Hillary's Habit of Lying Dates Back At Least to the Watergate Hearings
Courtesy, once again, of RealityHammer:
http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm
Hillary tried to deny President Nixon legal counsel, and she was willing to lie and to steal official documents in order to do so.
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.”
And why did she do these things?
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.
This is a key point, because it indicates that Hillary viewed Watergate purely in partisan rather than constitutional terms. She wanted to savage the Republicans, not to check the Executive from unconstitutional actions. Indeed, she clearly saw abuses of power by the Executive as no problem -- provided that he was a President of her own party.
And what did she actually do? She argued that Nixon had no right to a lawyer during impeachment proceedings (notably, she did not make this argument during a different President's impeachment, in the 1990's).
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.
Faced with this evidence, did she retract her claim? No, because that would have been to admit that Hillary Was Wrong, which was to her a clear impossibility and violation of the Natural Order. Instead:
“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.
In other words, she removed public documents and tried to pretend that the matters referred to in them had never happened. This was not only totalitarian in basic intent (she wanted to drop them down the "memory hole") but profoundly stupid, as the events referenced had occcured only a few years ago, and thus would have been well-remembered and referenced by other sources. Did she really expect Nixon, and his counsel, to overlook such a transparent ploy? This was neither the first nor the last time that Hillary would attempt something both illegal and easily noticable, and expect to get away with it.
But, to get back to the main story:
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
It's a shame, really, that she didn't submit it to a judge. A disbarrment so early in her career would have ended it, before she could trouble anyone else with her perpetual carping and whining.
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.
If I were Ziefman, I would have that diary repeatedly copied and the copies placed in secure locations. And then hire bodyguards. Those who have possessed information far less damaging to the Clintons have often failed to make old bones.
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.
Yep.
And the other Democratic Presidential candidate is an anti-American racist.
What are the Democrats thinking this campaign season?
http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm
Hillary tried to deny President Nixon legal counsel, and she was willing to lie and to steal official documents in order to do so.
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.”
And why did she do these things?
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.
This is a key point, because it indicates that Hillary viewed Watergate purely in partisan rather than constitutional terms. She wanted to savage the Republicans, not to check the Executive from unconstitutional actions. Indeed, she clearly saw abuses of power by the Executive as no problem -- provided that he was a President of her own party.
And what did she actually do? She argued that Nixon had no right to a lawyer during impeachment proceedings (notably, she did not make this argument during a different President's impeachment, in the 1990's).
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.
Faced with this evidence, did she retract her claim? No, because that would have been to admit that Hillary Was Wrong, which was to her a clear impossibility and violation of the Natural Order. Instead:
“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.
In other words, she removed public documents and tried to pretend that the matters referred to in them had never happened. This was not only totalitarian in basic intent (she wanted to drop them down the "memory hole") but profoundly stupid, as the events referenced had occcured only a few years ago, and thus would have been well-remembered and referenced by other sources. Did she really expect Nixon, and his counsel, to overlook such a transparent ploy? This was neither the first nor the last time that Hillary would attempt something both illegal and easily noticable, and expect to get away with it.
But, to get back to the main story:
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
It's a shame, really, that she didn't submit it to a judge. A disbarrment so early in her career would have ended it, before she could trouble anyone else with her perpetual carping and whining.
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.
If I were Ziefman, I would have that diary repeatedly copied and the copies placed in secure locations. And then hire bodyguards. Those who have possessed information far less damaging to the Clintons have often failed to make old bones.
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.
Yep.
And the other Democratic Presidential candidate is an anti-American racist.
What are the Democrats thinking this campaign season?