posted April 02, 2008 02:49 PM            

I further maintained we didn't know the half of what Hillary...and Commander Corruption had done and probably never would know.

Something interesting has come up from Hillarys time on the committee staff during the runup to the possible impeachment of Richard Nixon.

Hillary Clinton is viewed unfavorably by more than 50% of those polled. Those are very high negative ratings for someone running for President...or anything else.

We know a lot of what Hillary has done but we didn't know this.

April 02, 2008
Shocking Revelations about Hillary Clinton's Watergate Committee Job
Rick Moran

According to this Daniel Calabrese article, Hillary Clinton was fired from her job as a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigations for, among other things, lying:

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.”

The fact that this hasn't come out prior to this election cycle (Patterico wrote about it here), is perhaps the most shocking revelation of all. One has to be convinced that if it were a Republican who had a past like this, the politician's career would never have gotten off the ground. Such a revelation - so easily discovered by simply asking her boss on the Committee - would have been all over the media if a Republican had been fired for "lying" amd violating "the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality."

Hillary Clinton has been a public figure for 20 years or more. She has run for office twice in New York. I am absolutely flabbergasted that the press was so incurious as to not dig this information out earlier or if it has been in the public domain, why it hasn't been given a huge amount of play by the news nets and major media. Is lying, violating ethics and the Constitution in a candidate's past not important to the voter when they make their decision on who to support for president?

Regardless, among Clinton's transgressions while on staff at the House Judiciary Committee were her apparent lying about not seeking to change House rules by assuring her boss she had no intention of doing so and then later being discovered that she was already advocating radical changes including a recommendation to deny President Nixon the right to counsel. Ziefman wrote on his own website:

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.

As Ed Morrissey points out:

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?

Hillary’s advocates could accuse Zeifman of conjuring up these stories in order to draw attention to himself in the middle of a presidential campaign. However, Calabrese reports that Zeifman kept diaries during this period, urged on by friends mindful of the historical nature of the Watergate investigation. No one would have known at the time that this 27-year-old barracuda would have any sort of national significance — which makes Zeifman’s testimony all the more compelling.

posted April 02, 2008 05:28 PM              

quote:

---

Clinton has been a public figure for 20 years or more. She has run for office twice in New York. I am absolutely flabbergasted that the press was so incurious as to not dig this information out earlier ...

---

We really need to stop feeling flabbergasted. This is the norm.

posted April 02, 2008 07:09 PM            

Who didn't get fired even once in their jobs?

I hate people who tell truth 100 percent anyways

All Obama issues gets thrown out the door just like that. And she is being biased unnecessarily

American media has its nuts loosened.

I am against dynasty when it comes to politics. But right now there is not even a single presidential nominee who is good enough. Bad crop in America this year

I do not like that health coverage is going universal. Perhaps there is too much fear now that SSN is going to go bankrupt. Are all this just a hype? Who knows? I posted a article "Trillion dollar asteroid..." perhaps no one even read it .

Keeping my eyes and ears open for an unbiased coverage

posted April 02, 2008 07:19 PM            

I promise you we all have discernment here

posted April 02, 2008 07:29 PM            

Do you know who our current president is???

posted April 02, 2008 09:59 PM            

But conservatives don't want Hillary to drop out of the primary race. Her campaign has been roughing up O'Bomber at times and things have come out about O'bomber which probably wouldn't have.

We don't want to see a coronation of O'Bomber before the Democrat National Convention. We want everything which can be known about O'Bomber known before the election. So far, lots of things have surfaced which can't simply be brushed under the carpet and we wonder how much more is hiding in the shadows of O'Bombers past and behind the carefully crafted persona he presents to the voters.

posted April 02, 2008 11:42 PM            

Get rid of her, she's blowing the election for Obama.

posted April 03, 2008 09:39 AM            

He just ripped him off and I agree more and more that Obama is a fluke person. Never maintains eye contact when responding to questions.

I also think that because he is a wimp, he might actually do something crazy as an American president. I say this based on his response to going directly inside pakistan for American interests and bombing them.

posted April 03, 2008 09:44 AM            

By staying in the primary race Hillary may expose more of O'Bombers past, his associations, his associates, his gurus and his propensity to shoot off his mouth on important subjects he knows little or nothing about; as he has done and is still doing.

posted April 03, 2008 10:15 PM            

It was very very likely that she would have exceeded Obama in popular votes after a double digit lead in Penn 2 weeks ago. But her snifer comment seems to have backfired on her and affected it and this can be seen as Obama narrors her lead in PA.

I can't believe that many Clinton supporters (superdelegates) are jumping ship to Obama. I think thats being hungry for power. Geez - politics is crazy and not everyone's cup of tea. Bill must be going redder LOL

posted April 04, 2008 07:34 PM            

Hillary and Bill Clinton must be beside themselves over the way the mainstream media have treated them this presidential election cycle. If they were glass-half-full types, the power couple would be counting their blessings that this treatment didn't kick in when Bill was committing and covering up his felonies.

Had the MSM been scrutinizing and exposing the Clintons' behavior in the '90s, it's very possible Bill never would have survived his impeachment ordeal. Imagine how different it would have been had the MSM focused their investigative microscopes and analytical energies on Hillary's cattle futures bonanza; the indefensible disappearance of her law firm billing records; her heartless and capricious firings of White House travel office personnel to benefit her friends; Bill's unconscionable, unsolicited pardons of FALN terrorist inmates to shore up the Hispanic vote for Hillary's New York Senate campaign; the endless trail of corruption with Red China and North Korea; the credible rape and sexual assault allegations against Bill coupled with Hillary's collusion in defusing the "bimbo eruptions"; and much more.

What a difference a few years and the advent of a promising young liberal candidate such as Barack Obama make. Now that the media have chosen sides in favor of Obama, they've lifted their protection for the Clintons, and we're getting a glimpse of the vulnerability of the Clintons when they're separated from their MSM bodyguards.

Not long ago, the MSM were heralding Bill as the first black president, with no apparent awareness of the absurdity of this caricature. Today they're showcasing his race-baiting antics in the primaries, making no effort to obscure, rationalize or apologize for them.

Until very recently, they couldn't get enough of the microphone-grabbing, attention-starved, headline-stealing former president. Today they deride him for the very narcissism they so shamelessly enabled and are even lamenting "Clinton fatigue."

Yesterday reporters held "St. Hillary" in awe, marveling at (and oblivious to the rank sophistry in) her "politics of meaning." They defended her when she donned her feminist cap and cavalierly dismissed stay-at-home moms, stating, "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession." And they shielded her from deserved charges of hypocrisy when not long after, she tried to pass herself off as a longtime cookie baker. Lately they've called her on some of her rankest inconsistencies, as on the question of whether illegal immigrants should receive driver's licenses.

In the '90s, they gushed over Bill's (and co-president Hillary's) "unprecedented" economic record. Today they note that Hillary's "trail of unpaid bills casts doubt" on her ability to manage her own money, let alone the United States economy.

Before, they dutifully disseminated her contrived vast right-wing conspiracy theory as if they'd co-authored it. Today they are mocking her newfound association with the arch villain of that sinister cabal, Richard Mellon Scaife.

A while back, they were defending the Clintons' refusal to turn over documents to the independent counsel and their suspicious blackout on their presidential records at the Clinton Library. Now ABC News is dogging Bill and Hillary for not releasing their family tax returns and portraying Bill, who has received approximately $50 million in speaking fees, as part of the class of super-rich people he customarily excoriated during his populist heyday.

They're even hinting at impropriety in Bill's financial relationships with billionaire Ron Burkle and fundraiser Vinod Gupta and questioning Clinton's offshore investments. They quote Jack Blum, "an attorney and leading expert on offshore tax havens," saying, "No average person has interest and funds in the Cayman Islands. This is all the above-average, non-tax-paying, super rich."

During the Clinton glory years, the MSM went so far as to defend Clinton's perjury as justified to counter a "perjury trap" set by that dastardly "renegade, partisan prosecutor." They pooh-poohed his finger-wagging denial that he had sex "with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Today they are repeatedly spotlighting his "frequent tirades" and including damning quotes from Democratic superdelegates on the receiving end of them, such as, "It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended."

If the MSM were capable of objectivity, we might even see some pockets of skepticism in their fiercely monolithic complicity in pressuring Hillary to drop out of the race, even though she's virtually tied with Obama, has won most of the states Democrats need to win in the general election, and Obama is potentially unelectable. We're operating under a new MSM template.

In the scheme of things, considering such concepts as justice and karma, the Clintons couldn't be more deserving of this whiplash-inducing reversal in MSM treatment. But we all should recognize this seminar in MSM bias and its powerful effect as the sordid reality it is.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60673