Billy notes the story of Hillary Clinton and the Nixon impeachment. This one’s been brewing for quite a while, as Billy notes correctly… and Ed Morrissey confirms in the process of quoting Dan Calabrese:

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.


“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Billy, for his part, points out, correctly:

David Brock reported the four-corners of this story in his 1996 book, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham”, replete with cites from Zeifman.

I completely understand that Brock is long personna non grata on the right, but the fact remains that his book is still the premier document expounding who and what she really is.

Well, frankly, Billy, I don’t think Brock scratched the surface on that one. One of the reasons Brock is in such hot water with the right these days… even his writings prior to his ‘Paul on the Damascus road’ moment… (IE; when he got bought off) …is, people will forever wonder what it is he was holding back… that we never really got the full depth of what he discovered in his investigations.  Like, for example, the depth of sleaze surrounding Hillary Clinton.

And what none of you cover at all.. and what should frighten you more… … it certainly does, me…  is the number of people who figure Hillary Clinton did correctly in terms of Nixon, and who will take these charges against her, not as a problem, but as a badge of honor.

I’ve pointed out many times in the last month or so, the number of people who lined up behind Jeremiah Wright, because of, not in spite of, his overt racism.  Why? Because of his skin color. I pointed to links to Obama, OJ Simpson, Rodney King,  William Jefferson, and so on… all of their positions bolstered in the minds of the mindless because those mindless happen to be of the same grouping… in this case, the same racial identity.

Same thing with Hillary Clinton, only this time the grouping isn’t racial in it’s makeup, but rather, is made up simply of people of the far left. They’ll defend her tooth and nail on that basis, for being on ‘their team’… though they’ll never overtly call it such.
What makes all this so interesting, now, though is watching what will happen when these two sub-groups… the racial grouping and the liberal grouping, go head to head against each other. I say this because in the end, it’s that fight that brings this little tidbit from the 70’s up , just now. Without that fight, this Zeifman thing would never have seen the light of day. I take this as an indication of just how serious the war in the Democrat party is, just now. It doesn’t helpthe simplicity of the judgement that of the two, Clinton is the more centrist… which of itself should be a warning sign about Obama.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Hillary Clinton: Fired for Being a Liar. But Watch Who Defends Her.”

  1. It not a matter of opinion that the Clintons, B.J. and Mrs. are chronic, babitual liars.  It is a documented historical fact.  The Ziefman artcle came out in 1999, before Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate run.  It didn’t have lega then and I doubt that it will now. 

    Ed’s playing of Taps is quite premature.

  2. Well, while I tend to agree, I hasten to point out that the reaction of the Democrats, and the reaction of the voter in the general election is going to be two different things.

    Understand; Anyone who is already supporting her, isn’t going to be turned off by this. They’d look on this with pride, as I say.