Thursday, June 5, 2014

Life Long Liars: Hillary Clinton


Her friends call her "ruthless" and "ambitious" while her enemies say she will stop at nothing for personal ambition, and will change any view to suit her drive.

Here, 27 year old Hillary Rodham is discussed by her supervisor, during the Watergate investigation. Quotes are in Italics with Statement Analysis in bold type.
Few people understand how dangerous a liar actually is, and how personal ambition will displace care for others, or for a company's material interest.

Dan Calabrese’s new column on Hillary Clinton’s past may bring the curtain down on her political future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer’s behavior during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings:
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.
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.”

The sentence "because she was a liar" is not to say, "because she lied."  He is not stating that she lied, but that she was, as a person, a "liar", labeling her character.  This is generally done when one notes a pattern of lying.  
This pattern is often seen when one lies when there may be little or no cause to lie.  
"unethical" came before "dishonest"
Note the lack of hyperbole, nor need to buttress.  
Statement Analysis deals with what one says, and what one does not say. 
Note order of violation:
1.  Constitution
2.  rules of the House
3.  rules of the committee
4.  rules of confidentiality 


This isn’t exactly news. When her lachrymose performance arguably won her New Hampshire, Zeifman tried to tell people about Hillary’s duplicity. Patterico noticed the effort, but few others picked it up. Zeifman wrote at his website:

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. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

43 comments:

john said...

Hillary Clinton Says She's 'Moved On' From The Lewinsky Scandal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/04/hillary-clinton-monica-lewinsky_n_5444465.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Jen Ow said...

I'm SO sure! Everyone just 'moves on' from the entire world laughing at your husband's infidelity, and being the punchline of every blue dress, and b.j. joke!

Who is she kidding?

Anonymous said...

A politician LIES? Shocking. None of them get to these positions of power by being virtuous. I enjoy coming here and learning from your posts but I hope the blog is not going to focus much on politicians. Just my two cents.....

trustmeigetit said...





Watching the tv show “Scandal” and how the presidents wife is aware of the affair he is having always made me think about Hillary. She doesn’t like it but stays for all the wrong reasons. His career.

I always wondered why Hillary would stay. I never felt like they had a marriage of love but it was all for a bigger purpose. I think many political marriages are just that. There is a purpose and not always about love.

I even think Hillary may prefer women, but that is just a feeling. Im not judging to be clear as so many on this site assume. I am just say what I think she prefers. No judgement is meant as I do not care who someone loves. I can only of their character.

And I don’t think she wants the world to know. Its hard enough to imagine her trying to become president as a woman. Just being honest. It has never happened. But add in a divorce and her coming out of the closet. I don’t see that working in her favor. And that could very well be why she stays.

I could be way off base here but I am just going with what my gut says.

Picked a Name said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zehpyr said...

Politicians of whatever stripe are skilled at deception.The R's and the D's are essentially the same, distracting and dividing and giving us just the illusion of choice. Professional, experienced liars the lot of them.

Skeptical said...

I hope Mr. Zeifman has bodyguards or insurance and doesn't become an "Arkansas Suicide".

I was always a bit skeptical of the conspiracy theories about the people associated with the Clintons who had died until I did a bit of research. The coincidences would probably be off an actuarial chart.

Liars are dangerous people. They kill with their tongues and sometimes more literally.

The Arkansas Sudden Death Syndrome
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1142670/posts

Leila said...

I like Hillary. All politicians lie.
Hillary has done some excellent work--she visited more countries than any other secretary of state and is outspoken about human rights violations. And good for her for moving on from the Lewinsky scandal! How old is she? Almost 70? Usually 70 is not an age where you see people showing a lot of sexual jealousy lol!
I wish so much Peter would stay away from politics in the blog, especially female politicians whose drive to climb to climb to the top is considered "ruthless and ambitious" lol! Anyone who gets to the point where they are running for president for one of the major parties is "ruthless and ambitious" lol! Give me a break! Humility and lack of ambition is not a trait any president possesses! And no, noone climbs that high to become president without being ruthless, some sugarcoat it better ie. Obama's "change campaign" platform. The mere campaigning required to become president requires a ruthless, aggressive nature! To keep up with that kind of schedule a person must be extremely driven!!!!

Peter Hyatt said...

I love the "Peter only posts lies from one party" comments.

LGR said...

Peter,
I can't find an email to contact you with a question so I am posting it here. I was watching Investigation Discovery this morning about the Wetterling abduction and the call by the neighbor seemed kind of strange to me considering the circumstances. This is a transcript of the 911 call

Wetterling 911 Tapes

The FOX 9 Investigators have obtained the seven-page 911 transcript of that first call made on October 22, 1989. The call comes from a neighbor.

Merlin Jerzak says, “I’m right now next door, my neighbors, at my neighbors, the Jerry
Wetterling family. Some of the boys went down to Tom Thumb to pick up a movie and on their
way back someone stopped them and ah, we believe that they have one of the boys because
the, one of the boys did not come back with them.”

Dispatcher: “Okay, were you, were they picked up in a vehicle?”

Jerzak: “Just a second I’ll ask the boys was there a vehicle, ah, this person appeared ah,
on the road when they were bicycling back home.”

Dispatcher: “Okay, did they see the individual at all?”

Jerzak (talking to the boys): “Did they see the individual at all? He had a mask on.”

The dispatcher then gets a rough second-hand description of the suspect. A description of
the red hockey jacket Jacob was wearing with Police Department inscribed on the back. The
call is confusing. The dispatcher is simultaneously dispatching squad cars, trying to
figure out where the abduction occurred on the rural stretch of road and asking questions.

Dispatcher: “Give me some information on this guy with the mask, I want color, anything
those kids can remember?”

That’s when Jacob’s brother, Trevor, has calmed down enough to get on the phone.
Dispatcher: “I want you to give me anything you, you can recall about this male party that
approached you guys, okay?”

Trevor: “Well he was, he was like sorta, he was like a man, sort of big. He had like a, it
looked sort of like nylon things as a mask.”

The dispatcher asks about the location of Jacob’s bike. Trevor doesn’t know what happened
to it.

Trevor: “‘Cuz we have to just like run, run off into the woods.”

Dispatcher: Did the guy have a deep voice? Anything like that you can remember?”

Trevor: “Yes, did he have like a deep voice or whatever? Seemed like he had a cold sort
of.”

Dispatcher: “Trevor, did you see the gun the individual had?”

Trevor: “Um, we couldn’t really see it, but we just, we sort of saw it.”

Dispatcher: “Okay, did he threaten you?”

Trevor: “Mm, what?”

Before Trevor can answer, the officers have arrived at the Wetterling home. The dispatcher
ends the call telling them they’ll be sending more officers and dogs to begin the search.
Unknown to anyone at the time, the heartbreaking search for Jacob Wetterling is just the
beginning.

http://saintautumn.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/the-jacob-wetterling-abduction/

Hobnob said...

Off Topic

New post on the Official Facebook page:

Official Find Madeleine Campaign
42 minutes ago
We would like to ask people to refrain from spreading rumours and speculation based on inaccurate press reporting. We are kept updated on the on-going work in Portugal and are encouraged by the progress.

Thank you for continuing to stand by us and supporting our efforts to get Madeleine home.

Gerry and Kate



It struck me as odd them being encouraged by the progress given that said progress involves digging up areas of land.

Since it is clear the Police aren't looking for a live Maddie, what is there to be encouraged about?

The mccanns have from the get go claimed Maddie is probably alive and not come to serious harm, despite having been allegedly abducted by a paedophile. ( there own words however tell us they know maddie is long dead and at their hands)

It also strikes me as odd that given the digging etc, why the mccanns are sitting at home rather than being in Portugal just in case anything is found, especially a live Madeleine.
If we go with the highly unlikely scenario Maddie is alive, wouldn't she want to see her parents as soon as she was rescued?
Wouldn't her parents want to be there the moment she was found alive?

Instead we would have them saying, we will be there in a couple of hours once we get the flights and accommodation sorted out.

It can't be anything to do with the fact they are scared of what may be found that incriminates them and thus leading to their prompt arrest?
By staying in the UK it means a European Arrest Warrant being served and putting their high flying extradition lawyers to good use.

Funny how they could, and did, fly over for the libel trial where they thought they may get a million pounds, even to standing outside the court and whining because they weren't allowed to testify unless they put it in writing and gave x amount of days notice and then kate joining in before realising if they took the stand they would be subject to cross exam so wanted to testify via written statement ( which was tossed out) gerry can make a final statement in court before final statments but it must be from the heart and not written down or using a script or prompts(unlike their witnesses who were promptly denounced and ignored)

When they were digging to search for Ben Needham 's body in Greece, His mom went out there to be there just in case.

Even now, their language and behavior reveals them to be the liars and the guilty party in this caee

Peter Hyatt said...

LGR,

thank you for posting the transcript.

What do you see in it that concerns you?

Peter

LGR said...

Peter,

The first thing he says is where HE is and there seems to be no hurry in saying Jacob is missing! "Neighbor" seems to be sensitive to him as it is repeated. Listening to it was startling to me so I had to look up the transcripts. I wish I DID know more about SA...that is why I wanted to hear your analysis.

Thank you for your response.

Sincerely,
LGR

Leila said...

LGR, I hope it's OK if I give an opinion.
I dont know anything about this case other than what you have written here, but in my opinion, if anyone's responses sound odd, it is "Trevor's" responses for a number of reasons.

LGR said...

Hi Leila,
No of course I don't mind! I would love to hear what everyone has to say.

LGR

Skeptical said...

Trevor was a victim too. What he must have endured for the last 25 years. He must be so conflicted - glad that he escaped and guilty for running away and leaving his brother behind to be kidnapped.

john said...

Dispatcher: Did the guy have a deep voice? Anything like that you can remember?”

This is a terrible question from the dispatcher. He should allow the caller to describe in his own words what he saw.

Trevor: “Yes, did he have like a deep voice or whatever? Seemed like he had a cold sort
of.”


The caller answers "Yes", but then enters into the language of the dispatcher. "“Yes, did he have like a deep voice or whatever?

This may be considered unreliable.

Dispatcher: “Trevor, did you see the gun the individual had?”

Trevor: “Um, we couldn’t really see it, but we just, we sort of saw it.”

The dispatcher asked "did YOU see the gun"

The question is asked of Trevor and no-one else. Yet Trevor responds in the plural "We".

This is distancing language, and it is often the language found when one wishes to share responsibility or guilt (Dillingham). At times, the guilty will use plurality as one wishes to dilute guilt within a crowd, as if to fade into a larger group, and not feel so singled out.

LGR said...

Just a follow-up...Trevor was only 9 or 10. The man that abducted Jacob had just told the boys to lay on the ground, then he asked their ages, then he told Trevor he had a gun and to get up, start running and don't look back and did the same with the other boy. So, I'm sure he was still in shock as this was only minutes after that happened. In the show, Trevor still can't talk about Jacob without crying.

I'd like to hear more of what you have to say.

Sincerely,
LGR

LGR said...

Wow, thank you John.

Leila said...

Dispatcher: “Give me some information on this guy with the mask, I want color, anything
those kids can remember?”

That’s when Jacob’s brother, Trevor, has calmed down enough to get on the phone.
Dispatcher: “I want you to give me anything you, you can recall about this male party that
approached you guys, okay?”

Trevor: “Well he was, he was like sorta, he was like a man, sort of big. He had like a, it
looked sort of like nylon things as a mask.”

Trevor was asked by the dispatcher to give any information about "this male party that approached you guys".

Trevor enters into the language of the dispatcher by giving (very sensitive and unreliable) information about the "male party" being "male" even though it was already conveyed by the dispatcher that he already knew the person that approached them was male. This seems to be a way of "stalling for time" to think of other details besides the one that was already given to him by the dispatcher that the individual was "male".

"Well, he was like
he was like sorta
he was like a man"
(Unreliable that the individual was male)

"sort of big"
(Unreliable that the individual was "big")

"He had like a
it looked SORT OF LIKE
nylon things as a mask"
(unreliable that the individual had nylon things as a mask)

I feel this specific response is deceptive and it seems there may have not been an individual who approached them.

Jenny said...

Off Topic:
http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1053689#.U5D7KCiJNip

This comment from the mother really stood out to me:

“I don't know what would've happened if he would've been knocked unconscious, if the four-year-old would have known to come home. I don't even want to think about that. It's a scary thought,” Karen admitted.

The 4 year old? That's her own child. That seemed very odd to me.

LGR said...

Thank you, Leila. Good catch! I wish I had time to really learn SA! *sighs*

Hobnob said...

We are kept updated on the on-going work in Portugal and are encouraged by the progress.

o0o lookies, where is the dropped pronoun?

They don't tell us they are encouraged by the progress, thus not taking ownership.
if they can't take ownership of being encouraged then i can't say it for them

Anonymous said...

What should she do, Jen? It was years ago. Surely it was awful for her. She is an adult, she moves on from tough times. Let it go, as she has.

Anonymous said...

Hillary is drop-dead gorgeous!

Anonymous said...

ps

Sorry about that, I found it.
Phew. Never had a post deleted before.
All is well. :-)

marigoldsandviolets said...

This is a very short statement from Roy Williams (UNC basketball coach) in response to Rashad McCants' interview saying Williams knew about the fake classes. What do you all think of it?

Williams: "With respect to the comments made today, I strongly disagree with what Rashad (McCants) has said. In no way did I know about or do anything close to what he says and I think the players whom I have coached over the years will agree with me. I have spent 63 years on this earth trying to do things the right way and the picture he portrays is not fair to the University or me.”

marigoldsandviolets said...

This is part of McCants' statement that Williams is responding to:

"McCants said he was headed toward ineligibility during the championship season because he had failed algebra and psychology, which accounted for half of his credits, in the fall of 2004. He had two A's in AFAM classes in addition to the F's. He said coach Roy Williams informed him of his academic troubles during a meeting ahead of the spring semester.

"There was a slight panic on my part ... [he] said, you know, we're going to be able to figure out how to make it happen, but you need to buckle down on your academics."

He said Williams told him "we're going to be able to change a class from, you know, your summer session class and swap it out with the class that you failed, just so the GPA could reflect that you are in good standing."

McCants ended up in four AFAM classes in the following semester, earning straight A's. He said he didn't know what Williams was getting at with the summer school class replacement reference, and he never talked with Williams about it again. The transcripts show he had received one A in an AFAM class in the summer of 2004.

"I remained eligible to finish out and win the championship, his first championship, and everything was peaches and cream," McCants said.

He said he is sure Williams and the athletic department as a whole knew "100 percent" about the paper-class system.

"I mean, you have to know about the education of your players and ... who's eligible, who's not and ... who goes to this class and missing that class. We had to run sprints for missing classes if we got caught, so you know, they were very aware of what was going on."

Sorry for all the OT posts; I wish that Peter had a "send in stories for consideration" link the way that Eyes for Lies does!

Skeptical said...

In reading about the Wetterling kidnapping, I found the following update on the case showing possible additional suspects.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/05/23/neighbors-discuss-father-son-wetterling-abduction/

What crossed my mind was that Jason saw two suspects instead of one. Since children want to please adults, he agreed with what the dispatcher presumed to be one abductor. I think this would affect what he said.

trustmeigetit said...





Part of me really wonders if there was the chance the body of Madeline was moved to one of these “digging” spots to be “discovered”. Thus proving there was a “kidnapping” and that kidnapper killed and buried Madeline there. In that spot.

I can see that after a point Gerry and Kate may get tired of living the lie every day. Money or not. Especially even with a hint of suspicion on them. Even with protection, these protectors won’t hold their jobs forever or be alive forever. Sometimes it’s just one person that has the power. It could be in this case they want to officially get the case closed as a kidnapping and murder so the Mccanns can relax.

I think it’s unlikely they would go thru that risk, but you never know.

Now we wait for DNA testing.





And good note Hobs. That they had no problem flying in to be present for the libel case. Which of course they personally made the effort to bring forward.

Yet won’t fly there in case they find Madeliene.



And let’s not forget the most obvious issue…

They did NOT spend one moment searching for her.

But going to court to stop people from stating their “theory” of what happened is worth all their time and effort.

Leila said...

Skeptical, Thanks for sharing the link.
Your idea has a lot of merit about maybe there were 2 attackers, but don't you think the 2 surviving boys would have said there were 2 attackers eventually even if they had initially been going along with the dispatcher that there was one attacker?
I googled a few more articles, and it is odd, because the detail about the attacker having a "deep", "raspy", "gravely" voice seems to have become very well known as it is mentioned in all the articles. Yet, this detail of the attacker having a "deep" voice was actually suggested by the dispatcher.
I don't know what to make of it?

Anonymous said...

"I love the "Peter only posts lies from one party" comments. "

Note how Peter Hyatt removed the three messages in support of Hillary.........

Anonymous said...

Wow, Peter removed supportive comments? He must be insecure.

Anonymous said...

Lol! Pretty transparent anon at 2:50 and 3:32!

Ok, I'll take the bait. I agree Peter is very old-fashioned, some would say sexist in his view of women and how high they should climb. He seems to have strict gender beliefs where women should not try to play hockey or rough sports. I hope Peter reforms his views of women, and ultimately, it would be nice to read one day on this blog that on voting day he made the right choice and cast his vote for Hillary!

Anonymous said...

I'd like to see some of the statements analyzed regarding the Bergdahl (POW) trade, from Obama, politicians, and there are some from his fellow members of his platoon.

I have strong personal feelings on the matter, so I don't think I can be impartial. I'd like to see impartial analysis.

Anonymous said...

My opinion about Bergdahl is he was a nut who got captured by the Taliban, and I don't believe it would have been right to just leave him there.

Anonymous said...

Probably not right to just leave him there (unless that's what he wanted), but to trade 5 of the top Taliban leaders? People died looking for Bergdahl (would they have died otherwise, I don't know, maybe maybe not, but they died while looking for him). People probably died while looking for and capturing those 5 Taliban, plus the money, blood, sweat and tears going into those captures. Now they're just released. On top of all that, now those 5 are free to terrorize further. Americans, citizens, military, even innocent Afghan citizens. Also add on how Obama did it, without giving Congress proper notice. There's just so much involved in this, beyond just a "trade". Like I said, (Im the anon that brought this up), I have such strong feelings, I know I can't be impartial on the statements.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone watch 20/20 just now? If so, do you guys feel like the fiance Mead who got found not guilty was actually guilty?

Anonymous said...

Anon, I fully sympathize with your feelings about the Bergdahl exchange.
I am unsure of the whole story, but if he really wandered away from his camp "looking for the Taliban" in order to join them and ended up getting captured by them (Duh! what did he think would happen?!) he did something incredibly idiotic and put many lives in danger. All that being said, if I were Obama, I don't know that I could have just left Bergdahl there. Just how I feel, but I can certainly understand your feelings. My son feels the same way you do that there should not have been an exchange.

Anonymous said...

Idk

Jen Ow said...

I didn't watch 20/20, but I've seen the case before...I thought he was guilty.

sidewalk super said...

since the manchurian candidate has been busy destroying the United States, and has surrounded himself with like-minded overpaid protection lackeys, and the voting public thinks this is all fine, we may be closer to a hillary clinton finale to our fine country than some of us realize.

People,
you have a chance to stop this downward slide our country is in.
VOTE !

Anonymous said...

I am dismayed to see that calling
out Clinton for a pattern of lying
and undermining our constitution falls under keeping women down. How can anyone pretend that former sec of state Clintons answers to the tough questions on Benghazi, Bergdahl or even Whitewater are satisfactory...have you read them? She is shamefull and now claims that when they
left the Whitehouse they were broke, just like so many of us
....how many of your friends give you millions to buy homes in areas you have never lived and then the laws change so you dont't have to have residency for more than 15 minutes to run for senate in that district. She is poison, a lying, treasonous woman who deserves prison, not election. I would love to see a woman President, one who honors this country and the liberty that founded it, not one who perverts it for personal gain. She like the current President are a black mark on our history and I pray when the smoke clears and the treasonous actions of these people come fully to light, that it is not too late to save it.