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 pointed out:
After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her
I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. 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.
Hillary had also made other ethical flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with – or take depositions of — any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Departments special Watergate prosecutor.
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.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/01/hillary-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior-from-senate-job-former-boss/
http://patterico.com/2008/02/06/jerry-zeifman-hillary-as-i-knew-her-in-1974/
Caught out in her deceptions working on the Watergate committee, and lacking a recommendation from Zeifman, PLUS having failed the D.C. bar, Hillary headed for Bill and Arkansas. There, as a favor to a judge, she took on the pro bono (unpaid) defense of a 42 year old man accused of raping a 12 year old girl. His co-rapist had already pled guilty, but Hillary lucked out when the inept Arkansas officials lost the pieces of the victim's panties which had tested positive for Hillary's client's DNA. As part of Hillary's win-at-any-cost defense, she spread rumors that the 12 year old girl was promiscuous and had a bad reputation of approaching older men. Hillary even referred to these lies in an affidavit she submitted to the court. And you know what, folks? No matter what that 12 year old girl's history was, we're talking STATUTORY RAPE!
Every time I hear Hill or her followers claim she's a feminist or protector of women and children, I want to hurl.
She spread vicious rumors about the 12 year old rape victim whose rapist she got off on a technicality , but whom she believed to be guiltyl. Years later Hillary was interviewed and the tape records her laughing about how her client passed a lie detector test, and this forever destroyed her faith in lie detectors. She LAUGHED about it.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/06/hillarys-sisterhood-questioned-again-as-rape-victim-speaks-out/
(and if someone doesn't like this link, just google Hillary Clinton-rape victim-12 year old.
From Josh Rogin at The Daily Beast, Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says:
Hillary Clinton is known as a champion of women and girls, but one woman who says she was raped as a 12-year-old in Arkansas doesn’t think Hillary deserves that honor. This woman says Hillary smeared her and used dishonest tactics to successfully get her attacker off with a light sentence—even though, she claims, Clinton knew he was guilty.
The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week.
In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.
“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault.
The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago.
= new reply since forum marked as read
