Posted on 03/31/2008 5:29:44 AM PDT by Invisigoth
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
We need to FLOOD the MSM with scandals.
“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,”
Sorta like the Rose Law Firm Billing records...who knew they’d been hidden, er, ‘misplaced’, in Hillary’s private office while under subpeona for the better part of two years...
bump!
No kidding!
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Makes the Tuzla incident seem like small potatoes. Hope Rush picks it up and hopefully other radio hosts. It seems that once something about the Beast gets out there now it gets much more play than it would have in the past.
I don’t think we would have ever learned about such things without Operation Chaos. Thank God for Rush.
Typical Democrat. Zeifman didn’t care about this for 34 years, but now that his dear Obambi is in difficulty, he suddenly cares about the honesty of Democratic party leaders.
Clearly Hillary is no judicial scholar and even failed to pass the Washington DC bar exam. Hillary is driven by blind ambition and has nothing but contempt for those she sees as inferiors. As President she would have no compunction about twisting the law to her own ends.
Sorry to be so sceptical but in politics, charges of lying are very often lies themselves.
I asked someone to post this a while back. I’m glad it made it to FR.
I think this is pretty well known as faact.
Hildabeast's pattern of dishonesty is pervasive ... nothing new here. It's interesting how this pattern migrates to others they have dealings with ... i.e., Sandy (stuff the documents in your pants) Berger. The hundreds of FBI files that made there way over to the Clinton WH.
No wonder she and bill get along so well.
Great article by Dan Calabrese. Thanks for posting.
You are right. This piece says a great deal more about the ethics and morals of Democratic leadership than it does about Hillary.
It's obvious from the story that at the very least, multiple people of authority had to know about this. Behavior such as this does not remain a secret. That means more people than Zeifman have remained mum through both of her Senate runs.
Fear of the Clintons since the 90s could well have been sufficient to silence this one individual. But too many people had to be aware of this to stay silent for that reason alone. All of the Democrats (and press) that have protected and supported this woman for so long are disgusting, immoral whores.
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer.”
Just more of her many great accomplishments. For the children. And health care.
he’s talked about this before...nobody listened.
Sorry to be so sceptical but in politics, charges of lying are very often lies themselves.
Very reasonable statements. And correct. But we should consider the fact that the Clintons have been very successful in shredding paper trails over the decades. And intimidating others into burying evidence.
I think that quoting the chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee verbatim here lends a lot of credibility.
On the other hand, it's too bad the column doesn't give the name of the interviewer to whom these quotes were originally given. One has to wonder why the interviewer did not ask the extremely obvious question: Why did he remain silent on this very serious matter for decades?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.