Feeds:
Posts
Comments
Duty Honor Country on Parade

Duty Honor Country on Parade

The following article gives everyone good reason to question Hillary Clinton’s veracity and thus her fitness to be President. What difference does it make? To me integrity makes a big difference. .

 

By DAN CALABRESE – Bet you didn’t know this.

I’ve decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton’s performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary’s conduct at the time.

I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn’t reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary’s arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I’ve combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you’re interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it’s worth your time to read it.

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 investigatio

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.

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”

That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.

But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.

After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.

Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.

(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)

This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.

According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.

The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:

Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.

Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential “abuse of power” as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.

As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.

Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.

In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:

Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .

In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.

Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.

“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.

But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.

All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.

“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.

“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”

Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.

A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.

Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.

By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.

“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”

Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.

God Bless the USA - Remembering 9/11

God Bless the USA – Remembering 9/11 (Photo credit: Al_HikesAZ)

I hope all those who are out of work find employment that not only meets their financial needs but brings them personal satisfaction.  May all the newborn children enjoy a world better than the one their parents were born into,  may all those who suffer with health problems find relief from their suffering and may God Bless Us All.

Official portrait of Secretary of State Hillar...

Guess the NY Times decided to get ahead of the pack in electing Hillary as first Women President.  As usual all they can do is lie for her because the truth has never served the Lady well. The New York Times so called investigative report on what happened in Benghazi is as Bogus as their theme, all the News That’s fit to Print, make that “Which we see fit to print”

 

As some may remember, there was very little truth involved in Hillaary’s Congressional testimony regarding The Rose law firm
( for example, the files found on a desk in the Presidential quarters at the White House?); or how about Billy Boys philandering (remember that was all a right-wing conspiracy); and of course we had all those around the world vacations she took her daughter on at Government expense,  oh excuse me I forgot, they were diplomatic excursions for  the President, nice being an ambassador even before you become Secretary of State.  Now we have Benghazi and the insidious video that caused four Americans including our Ambassador to be killed, sans  security in an area known to be threatened by terrorists.  These are the same people who accuse Bush of being a liar.  Bush may have been wrong about Weapons of Mass Destruction but he didn’t lie about it,  he believed Saddam had them, with good reason since he had used them before on the Kurds.   

 Oh well,  I guess it doesn’t much matter to some voters whether a President has integrity,  maybe that’s because many of them don’t even know what that means.

Barack Obama

Barack Obama (Photo credit: jamesomalley)

Does President Obama prevaricate or  lie? Is he disingenuous, or actually  stupid?  Or is he just deliberately  ignorant of how his Administration works.? As Hillary would say “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE’!!!!!!

The affordable health care program has obviously been a fraud from its inception..  No one really read it because they didn’t need too.  The big secret is that the program was designed to fail from the beginning and the Democrats were in on the scam.  No one  wanted to read it and then have to say they were in on the joke played on the American People.

Why would I say this? I say this  because it is becoming more and more apparent that the whole point of shoving this program down America’s throats was to destroy the private insurance companies so that America would beg the Government to provide Universal Health Care for them.  You think I am making this up,  well then explain why supposedly otherwise brilliant people would take three years to develop a software program they knew would fail then insist on putting it up on the web anyway.   Why would they make regulations demanding the Insurance companies change their plans,  pretend they didn’t know millions would lose their plans because of their regulations,  then try and blame the Insurance companies for having changed their plans and insist they change them back – no insurance company can survive this kind of manipulations, and this Administration knew that from the beginning.

President Obama talks about phony scandals but there was nothing phony about Benghazi except for the President’s rationalizations about the attack, there was nothing phony about the IRS targeting members of the Taxed Enough Already Party except the Administrations excuses for having developed such a policy , there was nothing phony about the Justice Department going after a Fox reporter except the dodges that the Administration took to escape responsibility for criminally pursuing a reporter for doing his job.  And there was nothing phony about Republicans trying to repeal OBAMACARE,  it was OBMACARE itself that was PHONY!

This Administration’s Czars may not be brilliant but they are too clever by half and obviously will use any tactic to accomplish the fulfillment of their utopian wet dream. We have an administration that believes Government is God and you shall not put any other God’s before them. their ethics are those professed by  Communists,  namely situation ethics – which in essence states  “In any given situation what ever I do to advance my own interests is ethical” thus you can lie, cheat, steal from the people and call it social justice.

Robbing Peter to buy Paul’s votes is not social justice.  And what ever some teachers from Notre Dame might believe Jesus did not support BIG Government.  He did not believe Government was responsible for taking care of our Neighbor in need,  Jesus preached that  we individually thru personal sacrifice for our own salvation were expected to look to the needs of  our fellow-man.

I don’t know what it will take for ordinary people to realize that they only suffer greatly under all large central governments such as those of  Caesar, Napoleon, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and now   Obama —–Bloated,  centralized  Governments such as Obama is creating with his plan to dramatically change America  is not your friend,  never was your friend, never will be your friend.  Big centralized government is  all about Power for Control Freaks who could care less about anyone but themselves.

 

English: Depiction of the Senate vote on H.R. ...

English: Depiction of the Senate vote on H.R. 3590 (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) on December 24, 2009, by state. Two Democratic yeas One Democratic yea, one Republican nay One Republican nay, one Republican not voting Two Republican nays (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I don’t know how many of you may have seen this video,  it is a winner.

 
 

  I am so tired of the media and the talking heads on CNN, CBS  NBC and ABC trying to sell the CZARS and ACTION FIGURES in this Administration as the Best and the Brightest,  they most certainly are the most Devious and deceitful  as in Benghazi, IRS phony scandals and Obamacare fraud,  thank goodness there are people out there willing to call it as they see it.

Hokum Pokum

Development of debt ceiling from 1990. Source:...

Development of debt ceiling from 1990. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist07z3.xls. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Somebody explain to me the point of a debt ceiling if you just keep raising it when the Progressives want to spend more money.

Why the tea party is called a bunch of freaks when all they want to do is live within our means,  while those who want to spend us into oblivion and sentence our children and grandchildren to the role of  indentured servants of a constantly expanding  federal government are considered rational reasonable practical politicians.

It seems to me the biggest problem this nation faces is that through its education system most of our citizens have become  convenient tools of those who favor an ever-expanding federal Government dedicated to nothing other than redistributing the wealth of the Nation until there is no more wealth to redistribute.  It seems most of our media is not capable of individual thought,  and are but parrots constantly repeating the progressive party line.   When our educators no longer educate but indoctrinate, and our free press is nothing other than pampered  pets of  progressive politicians constantly begging the Government for a bone there is little hope of an electorate who can make rational and intelligent choices necessary for self governance.  Unfortunately we have become exactly what our forefathers tried so hard to save us from becoming, and we brought it all on  ourselves.,  or at least some did,  and only the tea party is sounding the alarm and they are considered kooks.  Give me a break

The wildest part of this fight over Obamacare is that it has nothing to do with anyone’s actual health care.

Obomacare doesn’t provide for one more nurse, one more doctor, one more clinic,  one more emergency room, one more ambulance, one more helicopter, one more pharmacy, one more hospital.  Instead it  demands that everyone have health insurance or pay a fine to the Government.  It of course does provide for an expansion of the IRS.

For this all Americans will now be able to have their 26-year-old kid on their insurance, they can not be refused insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  However since there are no more Doctors, supposedly 30 million more insured, and  low caps on what insurance Companies will pay,

English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Prot...

English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House Español: Barack Obama firmando la Ley de Protección al Paciente y Cuidado de Salud Asequible en la Casa Blanca (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

odds are people will not be able to get an appointment with a Dr. for months and thus in most cases those with health problems needing attention will end up in the emergency room,  and those with catastrophic health problems will come up short of means to pay the medical bills,  so here we are with more Government debt and right back where we started when Government under the Progressives in Congress and President Obama decided they and only they knew how to solve our health care problems.  Such Chutzpah ——and they call the Tea Party a bunch of crazy extremists.  And to protect this Program from being changed in any way by a Republicans Congress who has the authority to change bills,  they are willing to support Pres. Obama ( who has changed the bill without the right to do so) in shutting down the Government.   And Cruz is getting the blame for all this?  Where are the truth seekers – not in the Media obviously and not among so-called Progressives both Democrat and Republican.  Seems like the Tea Party is the only group who actually understands the Constitution – and for this they are called terrorists and worse.  God help us.

%d bloggers like this: