article author Jerry Zeifman will be a guest on the Straight Call radio talk show, with Rob Kall and Jim Strait Thursday, March 27, 8:00 PM EST at AM 1360 or on-line on WNJC online.
originally posted Feb 6, 2008
Hillary's Crocodile Tears in Connecticut
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. Hillary as I new her in 1974
At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham -- who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House.
During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book Without Honor and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library.
After President Nixon's resignation a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel -- as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:
"John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics.] Labovitz said. 'That came from Yale.' I said "You mean Burke Marshall [Senator Ted Kennedy's chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] ' Labovitz said, 'Yes.' His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition."
At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.
Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After becoming a Yale professor he also became Senator Ted Kennedy's lawyer at the time of Chappaquidick -- as well as Kennedy's chief political strategist. As a result, some of his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the Camelot government in exile.
In addition to getting Hillary a job on the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, Kennedy and Marshall had also persuaded Rodino to place two other close friends of Marshall in top positions on our staff. One was John Doar; who had been Marshall's deputy in the Justice Department "" whom Rodino appointed to head the impeachment inquiry staff. The other was Bernard Nussbaum, who had served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York "" who was placed in charge of conducting the actual investigation of Nixon's malfeasance.
Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976 they hoped to keep Nixon in office "twisting in the wind"- for as long as possible. This would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and restoring moral authority to the Republican Party.
As was later quoted in the biography of Tip O'Neill (by John Farrell) a liberal Democrat would have become a "shoe in for the presidency in 1976"- if had Nixon been kept in office until the end of his term. However, both Tip O'Neil and I -- as well as most Democrats -- regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon with Ford as soon as possible. As a result. as described by O'Neill we coordinated our efforts to "keep Rodino's feet to the fire."-
A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon's effort to "cover up"- the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance). In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo.
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.
During World War II he enlisted in the Navy at age 17, completed a Navy
officers training program at Harvard, and eventually served in the North
Atlantic theater. After the war, he served as a communications officer on
USS Missouri BB63 on Cold War missions to Turkey, Greece, Italy and
North Africa, headed by Secretary of State James Byrnes. He later
received an A.B. from Harvard, then attended New York University
School of Law, and received a J.D. He later practiced law in South Nyack,
New York and was also the author State tax publications by Prentice Hall,
Inc.
His career in politics began in 1958 when he was elected Chairman of
the South Nyack Democratic Committee. In 1960 he worked with former
First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt in support of the unsuccessful candidacy
of Adlai Stevenson. When Senator John F.Kennedy won the nomination
they then campaigned in support of his successful campaign for President.
In 196I he was recruited by the House Judiciary Committee to serve as
counsel to its Special Subcommittee on State Taxation of Interstate
Commerce. Until 1972 he also served as chief counsel to its Subcommittee
on Civil Rights. Starting in 1973 he served as the Chief Counsel to the full
Judiciary Committee during its Nixon impeachment proceedings and the
confirmations of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller to serve as Vice
Presidents.
In 1975 he became a Professor of Law at the University of Santa Clara in
California. During that period he also served as a counsel to the local office
of Rep. Don Edwards (D CA) as well as a consultant to Governor Jay
Hammond of Alaska.In 1980 he retired from academia and returned to
Washington to do public interest work on behalf of the National Senior
Citizens Law Center and a number of AFL-CIO unions. Starting in 1995 he
became the author of books on politics and law.
Present Career As Author
Books: Without Honor: The Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of
President Nixon (1995); Hillary's Pursuit of Power (2006); Memoirs of a
Roosevelt Democrat (to be published in February 2008).
Articles: Wall Street Journal; Washington Times; Insight Magazine;
NewsMax; National Ledger; World Net Daily; New York Post.
...to confirm what has become patently obvious to anyone with a pulse who hasn't been brainwashed by Hillary's vile momentum. The trail of slime is unmistakeable without Bill coming behind her to try to tidy it up.
Where were your allegations when Bill Clinton was running for President the first time?
by
Richard Volaar (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 107 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 8:54:52 AM
We should evaluate candidates based on their own strengths and weaknesses, not those of their spouses. Mr. Zeifman's article is relevant to the discussion about why Hillary Rodham Clinton should not be President, but it would not have been relevant to Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential campaign. I have always thought that Bill Clinton was/is an unethical, self-serving opportunist, but I reluctantly voted for him twice. If Hillary Rodham Clinton wills her way to become the Democratic Presidential nominee, I will vote for her in November, but she exhibits most of the unethical traits of her partner, and I do not respect her.
by
Blaine Kinsey (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 11:36:18 AM
I don't understand why you would not vote for someone who you do not respect. I'd prefer to not vote than to vote for someone who I couldn't respect. To each his own. I'm just curious as to your reasoning.
Blessed be! Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 828 comments)
on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 12:10:39 AM
Although I would prefer to have Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination for President, I would vote for Hillary Clinton because there will never be a potentially successful candidate for President who agrees with my political views, and I think that Hillary Clinton as President would be more tolerable than John McCain as President. Barack Obama has potential, but he has been disappointing as a Senator. I was thoroughly disgusted by the Hillary Clinton ad about the 3:00 A.M. telephone call because it imitates the Republican fear-mongering. If Hillary Clinton receives a telephone call at 3:00 A.M., it will probably be from James Carville asking Hillary if he can wash her feet with his tongue.
by
Blaine Kinsey (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 7:20:25 PM
What evil lurks in the non-existant heart of an elitest ?
"keeping Nixon in office through 1976 would make it a shoe in to elect a liberal democrat" OR herr feuhrer´s little matron is a closet globalist with close ties to the rethuglican uber-lords and will do any old thing in this vloody veelchin voild to further along the new world order agenda. Stay tuned for more attacks and counter-attacks in the "War Of The Corporate Titans"
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 297 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 10:59:58 AM
Maybe this is a Pelosi Tactic. The longer Bush is in there, the better the chance of getting Hillary elected. That is, if he decides to leave January 20th.
Did Clinton get big money in '92 because he was shifty about what would be the outcomes of NAFTA and the FCC decisions on media ownership?
In other words, is the Clinton morality subject to political influence?
We are looking at a war of the roses, with the Bushies vs. the Clintons. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..... I'm over it. Let's see what kind of things Obama will do....
by
GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 103 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 11:22:50 AM
Now, the dems don't want to proceed with impeachment because they fear it will lessen the chances of a Dem win-- same thing they were thinking in '72-74.
But, in spite of operatives like Hillary, sabotaging the constitutional machinery that kept the balance of justice intact, Tip O'Neil and others managed to make the impeachment happen-- and a Dem won anyway in '76.
This information shows that, even with impeachment hearings under way, there are so many possibilities, so many ways that people can sabotage and block the process.
by
Rob Kall (691 articles, 3696 quicklinks, 289 diaries, 1352 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM
On an interview Nader said he was told by a congressman that "if we move on impeachment they will bomb Iran and declare martial law" It is quite possible that our supposed representatives fear the "crazies" as much as the guy on the street. I dont buy Conyer's lame excuses, or Pelosi's for that matter. The failure to impeach is treason, plain and simple.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 297 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM
It's total BS - they're going into Iran anyway, so the ploy works - use Iran as an impeachment block and than bomb Iran anyway - look what's going on - Fallon fired, more naval ships being deployed, Betrayus falsely claiming Iran was behind Green Zone attack, cheney all over the region stacking the deck - the Democrats are being played for the fools that they are
I'll bet good money that before the election we bomb Iran - depending on what happens with the economy (it will crash) and the further pressure an Iran attack will cause there could be a very real possibility that bush will declare a "national emergency" and impose Marshall Law and suspend elections. But in reality it doesn't make any difference if the farce of election goes off or which one of these corporate shills become the next POTUS - this country is done for ...
by
Mr M (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 872 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 6:29:17 PM
In through the nose, out through the mouth...hooosaaaah LOL
Easy, don't give up so easily, go have a nice garden salad and back it up with some fresh O.J., take a 1-hour break from the com-pu-tron, 20-minute walk, 1-2 quarts of clean cold water, and gain a fresh perspective on all of this. Rep. Conyers et. al. have the means at hand to basically end this little party, I like Paul, Obama, and ME,(as in 'me, myself and I') for this Selection, against Hillary 'cause I think she's into some kind of side business, against McCain for essentially the same reason, Barack, well, he's a little weak on the immigration issue, but lesser of several evils here, I watched the video of the Medford town hall and he was standing tall for that, still trying to sell some kind of healthcare thing, but I also think he's a fairly shrewd character, not nearly as liable to end up signing over the deed to the ranch as it were, Paul's kind of my favorite, he's concurrently re-running for Congress as WELL as for the Office, I like his style, comma, he's running as a Republican, and they're having 'money problems' of some kind in that Party, so, I still offer my services for the position on an hourly basis, $8.10/hr, try-before-you-buy, Congress already getting the paperwork ready to throw me right back out the door on my duffle bag if I blank up as a mandatory pre-condition on my part to even accept the job, and I want to to do a couple different things, like an impeachment hotline, 1-800 IMP EACH, and if I DO get this gig, I'm going to be the little annoying tsetse fly of fiscal responsibility and public accountability, and do my mortal best to pave a path for Congress to do what they probably should have been able to do these last 20 years, but have been boxed in by psuedo-royalist administrationers, and a batallion or so of highly trained, well-entrenched attack lobbyists. In short, I want to spearhead an effort to get us back in the practice of using our system of representative government, in which Representatives are truly free to re-present(see? It's In The Name) the issues of the People in their sessions rather than just being strong-armed into being a rubber-stamp entity that essentially has no choice BUT to over-spend the federal budget, year after year after year after...you get the idea.
If you support that kind of concept, if you're ready for a 'novelty candidate', then Vote For Bert! I'm not official, yet, gotta get the paperwork turned in, but I've got 'til the end of August 'cause I won't run as Democrat OR Republican, I'm going Independent, all by my lonesome, 'cause I haven't even heard back from the Independent Party in MY state. So, vote Ghost Rider! Vote for Bert! Write my name down on a chunk of paper, and tape it up on the wall or something! NO graffiti, let's get off to a GOOD start, here...
LOL
Bert08
by
truthtruffle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 90 comments)
on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 1:05:05 AM
Why Should Bush Give the Americans Any Policy Choices?
Bush has any number of ways to create a national emergency. Imposing Martial Law allows the suspension of elections. With those out of the way, he can dismiss Federal, state and local government employees who resist his agenda. Anyone who objects could go to jail as an enemy combatant.
If Iraq is any example, the US can kill any number of Iranian non-combatants. The US lacks the power on the ground to defeat and to occupy Iran.
If the US attacks Venezuela, she might have an easier time of it.
Bush can not trust any candidate to pursue the mission.
by
Jason Paz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 10:29:46 AM
I certainly am bothered by the same politics as usual and the same old politicians. I hope if there is anything we have learned in the last decade it is that Government must be made more open and accountable to the people. We clearly must be ever vigilent and constantly demanding this of our Congressional representatives to ensure we have the government we want instead of having the government that currently serves us.
Given their proclivity, it appears most politicians today are less interested in openness and accountability than in re-election and control. Until voters convey to politicians their re-election depends on their performing their duties and service to the public, and until we shut down the means by which openess and accountability are circumvented, nothing will change. Let's hope this fall marks a turning point and a new beginning for us all. Vote out with the old politics, and usher in a new age of openness and accountability in the pollitical process.
by
Peter Wedlund (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 95 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 12:40:21 PM
Impeachment hearings 08 are not your father's reasons
In 74 it was not yet apparent that the US was losing its place in the economic sphere, and voters were not sure about a smoking gun. It's hard to opine as to whether "the establishment" was more or less "unbought and unbossed" then than it is now.
Many citizens are waiting for the war to end, for the economy to improve, and for Bush to ride off into the sunset. It's generally agreed there are powerful interests who support what the president and his nominated successor stand for--holding the process back.
I've thought of how public opinion, or rather popular media, can get off of dead center on the impeachment question. Democrats do not gain by playing gutter politics regarding the Bush/Clinton cabal. If we stay with the subject of Hillary's qualifications, is there traction? Question to Mr. Zeifman: Does the fact that Hillary had not passed the bar at the time of impeachment investigations help or hurt her in furthering this subject? It's spoken (by Carl Bernstein on C-Span) and in written form which has been published by OEN, if I recall. I have not seen the matter come up much in the blogosphere.
by
Margaret Bassett (17 articles, 702 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 388 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 12:52:10 PM
It is interesting that during the watergate investigations part of the objective was, "to avoid a Senate impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon's effort to "cover up"- the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance).
In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo."
There must be a smoking gun, in the form of slime on the part of democrats in Congress and the Senate that have prevented any movement on Impeachment. It's the only rational explanation to the ineptitude of the corporate representatives.
by
August Adams (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 270 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 1:24:35 PM
...there is no real evidence that proves Kennedy used the mafia to attempt an assassination on Castro. The CIA were using two of their bosses though, Giancana and Traffaconi, two men who actually despised the Kennedy's. Also any speculation about Kennedy and the mafia came from J. Edgar Hoover, a devout enemy to the Kennedy's and vice versa. Further, Kennedy despised the CIA as much as Hoover and in fact chastised them for murdering Diem. It is even speculated Kennedy wanted to disband the CIA prior to his own assassination.
by
Michael Shaw (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 243 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 3:44:12 PM
Nixon saw the handwriting on the wall and resigned. I do not think he ever felt that he was guilty of anything other than poor judgement and probably felt that he could have beat conviction by the Senate (it takes 67 votes to convict as Bill Clinton knows and is thankful for because 55 senators voted to convict him). In Nixon's Presidential Library in Yorba Linda there is an entire wall of information devoted to Watergate and from what I read Nixon was not happy with what happened to him. Personally, I thought he got what he deserved.
Nixon was a master politician. The only one better is probably Bill Clinton. Nixon knew that if he resigned he would help himself, the Republican Party and the country. He knew if he stayed on Kennedy, although he was still being politically hurt by his desertion of a young woman drowning in a car he was driving, would probably walk into the presidency. Although the Republicans did not win in 1976 Nixon's resignation had a lot to do with them winning later.
Just think what would have happened if Clinton had resigned like Nixon did instead of going to trial in the Senate. He was guilty. He was disbarred. He had to cut a deal with a prosecutor on his last day in office to keep from being indicted. He finally paid off Paula Jones for what he did to her. Only some Republican Senators and all the Democrats who didn't even take the time to read the pile of evidence against Clinton (he committed some major crimes - that is why he was disbarred, why he paid off Jones, and was why he was threatened with indictment) kept him from being convicted of the articles of impeachment and being removed from office. Clinton rolled the dice and won. Politicians in Washington know all this and will be hesitant to impeach another president in our life times.
What is weird is that Hillary played a role in a threatened impeachment of one president and a significant role in the impeachment another.
by
Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 149 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 2:35:17 PM
...this is a real eye opener. It justifies my recent turn to supporting Obama. Makes me glad I did it! That said, what happens if by some miracle(or technical flaw, manipulation etc) she wins the nomination? Do we simply abandon her, vote for McCain or not vote at all? Do we vote for Nader? What on earth will we do then? Simply allow the neocons to retain power?
by
Michael Shaw (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 243 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 3:09:49 PM
If Hillary is the candidate, then the neo-cons have a win-win scenario.
If Mcain wins, they have a dimwit mental defective who they can control through the VP (who will surely be a neo-con).
If Hillary wins, they have a POTUS who will do whatever they want for the chance at a second term and the opportunity to remain "The First Woman President of the United States" and not get impeched by the neo-cons and blue dogs in the House and convicted in the Senate.
Oh, and if Obama is the candidate, then they bomb Iran and declare Martial Law when all hell breaks loose.
Gosh, to be a neo-con in 2008 -- so many options... so many ways to totally screw the American People, retain power, and line their pockets with our children's inheritance.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 584 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 4:01:15 PM
And from some of the other contributions in rebuttal to this article, I'm beginning to have some doubts.
I will agree that Obama's chances look better. But what I really find disturbing in all of this are the recent hateful smears on both democratic candidates since they do far more to serve the neocons then they do either of the democratic contenders or the democratic party.
I am very impressed with Mr. Zeifman's credentials. The fact he supported Adlai Stevenson and was a Roosevelt Democrat even endears him to me. But as one person in here asks, why now? Why wait 38 years to smear Clinton during the most crucial presidential election in US history?
Another notion or two also comes to mind. Like the reverence of Tip O'Neill, the biggest democrat yesman to the Reagan administration. Also his push to get Gerald Ford appointed asap. That appointment was one of the worst travesties in US political history. The accusee appoints his pardoner and Mr. Zeifman considers that a good thing?
Lastly comes the Kennedy/Mafia smear. No sir! I am beginning to have some serious doubts.
by
Michael Shaw (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 243 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 4:51:58 PM
on another thought, maybe that's why the dems haven't yet declared Obama the victor. Another note is the dem vs dem infighting. It almosts makes one think they are afraid to inherit the very real mess that's coming, Iran or not!
by
Michael Shaw (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 243 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 5:26:28 PM
is that McCain will go to meet his maker (satan) and Ron Paul will be in the drivers seat. Its time for that imprecatory prayer folks. so get down on those old prayer bones and pray as if your lives depended upon it, they do.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 297 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 4:13:40 PM
