...yet no response from Hillary's camp?

How could you?

Although this is news to me, I'm not a bit surprised by the allegations. And praise the Lord for honest Democrats like Jerry Zeifman. Evidently they're still out there doing the right thing. This just confirms that Hillary has always been morally deficient with no redeeming values at all. It also speaks volumes about the moral character of the democratic party itself that such a corrupt woman of low character could rise so high within the Party, rather than being forced out by the powers that be. Here's an excerpt from your link.

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.

Why?

“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.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

Originally Posted by isly ilwott

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

Here's an interesting article about part of Hillary's past that I'm betting she wants swept back under the rug.

It seems she stole some documents from the Judiciary Committee files back when Watergate was going on.

How could anybody with a good conscience vote for such a deceitful woman to be our President?

How can any educated individual simply accept such extreme allegations, or anything they read about a political candidate, and on the internet?

Here is a 1996 review of Mr. Zeifman's book, by Washington Post writer, Matthew Dallek (emphasis added):

-------

WITHOUT HONOR
In 1973 Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, decided to keep a diary of the "extraordinary events" surrounding the impeachment of President Nixon. Now, Zeifman draws on that diary to give us Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon, in which he accuses government officials of obstructing the impeachment inquiry. Their reason? Not any sympathy for the besieged Richard Nixon, but a desire to protect the reputation of John Kennedy. Zeifman's book will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.

Zeifman's theory goes something like this: John Doar, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum and other Kennedy loyalists investigating Nixon obstruct his impeachment "to cover up malfeasance in high office throughout the Cold War." The scheming starlets are abetted by Peter Rodino, a weak, corrupt chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is afraid that Nixon might expose his own Mafia ties. Rounding out the list of conspirators is Burke Marshall, Robert Kennedy's assistant attorney general, who orchestrates the bogus investigation in the hopes of keeping Nixon in office, which will, he believes, help Ted Kennedy win the White House. Using a variety of dubious legal strategies -- still with me? -- Doar and his co-conspirators do everything they can to avoid putting the president on trial, a strategy, they hope, that will prevent Nixon's lawyers from revealing the "crimes of Camelot."

The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source -- his diary -- contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...thewdallek.htm

--------

Not to mention that Mr. Zeifman's claim that he fired Hillary Clinton "is undermined by his own previous reported acknowledgment [in a 1998 Sacramento Bee article] that he did not fire Clinton and did not have the power to do so."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804040011

Originally Posted by antonia

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804040011

Not to mention that Mr. Zeifman's claim that he fired Hillary Clinton "is undermined by his own previous reported acknowledgment [in a 1998 Sacramento Bee article] that he did not fire Clinton and did not have the power to do so."

You mean the same media matters which hillary helped found to specifically go after Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oreily, and conservative talk radio? Only would they actually quote Rush when it suits them politically, when they exist to pretty much destroy him.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...art-media-matt

Here is audio of Hillary admitting that she helped start and continues to support Media Matters.

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/1...diaMatters.mp3

And here's the video of it, at around 2:44 into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM

So the question you must ask yourself antonia, is was she lying in her speech at that event when she admitted it? Or was she lying when she denied her part in the creation of media matters?

Here's more on the dishonesty and corruption of the truth that Media Matters participates in on Hillary's behalf.

http://mediamatters.blogsome.com/2006/04/

Originally Posted by antonia

How can any educated individual simply accept such extreme allegations, or anything they read about a political candidate, and on the internet?

Here is a 1996 review of Mr. Zeifman's book, by Washington Post writer, Matthew Dallek (emphasis added):

-------

WITHOUT HONOR
In 1973 Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, decided to keep a diary of the "extraordinary events" surrounding the impeachment of President Nixon. Now, Zeifman draws on that diary to give us Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon, in which he accuses government officials of obstructing the impeachment inquiry. Their reason? Not any sympathy for the besieged Richard Nixon, but a desire to protect the reputation of John Kennedy. Zeifman's book will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.

Zeifman's theory goes something like this: John Doar, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum and other Kennedy loyalists investigating Nixon obstruct his impeachment "to cover up malfeasance in high office throughout the Cold War." The scheming starlets are abetted by Peter Rodino, a weak, corrupt chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is afraid that Nixon might expose his own Mafia ties. Rounding out the list of conspirators is Burke Marshall, Robert Kennedy's assistant attorney general, who orchestrates the bogus investigation in the hopes of keeping Nixon in office, which will, he believes, help Ted Kennedy win the White House. Using a variety of dubious legal strategies -- still with me? -- Doar and his co-conspirators do everything they can to avoid putting the president on trial, a strategy, they hope, that will prevent Nixon's lawyers from revealing the "crimes of Camelot."

The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source -- his diary -- contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book's jacket cover, which promises readers "truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone's movies 'Nixon' and 'JFK', " does not help matters. Perhaps the book's publicists forgot that "Nixon" and "JFK" were, after all, only Hollywood movies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...thewdallek.htm

--------

Not to mention that Mr. Zeifman's claim that he fired Hillary Clinton "is undermined by his own previous reported acknowledgment [in a 1998 Sacramento Bee article] that he did not fire Clinton and did not have the power to do so."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804040011

Don't you find it a little ironic that you say "How can any educated individual simply accept such extreme allegations, or anything they read about a political candidate, and on the internet?" while at the same time you are making an argument from an internet source who's credibility is just as bad?

I'm not even saying its wrong...but that seemed odd.

Originally Posted by antonia

How can any educated individual simply accept such extreme allegations, or anything they read about a political candidate, and on the internet?

I've heard the man talk. He is believable. I've heard Hillary talk. She is unbelievable. It is quite simple.

I said in a previous post:

Not to mention that Mr. Zeifman's claim that he fired Hillary Clinton "is undermined by his own previous reported acknowledgment [in a 1998 Sacramento Bee article] that he did not fire Clinton and did not have the power to do so."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804040011

A photocopy of that Sacramento Bee article is linked at the mediamatters.org website:

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/zeifman-20080404.pdf

Where one can see for themselves what Hillary Clinton's boss said about her role during the Nixon investigation, and what Mr. Zeifman said he wished his role was, back then, but wasn't.

Would the real Mr. Zeifman step forward?

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Don't you find it a little ironic that you say "How can any educated individual simply accept such extreme allegations, or anything they read about a political candidate, and on the internet?" while at the same time you are making an argument from an internet source who's credibility is just as bad?

I'm not even saying its wrong...but that seemed odd.

No, the Calabrese article is basically a rewrite of an article by Mr. Zeifman. Whose whole story is in that book which the Washington Post writer from Columbia University reviewed. Reporting that Mr. Zeifman's evidence or source for his wild claims is mostly his journal ... which is filled with unsubstantiated suspicions and highly speculative.

Reporting that Mr. Zeifman said this or that does not make what Mr. Zeifman said true.

And whether the reporting is by Calabrese of Zeifman, or Zeifman of himself in his diary.

Now, the Washington Post writer, on the other hand, sounds pretty reasonable to me. (In each of his book reviews at that web page, too.) He is discussing the basis or lack thereof for Mr. Zeifman's claims.

Not to mention that Mr. Zeifman said something entirely different about his role (in relation to Hillary Clinton) during the Watergate investigation, thus discrediting himself and his story. And Hillary Clinton's real former boss apparently said something else, too. According to the xeroxed/scanned article from the Sacramento Bee.

Originally Posted by antonia

I said in a previous post:

Not to mention that Mr. Zeifman's claim that he fired Hillary Clinton "is undermined by his own previous reported acknowledgment [in a 1998 Sacramento Bee article] that he did not fire Clinton and did not have the power to do so."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804040011

A photocopy of that Sacramento Bee article is linked at the mediamatters.org website:

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/zeifman-20080404.pdf

Where one can see for themselves what Hillary Clinton's boss said about her role during the Nixon investigation, and what Mr. Zeifman said he wished his role was, back then, but wasn't.

Would the real Mr. Zeifman step forward?

Evidently you missed the lowdown on Media Matters.

Originally Posted by Archangel

You mean the same media matters which hillary helped found to specifically go after Rush Limbaugh, Bill Oreily, and conservative talk radio? Only would they actually quote Rush when it suits them politically, when they exist to pretty much destroy him.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...art-media-matt

Here is audio of Hillary admitting that she helped start and continues to support Media Matters.

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/1...diaMatters.mp3

And here's the video of it, at around 2:44 into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM

So the question you must ask yourself antonia, is was she lying in her speech at that event when she admitted it? Or was she lying when she denied her part in the creation of media matters?

Here's more on the dishonesty and corruption of the truth that Media Matters participates in on Hillary's behalf.

http://mediamatters.blogsome.com/2006/04/

Archangel,

We are talking about Mr. Zeifman's claim that he fired Hillary Clinton. And the rest of his diaried imaginings about the Nixon resignation. Who started mediamatters is irrelevant given that they are reporting a verifiable source (the scanned Sacramento Bee article) and a transcript of Boortz' that can be verified, too.

Please stay with the facts, and stop trying to derail the issue and matter at hand. That is, that Mr. Zeifman said one thing, and then, said something completely different.

Appears Mr. Zeifman has been caught in a serious lie.

Here's Jerry Zeifman, again, the "lifelong Democrat", and apparently popular at newsmax, launching into Nancy Pelosi for "her defiance of the president and persistent confrontation of his foreign policies," and calling upon her to resign:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...249.shtml?s=lh

And here he is launching into Ted Kennedy:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...0/124842.shtml

Who cares about what Jerry Zeifman says? not us in Sydney

Originally Posted by antonia

Here's Jerry Zeifman, again, the "lifelong Democrat", and apparently popular at newsmax, launching into Nancy Pelosi for "her defiance of the president and persistent confrontation of his foreign policies," and calling upon her to resign:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...249.shtml?s=lh

And here he is launching into Ted Kennedy:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...0/124842.shtml

Sounds right to me. What is your complaint again? Does a politician finally telling the truth and objectively criticizing his colleagues bother you that much? Or is it that a democrat is attacking other democrats that is eating you up?

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Who cares about what Jerry Zeifman says? not us in Sydney

I certainly don't care anymore, either. Thanks to Neal Boortz and the old fashioned American reporting at The Sacramento Bee.

Who, what, when, where, and why.