The Clinton Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now, I don't want Hillary to drop out, because I'm honestly enjoying this little circus, but she probably should do so now, and in a dignified and respectable manner, instead of dragging this out and letting people get to know the "real" Hillary. Her pattern of deceit and fabrication is becoming damning for her campaign. Here's a little article detailing just a bit of what I'm talking about:

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

March 31, 2008

Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior


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.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

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.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
 
Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...
:huh:
 
And in regards to people being pissed about Michigan/Florida, there was a proposal made today in regards to the Michigan vote that I personally think is a great compromise. They would keep the vote as is, giving the uncommited votes to Obama. Those votes would only account for 50% of the total delegates given. The other 50% would be based on the popular vote nationally. I don't know if it will fly, but it's a lot better than just counting the votes as is, privately financing a new election, or completely ignoring the state altogether in my opinion. Nonetheless, I think some sort of compromise in regards to those two states will happen at/before the convention. It's not to anyones benefit to ignore the states altogether.

That sounds like a horribly unfair solution. Firstly, why the hell should the national popular vote be taken into account in a state wide primary? Isn't that simply robbing Michigan of their delegates and creating an almost "National primary?"

Second, why should the uncommitted go to Obama when Edwards and a couple other delegates were in the race at the time? At least some of the Edwards supporters would go Clinton. You can't hand Obama votes simply because he is left. If you are going to divide "uncommited" votes without a second election, the only fair way to do it is to split them evenly.

This sounds to me like a cheap half-assed plan thrown together by an Obama operative within the Michigan state legislature in order to create the illusion that Obama is trying to have Michigan's voice heard, when in reality, he will only settle for a plan that is ridiculously biased towards him (as the one mentioned above is).
 
FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

For the second time in two weeks, Chelsea Clinton has been asked a question about the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Campaigning for her mother at North Carolina State University yesterday, a student brought up the scandal that lead to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The student said Chelsea should have answered the question because it happened while her father was president of the United States.


art.chelsea.dc.a.gi.jpg
BTW - Chelsea is 30. Your thoughts?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/01/chelsea-says-lewinsky-scandal-is-off-limits-is-she-right/
 
whatever....her fathers indisgressions in the white house paint a not very pretty picture of your mother...get over it...tell us the morbid details
 
I dunno, I dont see how this matters. Her Dad isnt running for President (or is he...)
 
No, she's not. If she were living the life of a private citizen and people were showing up at her apartment to ask questions, then I would agree. The fact is, she has made the choice to go out and campaign for her mother. Therefore any questions are fair game. She does not have to answer them, mind you...but the reporters have a right to ask.
 
It actually shows something about Hillary as much as it is about Bill.

Just as Obama attending a church that preached racism for 20 years says something about him :o
 
Asking a child about her parents' sex life has a really high "eww" factor and it's just plain tacky and disrespectful.
 
Again, not true. According to polls released last week, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, while 20% of Obama supporters say they will not vote for Clinton if either one of them becomes the nominee. After statisticians ran a few regressions and analyzed the number line, it was confirmed that 28 is higher than 20... meaning Obama is actually more divisive than Clinton...
:huh:

People, especially on this forum, have been complaining that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, more people in the Democratic Party will not vote for her than if Obama was the nominee. Those polls indicate that more of Clinton's supporters will flat-out refuse to vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. Which means Obama is at least as much of or more of a divisive figure than Clinton.
 
Chelsea Clinton does not have to answer any questions if she does not want to. While I think it's a bit tactless for reporters to ask her about this, they have a right to ask it.
 
Chelsea Clinton does not have to answer any questions if she does not want to. While I think it's a bit tactless for reporters to ask her about this, they have a right to ask it.

Of course they do. Both of her parents called the White House home for 8 years and seek to do so again. Asking her about things that her parents did in the White House when they occupied it is absolutely fair game.
 
Now, I don't want Hillary to drop out, because I'm honestly enjoying this little circus, but she probably should do so now, and in a dignified and respectable manner, instead of dragging this out and letting people get to know the "real" Hillary. Her pattern of deceit and fabrication is becoming damning for her campaign. Here's a little article detailing just a bit of what I'm talking about:

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

Well, then that settles it then.

Nader 08!
 
Dan
Calabrese


Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

March 31, 2008
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior

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.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

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.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # DC163. Request permission to publish here.
 
I posted this article in the "Should Hillary Drop Out" thread. Good stuff there. I'd contact my newspaper and ask them to carry Calabrese's column, but there's no way in Hell the Atlanta Journal-Constitution would ever go for that.
 
As I've said in other threads, Bill Clinton's extracurriculars have no place in this election.
 
Of course they do. Both of her parents called the White House home for 8 years and seek to do so again. Asking her about things that her parents did in the White House when they occupied it is absolutely fair game.

Then ASK her parents.
 
Then ASK her parents.

Hey, if she's out there campaigning for her mom, she is acting as a surrogate of sorts. If she's expected to field questions about her parents' activities when Bill was president, then I fail to see how her family's sexual indiscretions are not fair game.
 
Um is public info, nothing is off limits
 
Thread with merged thread already started on this subject....
 
Myth: I give a crap about myths........











*snicker*
 
While I agree it is a tasteless and tactless question to ask, I don't think its an unfair or unreasonable question to ask. The questions addresses Hillary's character and leadership ability in times of personal weaknesses and how these personal weaknesses may impact the public domain. While Monica was a 10-year old affair for bill, it demonstrated a personal weakness in Bill Clinton that tainted his presidency forever, it's unlikely as time progresses he'll ever be ranked in top half best presidents considering his impeachment. First, he had a personal problem (or "addiction") he could not control that allowed him to violate his marriage vows (which he's been doing for years as governor). His personal problems allowed him to sexually take advantage of several employees of the government, creating several conflicts of interests and inappropriate relationships that can taint the confidence in public policy decisions he's made. Because of his problems, he had to lie about it and coerced others to lie which became a public distraction. He put others including Monica in legal jeapordy. He further undermined the confidence and trust the American people had in his words.

Think of it this way. Is the fact that someone is privately a compulsive gambler the business of a boss at work? If it impacts the work the gambler does, then yes. Clinton's affair impacted his work in the White House and lead to a public distraction that cost the American people millions of dollars.

I understand this is about Hillary and not about Bill, but Hillary's response to spouse's infedlities does suggest things about her character. She knew her husband was lying adulterer..her decision to paint herself and her husband as victims of some conspiracy when they're actually lying about something that he actually commited shows you have to question everything she says or does and that her character may lead to scenarios that can easily create a distraction in the White House.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,370
Messages
22,093,119
Members
45,888
Latest member
amyfan32
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"