Sorry RM Hillary Almost Disbarred

[Gaspar]

From a Dan Calabrese article yesterday.  Another case of hiding documents?

Ex-boss Jerry Zeifman exposes reasons for firing Hillary.


1.  Hillary Rodham gets a spot on the legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee upon the recommendation of a lawyer pal of Ted Kennedy.

2. The man who hires Hillary is Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat.

3. The House Judiciary Committee is investigating Richard Nixon with an eye on impeachment.

4. A question arises as to whether or not Nixon is legally entitled to counsel during the investigation. If so, his council would be allowed to cross examine witnesses appearing before the panel.

5. The concern about having counsel for Nixon cross examine witnesses centered on E. Howard Hunt. Democrats on the committee feared that Nixon's counsel would elicit information from Hunt that would be very damaging to the Kennedys.

6. Zeifman tells Hillary that Nixon is entitled to counsel. He cites documents in the committee's public file referencing the fact that Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas had representation four years earlier while he was being investigated.

7. Hillary removes the documents from the committees public file and places them under lock and key in her office where they are not available for media or public scrutiny.

8. Hillary then prepares a brief for filing with a federal judge which falsely states that there is no precedent for an official being investigated by the committee to have legal representation during that investigation.

9. Nixon resigns before Hillary has a chance to submit the brief in which she makes knowingly false claims.

10. Because of this Zeifman fires Hillary. Hillary asks for a letter of recommendation. Zeifman says no. This was only the third time in Zeifman's 17 years with the committee that he had refused a letter of recommendation.

Zeifman told Dan Calabrese that if Hillary had actually submitted the brief she most likely would have been disbarred.

[cannon_fodder]

I'm sure she just misspoke, err mis-drafted and then accidentally removed the document.

[RecycleMichael]

Why would you believe this story?

This guy writes a story about what he now recalls happened four decades ago and he just decides he should tell everybody? Where is his proof? Who corroborates his story? He thinks she would have been disbarred? I say he is a liar.

Let's post stories about Obama forty years ago. I am sure he has some kids from his class who will just now remember how he cheated on his math test. If he would have been caught, I am sure he would have been expelled.

[Gaspar]

It is kind of strange that it comes out now.  Zeifman is going to hit the talk show circuit this week.  

He's got a book he's pushing  http://www.jzeifman.com/

Typical lawyer.  

Ya just can't trust em.!

[Conan71]

"6. Zeifman tells Hillary that Nixon is entitled to counsel. He cites documents in the committee's public file referencing the fact that Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas had representation four years earlier while he was being investigated.

7. Hillary removes the documents from the committees public file and places them under lock and key in her office where they are not available for media or public scrutiny.

8. Hillary then prepares a brief for filing with a federal judge which falsely states that there is no precedent for an official being investigated by the committee to have legal representation during that investigation.

9. Nixon resigns before Hillary has a chance to submit the brief in which she makes knowingly false claims."

I guess what troubles me is what was a cub attorney doing with this much responsibility, something which could and did, in part, affect the leadership of our nation?   Hillary graduated from Yale Law in 1973, just a little over a year before Nixon resigned.  

It's no small secret she attended the 1968 GOP convention as a supporter to Rockefeller and was so put off by Nixon that she eventually became a Democrat.  Interesting story if it's true.  That certainly would show she's a master at making good on a grudge.

[RecycleMichael]

I tell you...it is all a lie.

Lying about a presidential candidate just to push a book you wrote.

Pitiful. He should be ashamed.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Why would you believe this story?

A very fair point.  I can not say I believe the story.  But to me it is keeping with character.  Taking documents from the national archive, out right lying about her landing under fire, her husbands overt lies under oath (remember, a prime reason for supporting her is because he husband was so great), and the notorious cut throat Clinton political machine.  

So I can't say I believe it any more than any other political crap, but I have no reason to regard it as less truthful than anything she says.  

Maybe it never happened, and he just misspoke.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I tell you...it is all a lie.

Lying about a presidential candidate just to push a book you wrote.

Pitiful. He should be ashamed.

Yes, he broke new ground as an author, it's never happened before...

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

...her husbands overt lies under oath (remember, a prime reason for supporting her is because he husband was so great), and the notorious cut throat Clinton political machine.  

Nice slams on Hillary.

The fact that her husband was president is way down on my list of reasons I support her candidacy. That is very demeaning.

Notorious cut throat Clinton political machine?

Whatever.

If you want to support a different candidate, fine. But what good is it to take this to that level?

[cannon_fodder]

RM, I am not intending to slam Hillary.  That is my honest opinion of her.

And while you have many other reasons to support her, polls indicate that "Bill's wife" is high on many other people's list - including our own HT (great economy under Bill was how it was phrased).  So if many people consider Bill an asset, why am I barred from considering him as a liability?  I understand that this does not apply to you if you have other reasons for your support.

And the Clintons are notorious for a cut throat brand of politics.  You may think it is an ill-deserved reputation but I think it is a fare assessment of it.    

So I don't think I took anything to a new level.   I simply gave the reasons why I did not dismiss this story.  And if many people can question Obama because of his preacher, why can't I question Hillary on her history, her husband, and her reputation?

BUT, I understand you are invested in Hillary and I respect your contributions, so I'll try to hold back.

[RecycleMichael]

Thanks.

Politics is a nasty business, but we don't have to be part of it.

[custosnox]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Thanks.

Politics is a nasty business, but we don't have to be part of it.

Hence the reason I read the political posts but try not to posts. Well, that and I don't support ANY of the candidates.  I am going to be in a real mess in a few months.