Will Media Give Story About Hillary's Unethical Past the Legs It Deserves? (Hillary's Nixon Days)

NewsBusters.org ^ | April 1, 2008 - 20:48 ET | John Stephenson |

[TexasCajun]

I hope the media gives this the legs it deserves. It may be early in Hillary's career, but it gives a clear picture to the roots of her character and its quite disturbing stuff.

Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, comes out calling Hillary a career liar and says she wanted to deny Nixon the basic right to counsel!

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.”

There are some very serious charges he lays out as well.

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff — where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethical flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with – or take depositions of — any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Departments special Watergate prosecutor

Ed Morrissey:

The right to counsel is considered one of the inviolable tenets of our justice system. It doesn’t speak well of ambitious attorneys working on a highly-charged political investigation that she wanted to deny someone the right to an attorney. Small wonder Zeifman questioned her ethics. If all she did was to propose that as a tactic, that would not make it terribly concerning — but she did much more than just spitball ideas. When informed that public evidence showed a precedent for the right to counsel, she absconded with the files to eliminate the evidence. Does that remind anyone of later incidents in the Clinton narrative, such as the billing records for the Rose Law offices and the 900+ raw FBI files on political opponents of the Clintons

These are very serious charges to Clinton's character. Of course it isn't news that she is a liar, but the detailed ugly details of wanting to deny someone basic Constitutional rights for the sake of a political vendetta has the potential to do her in. If the media gives this the legs it deserves Hillary's political future could cease to exist. Hopefully they don't sweep this one under the rug.

[TexasCajun]

Big Media and liberals seem to be getting sick and tired of Hillary's Rocky & Tonya Harding impersonations.

I expect them to get tougher and harsher on her as she refuses to accept defeat.

[VR-21]

"How is it we're only just now hearing this from that joker Zeifman, when it would REALLY have been useful say about the last half of October 1992 when it might have kept the Grifters OUT of the White House?"

He wrote and published his book in 1995, but the MSM pretty much made sure it stayed in obscurity. Anybody who made any attempt to tell the world how scummy the Clintons were was dismissed as a partisan kook back then.

[ryan71]

“worse than Nixon is not a bad label for her”.

Nice idea.

How about a photoshop of her doing the Nixon, “I'm not a crook”?

[SunkenCiv]

Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff:
Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm
Posted on 04/01/2008 9:13:18 PM PDT by sasherm13
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1995323/posts