Patterico's Pontifications

2/6/2008

Jerry Zeifman: “Hillary as I Knew Her in 1974″

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 11:28 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

I doubt this Accuracy in Media article will get much attention since it’s old news, but it should:

“I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears.

My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.”

That’s just the first two paragraphs. Read it and weep.

– DRJ

30 Responses to “Jerry Zeifman: “Hillary as I Knew Her in 1974″”

  1. Got a cached version you can snip some more from? The AIM site seems to be down…

    Flip Pidot (d2b362)

  2. Never mind – back up.

    Flip Pidot (d2b362)

  3. I’ve seen this years ago. Hillary always a shyster.

    PCD (c378fd)

  4. Her tactics are horrid and deceitful. She’s just not sporting.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  5. Yawn. We already knew what Hillary was like.

    Also, I’d have to consult the books, but I seem to remember most, if not all, of the “ethically unacceptable” procedures Hillary advocated for the impeachment hearings had all been used at one or another in prior impeachment procedures (the impeachments of the Federalist judges and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson stick out in my mind as the most likely instances.)

    kishnevi (fc6894)

  6. good article. yup, hilly is a piece of work alright.

    james conrad (7cd809)

  7. Jerry Zeifman has been at this twelve years, using his most reliable source – his diary – which contains few revelations other than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations.

    It’s not clear he had firing authority over Hillary. After the project on which she was working was terminated by Nixon’s resignation, all the staff hired for that project was being let go.

    In his piece, Zeifman says he and Speaker Tip O’Neill worked to “keep Rodino’s feet to the fire” in hopes of replacing Nixon with Gerald Ford. Rodino was Zeifman’s boss. His Machiavellian end-run is the most unethical thing cited in a tell-all on Hillary’s ethics.

    steve (334021)

  8. I’d never heard of this guy before. By the time I was done with three minutes of Googling, I see that this self-described “liberal Democrats” was (1) a vociferous supporter of Joe Lieberman and furious at the Democratic primary voters who reject him [that would be the same Joe Lieberman who is supporting John McCain now, a rather curious decision for genuine liberal Democrats], (2) called for Nancy Pelosi to resign or be deposed as Speaker, (3) despises Ted Kennedy, and (4) announced he was opposed to the re-election of Bill Clinton in 1996.

    No offense, but this guy is no longer a liberal Democrat. His claims against Hillary Clinton might be true, although it’s a little hard for me to see conspiracies masterminded by a 27-year-old who must have been one of the most junior members of the staff. But the bona fides he presents to back them up are nonsense.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  9. On his blog, Zeifman describes himself as a “lifelong Democrat”; perhaps he described himself as a liberal one, too, but I didn’t see it.

    His call for Pelosi to resign is based on her ethics, not politics. Unless your position is that liberal Democrats should ignore ethical lapses of their leaders, your point there is pretty weak.

    In any event, you say that his bona fides on the Hillary matter are nonsense. How so?

    After the project on which she was working was terminated by Nixon’s resignation, all the staff hired for that project was being let go.

    He doesn’t seem to be claiming that he fired her for ethical lapse, but he did say he wouldn’t recommend her after her termination. How does this point contradict claims of Hillary’s ethics problems?

    Steverino (e00589)

  10. It’s interesting to see the Democrats ho-humming the Hillary stories of ethical lapses. There is another such story over at Gateway Pundit about her donor who produced the anti-American Turkish movie last year. A commenter, like Andrew here, says it’s old news. Of course it’s old news! The Clintons have been around for years and are still corrupt!

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  11. I’m as eager for good dirt on Hillary as anyone, but I was underwhelmed by this “exposé.”

    It’s disingenuous to suggest, for example, that a position taken by staff counsel regarding whether a president is entitled to counsel in an impeachment proceeding is so obviously wrong that it could be the basis for a bar association reprimand. Zeifman didn’t make the bar complaint at the time because it would have been promptly rejected as lacking merit.

    Likewise, there’s no smoking gun in the revelation that Teddy Kennedy would have rather run against Nixon than Ford in 1976, or that Teddy and his minions weren’t above trying to manipulate the impeachment investigation in ways to promote that goal. You mean there were politics involved in the Nixon impeachment investigation?!? I’m shocked, shocked!

    There are more recent, more culpable, and more important examples of Hillary contriving to make important evidentiary documents unavailable. There are more recent, more culpable, and better documented examples of her and her husband abusing public office for personal financial gain. Speculation about her motivations moving some files to a nonpublic office (with no clear showing of motive or adverse result) or potential (and surely trivial) profits from book royalties (could the book have sold more than 200 copies?) are weak soup indeed.

    Beldar (3df1f4)

  12. It’s disingenuous to suggest, for example, that a position taken by staff counsel regarding whether a president is entitled to counsel in an impeachment proceeding is so obviously wrong that it could be the basis for a bar association reprimand.

    Reading the post, I gathered the Zeifman wasn’t offended by Hillary’s suggestion so much as her lying about it. She had promised him she wouldn’t seek to change the rules when she was already seeking to do so.

    But you might have read it differently, there’s room for honest disagreement here.

    Steverino (3cbef4)

  13. Here’s the part I noticed:

    “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.”

    Obviously, we don’t know if Zeifman’s claims are true but, in my view, accusations of lying are serious. Even if they aren’t under oath.

    DRJ (517d26)

  14. Zeifman told Hillary not to recommend rules changes before she ever started working, but she did (never says at whose behest, but not very likely her own). I’m guessing those in their first legal job after law school don’t have authority to engineer grand Washington conspiracies. Zeifman, for his part, says he was dealing with the Speaker behind Chairman Rodino’s back all this time.

    steve (43dfed)

  15. Welcome to our world, Andrew J. Lo, how many times over the course of the last few election cycles have we seen comments from a “lifelong Republican” who has finally had enough and is going out of his way to trash the programs or character of some GOP politico or other? I don’t see any difference other than the choice of ox being gored.

    Go ahead and do what the partisans on the right do; find the contribution or public utterance or act that allows you to declare the source “not of MY tribe.” I’ll be waiting with my scotch glass and an amused grin at the notion of sauce for the goose…

    kaz (24ef8c)

  16. Zeifman insists Hillary subverted a specific order not to re-draft Rodini impeachment committee rules.

    But unlike last time, he left out the part she was ordered to do it:

    The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall – in violation of committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also advocated by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had worked under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.

    “Apparently initiated,” was it. Honest injun?

    Zeifman’s narrative of dark plotters, suspicions and speculation needs a little actual evidence.

    steve (39d7d3)

  17. Er, the “Rodino” committee.

    steve (39d7d3)

  18. So, Andrew–are you saying that anyone who wants a President to be indicted for war crimes is per se a loon who shouldn’t be listened to on any subject? That would be cool–but your crowd is going to get hit harder with that rule than Republicans are. Big time.

    M. Scott Eiland (b66190)

  19. And here’s Zeifman on why Clinton needed to be impeached for bribery. Don’t miss the fact he’s a Vince Foster Truther.

    I don’t know whether Zeifman was cuckolded by Bill or by Hillary, but he’s got Clinton Derangement Syndrome to a clinical level.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  20. Hillary rubbing elbows with radicals and extremists and the BLACK PANTHERS

    krazy kagu (2768c2)

  21. Andrew, thinking that Clinton committed bribery at various times is not a wild stretch of the imagination. OTOH, there is this line from the Insight article(that is, the link in comment 14) which must have come (via an unintelligent reporter) from Zeifman himself:
    Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat whose meticulous preparation of the case against Richard Nixon forced the Republican president out of the White House,

    Yup, he did it all by himself, and no one else lifted a finger….

    kishnevi (3ff2ab)

  22. So the liberals on the committee staff were trying to stop the impeachment?

    stef (36b2cd)

  23. Time will tell, won’t it? Will it be too late to help the nation? I’m old enough to know I will only begin to see the damage this female and her cohorts do to America. I feel sorry for the children and grandchildren.

    Sue (36c729)

  24. Captain Ed of Hot Air has linked this thread since Zeifman’s recollections have been revived anew.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  25. Heard you inteview on the radio today. Thank You very much. Wish all americans would take a little time to research Miss Thing.

    Karen w. (d0455d)

  26. Since both Accuracy in Media & Accuracy in Academia are Hillary Clinton creatures, it’s a wonder Mr. Zeifman ever got his account of firing Hillary Clinton into the light of day. His story is important though. Nor only does it go to character, it goes to a lifelong pattern on Hillary Clinton’s part, of lying and obfuscation. This is what we must know; before appointing a person to a position of trust; and it’s this awareness that every white-collar criminal must fine-tune his or her antenna for. The things I did hear about Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham during the Watergate Investigation were wholly consistent. They make total sense. Word of mouth may travel only so far, but today we have new technologies. Lest anyone doubt Mr. Zeifman’s veracity regarding Hillary Clinton: http://theseedsof9-11.com

    Peggy McGilligan (f77c16)

  27. Read the axe-to-grind links above. He believes the clintons killed vince foster, wanted bill clinton tried fror war crimes and loves him some joe lieberman.

    And may not have had the power to fire her, anyway.

    The guy is slippery with eh truth. To put a right-spin on it – almost as slippery as Bill Clinton.

    He’s clearly no longer a Democrat, or rather a DINO.

    He sells his books for less than $5. He has nothing for people to believe but his own diary and an apparent deep-seated hatred.

    Before we all jump up and down and say, oh the national media won’t cover this, perhaps we need to really look at the source and wonder aloud on credibility. (Or like so many other things it will become part of the narrative regardless of truth)

    Temple

    Temple Stark (b18952)

  28. Odd, Temple, credibility has never been a requirement for the MSM to attack Republicans.

    And thanks for reading out Zeifman from the Democratic party – is that still done with bell, book and candle or is just a Che Guevara t-shirt enough?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. If this is all a lie, why hasn’t Hillary sued him for libel or slander?

    Quinton (4e1d85)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4466 secs.