I've moved — check out my new blog at cassyfiano.com!

Redirecting in 10 seconds...

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Shocker: Hillary fired for being a LIAR!

Surprise, surprise:
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.”

Is there anyone who is surprised by this?

Anyone at all?


Me either.

Hat Tip: Ace


mvargus said...


listen to the crickets chirp as people come to defend the Hildebeast.

color me completely unsurprised.

mkfreeberg said...

Well, I do have a half-hearted, empty, hollow defense to offer, and it's obligatory & nothing else.

You do kind of have to question the timing. How long has she been in the public eye now?

Now that obligatory half-hearted empty hollow defense now having been said, there's another facet to this that I think most people are missing and it is this:

Her husband, at the time he was under scrutiny for also having been Monica Lewinsky's boyfriend, was widely defended on the grounds that although his answers were substantially false and dispensed with intent to deceive, that was all good & okay because the questions were indecent and should not have been asked. Persons like me respond with the truism that it is exceptionally dangerous to have an office of such incredible power as the one occupied at the time by Hillary's husband and Monica Lewinsky's boyfriend...filled by someone who decides from one moment to the next which questions are sufficiently meritorious to deserve accurate responses, and which ones are not. Our republic is simply not designed for this. Yes, the POTUS is the steward of highly classified information dealing with our nation's defense, and other matters -- but hey. It's one thing to say a question raises a subject matter that is classified and therefore cannot be answered at all. It's another thing entirely to offer a false answer without so much as a post-scripture to the effect "by the way I consider that question out of bounds." Just to make it go away. To cover your own philandering ass.

Isn't this anecdote about Hillary a beautiful example of this?

The lie, here, had to do with whether there was precedent for entitling the subject of an impeachment proceeding, to the benefit of counsel. You could compose a very rock-solid, sturdy, watertight argument to the effect that such a question "ought not have been asked." It's something of a matter of opinion, but it's a legitimate opinion to hold -- such a decision perhaps ought not be made out of precedent, but instead out of textual scrutiny of the applicable statutes.

And clearly, it poses a danger to our system of justice to have a lawyer in Hillary's position unilaterally making the decision (which is what she did) that since the question is out-of-bounds, it's alright to provide an inaccurate, fraudulent answer with intent to deceive. Except unlike the "lie" President BUSH was supposed to have told, which nobody's demonstrated he's actually told, you don't have the "thousands of people dead" stigma. Rodham lied, nobody died...but at the same time it is clearly, undeniably, wrong.

And that, Virginia, is why we can't have powerful officials in government deciding questions are stupid and therefore answers can be false. Our system of government cannot function when 27-year-old lawyers on House committees do that...and it damn sure can't function when Presidents do that.

Frankie Zinzin said...

You need to lose about 10 lbs. Hell, make that 15.

Anonymous said...

gosh you're a crappy dumb uninspired blogger.

Anonymous said...

omg cassy dont listen to those ppl!!!! ur rite hillary is a lying bitch and omg u and i both kno that all women lie and backstab because that is our nature!!!! i cant believe those liberals!! thinkin they ahve a chance with a woman and a black man! u r awesome keep up the good fite and btw i luv ur hat in the profile pic. indonesian kids need jobs 2!! if only the world's power supple ran on indonesian childrun and nott oil then we'b be in bizness

Ryan Placchetti said...

"You need to lose about 10 lbs. Hell, make that 15."

Seriously? How old are you?

Anyway... question for Cassy...

Is there any other supporting evidence in this instance? I just ask because one political lawyer calling another political lawyer a liar is a lot like the old pot calling the kettle black thing. Don't you think?

candice said...

the book cover on your main page shows a donkey wearing a peace symbol AND brandishing a gun. color me confused.

mkfreeberg said...

the book cover on your main page shows a donkey wearing a peace symbol AND brandishing a gun. color me confused.

The donkey is the symbol of the democrat party, which should explain everything.

Their motto should be "peace, harmony and tolerance forever, and there's no limit to the harm we'll bring to anyone who doesn't agree."