Zeifman didn’t have the authority to fire how. How do you know? If he was chief of staff he might well have in 1974."
Ziefman was Chief Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. Rodham worked for John Doar, who was appointed in December 1973 as Special Counsel to the Committee for the impeachment investigation. It is at least very plausible, if not outright certainty, that Ziefman did not have the authority to fire Rodham.

None of this is news. Anyone who read David Brock’s "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham" over a decade ago is familiar with this stuff.

It’s still the single most important book for understanding who and what she is.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I just read Morrissey’s effort. Originally, the man could not distinguish where in Congress the action was taking place, back in the day.

I’m not impressed.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
McKie—I’m not rushing it. I’m just pointing out this story is has already been out there for a few weeks, and already been answered by the proHRC forces. It will be easy for her to get this dismissed from the public eye. And there are other points, like the snipers of Tuzla, that the public will grok much easier, and for which there’s unassailable evidence.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
As I’ve already pointed out, this story has been "out there" for more than ten years. That ought to be a story in itself. However, the meat of the thing really is important, whether or not Rodham can sweep it down the memory-hole.

In its essence, it should make Tuzla simply disappear as a story. This is like a snapshot of the young Stalin as a bank-robber: if you knew what you were looking at, you could see him coming a mile away.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
It was not until two months after Nixon’s resignation that I first learned of still another
questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a
Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into “a
troubling set of events.” That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had
asked "that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against
which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such
staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use," Wiggins
had just learned that such a study had been conducted - at committee expense - by
a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-
inquiry staff well in advance of our public
hearings.

The report was kept secret from members of Congress. But after the impeachment-
inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores.
Wiggins wrote: “I am especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed
essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may
have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation."
He was also concerned that staff members may have unlawfully received royalties
from the book’s publisher.

On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff
coordinated the work. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present
form." No effort was ever made to ascertain whether or not Hillary or any other
person on the committee staff received royalties.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
In its essence, it should make Tuzla simply disappear as a story.
And that’s the important point here.

Whether or not it has been out there for 10 or 20 years is incidental if it wasn’t known by the majority of people. And given the integrity problem she’s now suffering because of the Tuzla incident, its timing is both significant and damaging - unlike when it first surfaced all those many years ago (when she was just some politician’s wife).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Aren’t the "Press" supposed to look into these kinds of things.

I mean, Clinton has run for Senate twice so you’d thunk by now somebody would have asked about her time on the Judiciary Committee or at least looked into it (not to mention Ken Starr).

She has one face-to-face meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife and wham!! This appears.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
"Aren’t the ’Press’ supposed to look into these kinds of things."
Some of them were, when this story was making its first lap in Usenet, about 1996. They were looking at it.

They just weren’t telling you or anyone else that they were looking at it.

Another aspect that I find hilarious is how the right has slagged-off David Brock the way they have for so long. When his book first dropped, it was a great disappointment to them (presumably because he didn’t indict Rodham as a lesbian), which is probably what drove the boy into the loving ideological arms that he currently enjoys. Last night, I e-mailed Malkin to let her know that she should tell one of her Hot Air commenters the truth: Brock was quoting Ziefman in 1996.

Bruce:
"Whether or not it has been out there for 10 or 20 years is incidental if it wasn’t known by the majority of people."
The fact that something like this has been generally ignored (this is not the same as "unknown") for this long by ostensible "professionals" who like to make a lot of noise about their information value to the society, is not "incidental". That’s the point, and I think you know it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
27 years old....hm, wasn’t that during the same time period she alleged she considered serving her country as a US Marine?

How interesting.

Maybe she considered that as a direct result of this guy giving her the boot.

She should have tried for la Légion étrangère perhaps, because she’s obviously REALLY good at forgetting what really happened to her during her life.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I mean, Clinton has run for Senate twice so you’d thunk by now somebody would have asked about her time on the Judiciary Committee or at least looked into it (not to mention Ken Starr).

She has one face-to-face meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife and wham!! This appears.
You misunderstand he source of this, I think.
She’s a threat to he attainment of power of the more liberal candidate, Obama.

It didn’t come out (again) before this, because she wasn’t a threat to the MOveOn Crowd.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider