Topic: Hillary Clinton
35 Years of Lies and Corruption on the Way to the White House Hillary Clinton's history of lies, corruption, coverups and abuse of power just gets more and more sordid.by Dave Nalle
(Libertarian)
Friday, April 4, 2008
One of the constant complaints about George W. Bush is that he lied to get us into war in Iraq. It's a debatable claim, but you have to respect the desire for total honesty from the chief executive. Yet many of those who make that accusation are willing, even eager to put into the White House a candidate whose history of lies and deception is so lengthy and pervasive that even arch-liar Richard Nixon looks amateurish by comparison. More and more evidence is coming to light that not only is Hillary Clinton a chronic liar, but that her lies and ethical breaches are so frequent and often so unnecessary that her urge to lie may be an uncontrollable pathological condition.
The Nixon connection is particularly appropriate. Towards the end of his time in office Nixon had reached the point where he could hardly tell reality from fantasy and he was buried under a mountain of lies, crimes and coverups, exposed to the public by the work of the Special Prosecutor, Justice Department investigators and the hearings of the Judiciary Committee. And one of those who brought Nixon down, on the staff of the Judiciary Committee was a young, politically ambitious lawyer named Hillary Rodham. Her zeal to destroy Nixon was extraordinary, but she seems to have fallen into the trap of those who have great hatreds by becoming exactly what she hated most.
The history of Hillary Clinton's lies and unethical conduct has been well documented over the years, from covering for her priapic husband to the Whitewater, Travelgate and Rose law firm scandals. More recently a lot of attention has been paid to her lies about being under fire in Bosnia and even about what Chelsea was doing on 9/11. But the most recent revelation may be the most troubling because it shows that her pattern of unethical conduct and lying to cover it up goes back farther and is a more basic element of her character than anyone had realized.
The story of her time on the staff of the Judiciary Committee during Watergate has not been getting coverage in the mainstream media, but the story has been getting out through the work of columnists like Dan Calabrese who have picked up and looked into comments by former Chief Democratic Counsel for the Judiciary Committee Jerry Zeifman which reveal some very troubling aspects of Hillary Clinton's history.
Zeifman goes into detail on Clinton's history at the Judiciary Committee on his website and in a recently released book, where he relates the story of how she abused her authority, engaged in a coverup and an attempt to violate President Nixon's civil rights under the Constitution, expressly disobeyed the instructions of her superiors and was ultimately fired for cause without receiving a recommendation by Zeifman himself. Clinton may have conveniently forgotten this bit of history, but Zeifman has all the details because he kept detailed notes in a personal diary at the time.
The basic story is that Clinton (then Rodham) was assigned the job at the Judiciary Committee of "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." Zeifman ultimately fired her because "a number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed" and because "she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons." Beyond that, she also engaged in personally unethical behavior by obscuring her activities by removing files without persmission so they would no longer be available to the public.
The policy of the committee as handed down by the Democratic leadership was to conduct hearings for impeaching Nixon on the model of the impeachment hearings of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and under the established rules of the Judiciary Committee. Nixon was to be allowed full Constitutional protections, including the right to counsel. Despite specific instructions to the contrary, Clinton drafted and actively campaigned for rule changes which would set aside the precedents of the Douglas case and specifically deny the president the right to counsel, as well suggesting that the committee should basically conduct a private inquiry without public hearings based on already collected testimony to minimize public participation and eliminate any possibility of a defense.
Her basic plan was to take away any possibility that Nixon could get a fair hearing or defend himself and basically railroad him into a conviction. Even today Nixon doesn't get a great deal of sympathy from anyone, but even he ought to be entitled to basic Constitutional rights and although Democratic leaders from Tip O'Neill down to her immediate supervisors had agreed to afford him those rights, Clinton made every effort to obstruct them, including making off with the original files from the Douglas case so they couldn't research the applicable precedents.
What's more, in an even more serious ethical breach which could ahve potentially led to her disbarment, Clinton took evidence from the committee which was protected under privilege and showed it to her Yale Law School professor Burke Mashall and several other legal experts in direct violation of committee rules on confidentiality. That illegally leaked evidence was later used as the basis for a book on the hearings, though there is no evidence that Clinton profited directly from its publication.
The picture of Clinton which emerges from Zeifman 's first-hand accounts of why she was ultimately fired after Nixon's resignation show her as a vicious partisan activist, willing to bend and break the law, discard the Constitution, distort the truth, conceal evidence and commit almost any crime to bring down Nixon and claim as much of the credit as possible for herself. This picture of Clinton, coming as it does from a fellow Democratic insider, carries the weight of authenticity and shows the early genesis of the character flaws of which she still displays today. She is vindictive, unethical and a chronic liar, so twisted and egomaniacal that she ought to be automatically disqualified from any serious consideration for the presidency or any other public office.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Dave Nalle, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, April 4, 2008
Last modified: Friday, April 4, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dave Nalle only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dave Nalle is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Wendall Dennis
Date: 2008-04-05 15:00:48
Excellent Dave:
Present the facts, and let them speak for themselves. The conflict of interest, and egomanicial baggage carried by each of the canditates, were the election process not owned by the merchant bankers, would disqualify virtually every member of congress, from not only the presidency, but the office which they now hold. Wendall Dennis
I agree that she lies even when there is no reason for it. The most recent example being the one about landing under fire in Bosnia. I don't mean to imply that someone should lie if they do have a reason. But her willingness to tell whoppers even when there is no reason indicates a serious disregard for honesty. Why would we want someone like that to be president?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Dave Nalle, all rights reserved.