• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

If Hillary Clinton wins an electoral college majority but suffers an incapacitating health event before the inauguration (incompetent to take the oath/hold the office), is there a finite span of time during which Barack Obama is no longer president but Joe Biden is still the vice president (the new VP-elect not having been sworn in).  And if so, would Biden automatically ascend to the vacant presidency?
 
Brad Sallows said:
If Hillary Clinton wins an electoral college majority but suffers an incapacitating health event before the inauguration (incompetent to take the oath/hold the office), is there a finite span of time during which Barack Obama is no longer president but Joe Biden is still the vice president (the new VP-elect not having been sworn in).  And if so, would Biden automatically ascend to the vacant presidency?

I think this is how it would go,

On February 15, 1933, Roosevelt was giving an impromptu speech from the back of an open car in the Bayfront Park area of Miami, Florida, where Zangara was living, working the occasional odd job, and living off his savings. Zangara joined the crowd, armed with a .32-caliber US Revolver Company pistol he had bought for $8 at a local pawn shop. However, being only five feet tall, he was unable to see over other people, and had to stand on a wobbly, metal folding chair, peering over the hat of Lillian Cross to get a clear aim at his target. After the first shot, Cross and others grabbed his arm, and he fired four more shots wildly. Five people were hit, including Chicago mayor Anton Cermak, who was standing on the running board of the car next to Roosevelt. En route to the hospital, Cermak allegedly told Roosevelt, "I'm glad it was me instead of you," words now inscribed on a plaque in Bayfront Park.

Roosevelt was not among those injured during the incident. Had Zangara successfully assassinated him, however, then the Vice President-elect, John Nance Garner would have become President upon the expiry of incumbent President Herbert Hoover's term the following month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara#Assassination_attempt
 
Brad Sallows said:
If Hillary Clinton wins an electoral college majority but suffers an incapacitating health event before the inauguration (incompetent to take the oath/hold the office), is there a finite span of time during which Barack Obama is no longer president but Joe Biden is still the vice president (the new VP-elect not having been sworn in).  And if so, would Biden automatically ascend to the vacant presidency?

No. In fact the swearing in of the president and the vice-president take place at the same ceremony and the vice-president is sworn in before the president. Both the president and vice-president begin their terms at noon of inauguration day. In your scenario Kaine would be sworn in as vice-president and immediately take over in an acting position from Obama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_Oath_of_Office_(United_States)

:cheers:
 
It certainly looks like some kind of propaganda.

It is certainly not a method of polling that has even the slightest value or capacity to predict anything.

Just to give a quick example of why: Lets say that in Vermont (pop 625,000) 80% supported Trump (that's 800 out of the 1000 polled), while in California (39,300,000) 65% supported Clinton in the 1000 polled.

Very first thing is that, the two states polls have different values as far as margins of errors are concerned as the proportion of polled population is vastly different. That's a big no-no in statistics.

So using my example, these "students" would have found 1150 votes for Trump and 850 for Clinton. However, On a distributed basis of population (i.e. projecting the values found into the actual population numbers, Clinton would have a wide lead in support, at 25,670,000 against Trump's 14,255,000.Yet, it is important to remember that the Great Electors from each state are somewhat proportional to the state's population, and that they may or may not, depending on the state, be allowed to vote in proportion of the state's popular vote as opposed to block voting for the winner.

You can see right away that those numbers gotten by the "students" don't mean much where every state has the same "1000 polled", with equal weight in the overall figure.

Moreover, Using registered voters list and splitting the vote equally between registered Democrat, Republican and Independent  at 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3, is equally ridiculous unless the number of registered Republican, for instance, is the same as the number of registered Democrat, in any given state. As for the independent, the fact that a registered voter does not lists himself or herself as Democrat or Republican does not in and of itself indicate in any way that they are independent. It may very well be just I want to vote and my vote is secret.
 
Thanks for that, OGBD. I had problem with both the equal number of voters per state and the methodology. The whole thing sounds made up and certainly is voodoo statistics.
 
Old Sweat said:
Thanks for that, OGBD. I had problem with both the equal number of voters per state and the methodology. The whole thing sounds made up and certainly is voodoo statistics.

Especially with that stupid tagline at the bottom of the slide -- "Approved by lyingcrookedhillary.com Paid for by America" - superficial Trump supporter BS at best.

Come on guys. We're all smarter than that; aren't we?

:cheers:
 
Old Sweat said:
Thanks for that, OGBD. I had problem with both the equal number of voters per state and the methodology. The whole thing sounds made up and certainly is voodoo statistics.

Much the same as Clinton's poll numbers, given the fact that the MSM are her PR department. Their polls, at times, are even more unrealistic than this.

The only poll that matters and can be taken for granted is, on election day, when the vote is the poll.
 
Another thing to note about the stats, nation wide there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans.

And I believe that in Vermont, they do not register party affiliation, which is why Sanders can claim to be a Democrat while still saying he is an independent.
 
I think there is a distinction to be made here, Cupper.

Unless I am mistaken, the need to register with a party affiliation is to participate in the primaries or caucuses of those parties for the choice of their nominee (with the exception of those states that permit a vote in the primaries by anyone who has not claimed to be affiliated with an other party). You do not have to register with any affiliation if you do so in order to vote in the election of the state's Great Electors (i.e. the actual presidential election).

That's how I've always understood the system to work.
 
Seems that Both Clinton and Trump have an aversion to being completely truthful, or prefer to leave a lot of what they say open for interpretation as to the level of truthiness. Clinton comes by it from her experience as a lawyer and multiple times in front of inquiries. Trump just seems to prefer to stretch things out of obsession or compulsion.

Even under oath, Trump struggled with the truth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/even-under-oath-trump-struggled-with-the-truth/2016/08/09/07ee5d22-5818-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html

The lawyer gave Donald Trump a note, written in Trump’s own handwriting. He asked Trump to read it aloud.

Trump may not have realized it yet, but he had walked into a trap.

“Peter, you’re a real loser,” Trump began reading.

The mogul had sent the note to a reporter, objecting to a story that said Trump owned a “small minority stake” in a Manhattan real estate project. Trump insisted that the word “small” was incorrect. Trump continued reading: “I wrote, ‘Is 50 percent small?’ ”

“This [note] was intended to indicate that you had a 50 percent stake in the project, correct?” said the lawyer.

“That’s correct,” Trump said.

For the first of many times that day, Trump was about to be caught saying something that wasn’t true.

“I own 30 percent,” Trump admitted.

It was a mid-December morning in 2007 — the start of an interrogation unlike anything else in the public record of Trump’s life.

Trump had brought it on himself. He had sued a reporter, accusing him of being reckless and dishonest in a book that raised questions about Trump’s net worth. The reporter’s attorneys turned the tables and brought Trump in for a deposition.

For two straight days, they asked Trump question after question that touched on the same theme: Trump’s honesty.

The lawyers confronted the mogul with his past statements — and with his company’s internal documents, which often showed those statements had been incorrect or invented. The lawyers were relentless. Trump, the bigger-than-life mogul, was vulnerable — cornered, out-prepared and under oath.

Thirty times, they caught him.

Trump had misstated sales at his condo buildings. Inflated the price of membership at one of his golf clubs. Overstated the depth of his past debts and the number of his employees.

That deposition — 170 transcribed pages — offers extraordinary insights into Trump’s relationship with the truth. Trump’s falsehoods were unstrategic — needless, highly specific, easy to disprove. When caught, Trump sometimes blamed others for the error or explained that the untrue thing really was true, in his mind, because he saw the situation more positively than others did.

“Have you ever lied in public statements about your properties?” the lawyer asked.

“I try and be truthful,” Trump said. “I’m no different from a politician running for office. You always want to put the best foot forward.”

In his presidential campaign, Trump has sought to make his truth-telling a selling point. He nicknamed his main Republican opponent “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz. He called his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, “A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!” in a recent Twitter message. “I will present the facts plainly and honestly,” he said in the opening of his speech at the Republican National Convention. “We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.”

Trump has had a habit of telling demonstrable untruths during his presidential campaign. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker has awarded him four Pinocchios — the maximum a statement can receive — 39 times since he announced his bid last summer. In many cases, his statements echo those in the 2007 deposition: They are specific, checkable — and wrong.

Trump said he opposed the Iraq War at the start. He didn’t. He said he’d never mocked a disabled New York Times reporter. He had. Trump also said the National Football League had sent him a letter, objecting to a presidential debate that was scheduled for the same time as a football game. It hadn’t.

Last week, Trump claimed that he had seen footage — taken at a top-secret location and released by the Iranian government — showing a plane unloading a large amount of cash to Iran from the U.S. government. He hadn’t. Trump later conceded he’d been mistaken — he’d seen TV news video that showed a plane during a prisoner release.

But, even under the spotlight of this campaign, Trump has never had an experience quite like this deposition on Dec. 19 and 20, 2007.

He was trapped in a room — with his own prior statements and three high-powered lawyers.

“A very clear and visible side effect of my lawyers’ questioning of Trump is that he [was revealed as] a routine and habitual fabulist,” said Timothy L. O’Brien, the author Trump had sued.

The Washington Post sent the Trump campaign a detailed list of questions about this deposition, listing all the times when Trump seemed to have been caught in a false or unsupported statement. The Post asked Trump whether he wanted to challenge any of those findings — and whether he had felt regret when confronted with them.

He did not answer those questions.

In 2005, O’Brien, then a reporter for the New York Times, had published a book called “Trump Nation: The Art of Being the Donald.” In the book, O’Brien cited people who questioned a claim at the bedrock of Trump’s identity — that his net worth was more than $5 billion. O’Brien said he had spoken to three people who estimated that the figure was between $150 million and $250 million.

Trump sued. He later told The Post that he intended to hurt O’Brien, whom he called a “lowlife sleazebag.”

“I didn’t read [the book], to be honest with you. . . . I never read it. I saw some of the things they said,” Trump said later. “I said: ‘Go sue him. It will cost him a lot of money.’ ”


By filing suit, Trump hadn’t just opened himself up to questioning — he had opened a door into the opaque and secretive company he ran.

O’Brien’s attorneys included Mary Jo White, now the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Andrew Ceresney, now the SEC’s director of enforcement. The lawsuit had given them the power to request that Trump turn over internal company documents, and they used it. They arrived at the deposition having already identified where Trump’s public statements hadn’t matched the private truth.

The questions began with that handwritten note and the 50 percent stake that wasn’t 50 percent.

“The 30 percent equates to much more than 30 percent,” Trump explained. His reasoning was that he had not been required to put up money at the outset, so his 30 percent share seemed more valuable.

“Are you saying that the real estate community would interpret your interest to be 50 percent, even though in limited partnership agreements it’s 30 percent?” Ceresney asked.

“Smart people would,” Trump said.

“Smart people?”

“Smart people would say it’s much more than 30 percent.”

Trump inflates the numbers

TRUMP: I got more than a million dollars, because they have tremendous promotion expenses, to my advantage. In other words, they promote, which has great value, through billboards, through newspapers, through radio, I think through television – yeah, through television.

And they spend – again, I’d have to ask them, but I bet they spend at least a million or two million or maybe even more than that on promoting Donald Trump.

LAWYER: But how much of the payments were cash?

TRUMP: Approximately $400,000.

LAWYER: So when you say publicly that you got paid more than a million dollars, you’re including in that sum the promotional expenses that they pay?

TRUMP: Oh, absolutely, yes. That has a great value. It has a great value to me.

LAWYER: Do you actually say that when you say you got paid more than a million dollars publicly?

TRUMP: I don’t break it down.

On to the next one.

“I was paid more than a million dollars,” Trump said when Ceresney asked how much he’d been paid for a speech in 2005 at New York City’s Learning Annex, a continuing-education center.

Ceresney was ready.

“But how much of the payments were cash?”

“Approximately $400,000,” Trump said.

Trump said his personal math included the intangible value of publicity: The Learning Annex had advertised his speech heavily, and Trump thought that helped his brand. Therefore, in his mind he’d been paid more than $1 million, even though his actual payment was $400,000.

“Do you actually say that, when you say you got a million dollars publicly?” Ceresney asked.

“I don’t break it down,” Trump said.

As the deposition went on, the lawyers led Trump through case after case in which he’d overstated his success.

Donald Trump, right, is interviewed by Larry King during a taping of "Larry King Live" on Oct, 7, 1999. (Marty Lederhandler/AP)
The lawyer played a clip from Larry King’s talk show, in which King asked Trump how many people worked for him. “Twenty-two thousand or so,” Trump said.

“Are all those people on your payroll?” Ceresney asked him.

“No, not directly,” Trump said. He said he was counting employees of other companies that acted as suppliers and subcontractors to his businesses.

Another one. In O’Brien’s book, Trump had been quoted saying: “I had zero borrowings from [my father’s] estate. . . . I give you my word.”

Under oath:

“Mr. Trump, have you ever borrowed money from your father’s estate?”

“I think a small amount a long time ago,” Trump said. “I think it was like in the $9 million range.”

Another one. In one of his own books, Trump had said about one of his golf courses: “Membership costs $300,000. I think it’s a bargain.”

Under oath:

“In fact, your memberships were not selling at $300,000 at that time, correct?”

“We’ve sold many for two hundred” thousand, Trump said. Then, Trump pushed it upward: “We’ve sold many for, I think, two-fifty.”

But this was not the place to push it.

The lawyer had an internal Trump document that showed the true figure — “$200,000 per membership,” Ceresney said.

“Correct,” Trump acknowledged. “Right.”

Trump passes the blame

LAWYER: You didn’t correct it when you read the book?

TRUMP: Well, I did correct it, and she didn’t correct it.

But you could have her in as a witness, and I’m sure we’ll bring her in as a witness because what she wrote was — I asked her to change it to “billions of dollars in debt,” and she probably forgot.

LAWYER: And when you read it, you didn’t correct it?

TRUMP: I didn’t see it.

LAWYER: You didn’t see it.

TRUMP: I read it very quickly. I didn’t see it. I would have corrected it, but I didn’t see it.

In some cases, Trump acknowledged he was wrong — but not that he was at fault. Instead, he sought to turn the blame on others.

“This is somebody that wrote it, probably Meredith McIver,” Trump said at one point when confronted with another false statement. “That is a mistake.”

McIver, a staff writer with the Trump Organization, blazed into the public eye last month for having inserted plagiarized material — taken from Michelle Obama’s 2008 convention speech — in the convention speech of Trump’s wife, Melania. McIver said it had been an innocent mistake.

But in this deposition more than eight years earlier, Trump was blaming her for a mistake in one of his own books, “How to Get Rich.” In the 2004 book, co-written with McIver, Trump described his massive debt load during a low period in the early 1990s. “I owed billions upon billions of dollars — $9.2 billion to be exact,” the book said as it retold the story of his rise back to success.

The depth of that financial hole made it seem even more impressive that Trump had climbed out again. But the figure was wrong. His actual debts had been much less.

“I pointed it out to the person who wrote the book,” Trump said, meaning McIver.

“Right after she wrote the book?”

“That’s correct,” Trump said.

Then the lawyer showed Trump another book he’d written with McIver, three years later.

“In fact, I was $9 billion in debt,” Trump read aloud. A similar error, repeated. It was McIver’s fault again.

“She probably forgot,” Trump said.

“And when you read it, you didn’t correct it?”

“I didn’t see it,” Trump said.

“You didn’t see it.”

“I read it very quickly,” Trump said about a book he was credited with writing.

Trump makes unsupported claims

LAWYER: When you wrote, “O’Brien . . . threatened sources by telling them he can, quote, ‘Settle scores with enemies by writing negative articles about them,’ ” what was the basis for that statement?

TRUMP: Just my perception of him.

I don’t know that he indicated anything like that to me, but I think he probably did indirectly. Just my dealing with him.

In other cases, the lawyers prodded Trump into admitting that he had made authoritative-sounding statements without any proof behind them. These statements were another kind of untruth.

They were not necessarily false. They might have been true.

But Trump said them without knowing one way or the other.

“What basis do you have for that statement?” Ceresney asked in one case, about an assertion from Trump that O’Brien had been reported to the police for stalking.

“I guess that was probably taken off the Internet,” Trump said.

On to the next one.

“You wrote, ‘O’Brien . . . threatened sources by telling them he can, quote, settle scores with enemies by writing negative articles about them,’ ” Ceresney asked, reading Trump’s words from a legal complaint. “What was the basis for that statement?”

“Just my perception of him,” Trump said. “I don’t know that he indicated anything like that to me, but I think he probably did indirectly.”

The most striking example was a question at the very heart of the legal case: What was Trump’s actual net worth?

Trump had told O’Brien he was worth up to $6 billion. But the lawyers confronted him with other documents — from Trump’s accountants and from outside banks — that seemed to show the real figure was far lower.

The lawyers asked: “Have you ever not been truthful” about your net worth?

Trump’s answer here was that the truth about his wealth was — in essence — up to him to decide.

“My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings,” Trump said. “But I try.”

The interrogation finally ended after two days. Trump’s attorney made a final demand.

“I want the record to be crystal clear that every single word, every question, every answer, every word, is confidential,” said the attorney, Mark Ressler.

In 2009, a judge dismissed Trump’s case against O’Brien. Trump appealed, but in 2011 that was denied, too.

Along the way, this once-confidential deposition became part of the public record when O’Brien’s attorneys attached it to one of their motions.

In a brief statement this week, Trump said he felt the lawsuit was a success, despite his loss.

“O’Brien knows nothing about me,” Trump said. “His book was a total failure and ultimately I had great success doing what I wanted to do — costing this third rate reporter a lot of legal fees.”

O’Brien, now executive editor of Bloomberg View, said Trump got that wrong. The publisher and insurance companies covered the cost.

“Donald Trump lost his lawsuit and, unlike him, it didn’t cost me a penny to litigate it,” he said.

And it's another example of how Trump also seeks out to hurt anyone whom he feels has attacked him in any way, without thinking of what the costs and outcomes will be.

And it shows that he really is not a legal whiz, and should have been advised against this action.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I think there is a distinction to be made here, Cupper.

Unless I am mistaken, the need to register with a party affiliation is to participate in the primaries or caucuses of those parties for the choice of their nominee (with the exception of those states that permit a vote in the primaries by anyone who has not claimed to be affiliated with an other party). You do not have to register with any affiliation if you do so in order to vote in the election of the state's Great Electors (i.e. the actual presidential election).

That's how I've always understood the system to work.

That is true, and it becomes relevant depending on whether your state has open or closed primaries. Open primaries allow voters to cast votes in either party's primary, but only vote in one or the other, not both. Closed primaries only allow voters who are registered with that specific party to vote in that party's primary.

However as I suspected, there is no Party registration in Vermont. From the VT Sec of State Website FAQ

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/elections/frequently-asked-questions/voter-registration.aspx

Do I have to register as a Democrat, Republican, Independent or some other party in Vermont?

No. There is no party registration in Vermont. 

All registered voters can vote in the primary election—but can only vote on one ballot. You will be given a ballot for each of the major parties. You mark one of the ballots and put the remaining unvoted ballots into a discard bin. Which ballot you chose to vote is private and not recorded (except during the presidential primary, where voters must publicly take one ballot or the other, and their choice is recorded on the entrance checklist).
 
cupper said:
Seems that Both Clinton and Trump have an aversion to being completely truthful, or prefer to leave a lot of what they say open for interpretation as to the level of truthiness. Clinton comes by it from her experience as a lawyer and multiple times in front of inquiries. Trump just seems to prefer to stretch things out of obsession or compulsion.

Even under oath, Trump struggled with the truth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/even-under-oath-trump-struggled-with-the-truth/2016/08/09/07ee5d22-5818-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html

And it's another example of how Trump also seeks out to hurt anyone whom he feels has attacked him in any way, without thinking of what the costs and outcomes will be.

And it shows that he really is not a legal whiz, and should have been advised against this action.

From 2007? Can't find anything more recent? Lied under oath? Was he charged with perjury? Don't think so. More left wing tripe to try create a boogey man.

However, if we're conjecting about people hurting others, what about Killery's 40 something body bags. What about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. Or:

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.”

Clinton didn't become a liar because she was a lawyer as you contend. She was always a pathological liar.

We could get into Benghazi, but I believe I've made my point.
 
recceguy said:
Much the same as Clinton's poll numbers, given the fact that the MSM are her PR department. Their polls, at times, are even more unrealistic than this.

The only poll that matters and can be taken for granted is, on election day, when the vote is the poll.

Other polls like the ones commissioned by Fox News are showing the same results unfortunately.  Realistically polls open as of sept 9th and continue up until Election Day.  Advance polls, absentee voting in various states etc.  This is why Trump is running out of time. The first votes will be cast in less than a month and frankly, he's being outdone by a better campaign organisation, media bias yes and to be honest his own doing. 

I don't like either candidate for different reasons.  But unless a video of Clinton eating live kittens appears, I think the outcome is starting to become obvious.  Clinton is one of the most disliked candidates in recent history and Trump can't even manage to get the edge.  She has momentum and a much savvier organisation. 

He's on damage control every day.
 
As has happened in the past rosy polls for Clinton could act to cut her turnout.Trump supporters are angry and will turn out no matter what.CNN and others are bashing Trump 24/7 with real and made up stories.One telling fact is that Trump continues to have sell out venues while Hillary cant even fill a high school gym.
 
recceguy said:
From 2007? Can't find anything more recent?

Hey, I only had to go back 9 years for my post. You counter with something from Watergate.

I was only 6 years old when that happened. You must have been getting your third bar for you CD at that point.  ;D

Seriously though, as I said upthread, people need to research before they go off half cocked.

Zeif-geist
Hillary Clinton was not fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

CLAIM: Hillary Clinton was fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.

FALSE
EXAMPLE: [Collected via e-mail, 2014]

As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. 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."

ORIGIN:On the (thankfully rare) occasions when Congress must consider whether the sitting President of the United States has committed misdeeds that merit his forced removal from office, the task of initiating the impeachment process rests with the House Judiciary Committee:

A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. A resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct is referred to the House Committee on Rules, and then referred to the Judiciary Committee. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determine whether grounds for impeachment exist. If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment they will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment. The Impeachment Resolution, or Article(s) of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee's recommendations.

The House debates the resolution and may at the conclusion consider the resolution as a whole or vote on each article of impeachment individually. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article or the resolution as a whole to pass. If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as "House managers", with a "lead House manager") are selected to present the case to the Senate.

In 1973, after the Senate Select Committee on Campaign Activities' investigation into the break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., brought forth evidence that the Nixon administration (including the President himself) had attempted to cover-up its involvement with the crime, the House Judiciary Committee opened an an impeachment inquiry.

At that time, the Judiciary Committee comprised 37 members of the House of Representatives and was chaired by Representative Peter Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey. The Judiciary Committee was assisted by a permanent staff, on which attorney Jerry Zeifman served as Chief Counsel, and (for this occasion) by a separate Impeachment Inquiry staff assembled to determine whether President Nixon had committed impeachable offenses. That inquiry staff was headed by former U.S. Justice Department lawyer John Doar, and one of his hires was a 26-year-old Yale Law School graduate then known by her maiden name of Hillary Rodham (who a few years later would marry future Arkansas governor and U.S. president Bill Clinton).

A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he based that characterization were ones that he contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.

Zeifman said he maintained a transcribed diary during the impeachment proceedings, which he drew up upon two decades later in authoring the 1998 book Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot. That book makes it clear that Zeifman did not like (personally and professionally) a good many of the people he worked with during the Watergate investigation; in particular, he continually butted heads over issues of procedures and legal approaches with his boss, Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, and Hillary's supervisor, Impeachment Inquiry Special Counsel John Doar. Zeifman accused both Rodino and Doar (as well as Hillary Rodham and others), without evidence, of supposedly dragging their feet on recommending impeachment and "tanking" the investigation of President Nixon's wrongdoings, for reasons ranging from bribes offered by the Nixon White House to help with re-election bids, to a desire to enhance the Democrats' chances of winning the 1976 presidential election by keeping a discredited Nixon in office until the end of his term, to a plot to keep Richard Nixon from defending himself by bringing up past instances of presidential abuses of power (which would include dirt on the Kennedys).

A passage from Dan Calabrese's 2008 article presents one of Zeifman's chief complaints about Hillary, that she supposedly "dishonestly" drafted a brief that argued President Nixon's counsel should not be allowed to participate in the Judiciary Committee's evidentiary hearings, even though a precedent from a few years earlier had seemingly established that a federal official facing impeachment should be allowed such representation:

"[Hillary] was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview. "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? Zeifman said she was one of several individuals who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

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. In order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

"As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer," Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee's public files. So what did Hillary do?

"Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public," Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding — as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

This passage leaves many readers with the belief that Hillary Rodham took it upon herself to decide that President Nixon should not be represented by counsel during evidentiary hearings, to deliberately draft a brief that ignored precedent in that area, and to personally hide evidence of the precedent she had ignored so that no one could discover her dishonesty. But nearly everything stated in this passage is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn't draft a legal brief that was "unethical" (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn't agree with), she didn't "confiscate" public documents, and she didn't do anything that she hadn't been directed to do by the man who was her and Zeifman's superior.

It should be noted that the brief drafted by Hillary Rodham did not involve, as many people have misconstrued it, denying President Nixon the right to be represented by counsel during a trial on criminal charges. The brief addressed only whether Nixon had the right to be represented by counsel at evidentiary hearings conducted by a congressional committee tasked with determining whether potential grounds for impeachment existed.)

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that
"one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)

Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino's position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar. One might assert, as Chief Minority Counsel Frank Polk did, that Hillary could have taken a better approach to the task and "should have mentioned [the Douglas case], and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion," but it's highly subjective to suggest she was "unethical" and "dishonest" for carrying out the instructions of her immediate supervisor and his boss. One could just as plausibly argue that it would have been unethical and dishonest (not to mention insubordinate) for Hillary to presume to substitute her own judgment for that of her superiors and to refuse to comply with their directions.

Moreover, Zeifman plainly stated in his book that Hillary Rodham didn't "confiscate" files related to the Douglas impeachment case. Rather, he asserted that it was her supervisor, John Doar, who — with Chairman Rodino's assent — took possession of those files, writing that "Doar got Rodino's permission to place all of our Douglas impeachment files in his exclusive custody."

John Labovitz, another lawyer who served on the impeachment inquiry staff, said much the same thing in a 2013 interview with Calabrese:

I spoke with [John] Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman:

"If it's according to Zeifman, it's inaccurate from my perspective," Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff.

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.

More important, Zeifman misleadingly suggested more than once in 2008 that he had "terminated" Hillary from her position on the impeachment inquiry staff. For example, he stated in a February 2008 article he wrote for Accuracy in Media that:

My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.

And during a 2 April 2008 appearance with syndicated radio talk show host Neal Boortz, Zeifman said:

BOORTZ: You fired her, didn't you?

ZEIFMAN: Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.

But as noted above, Zeifman had no authority to "terminate" Hillary. They were members of different staffs, and Zeifman had no hiring or firing authority over members of the Impeachment Inquiry staff for which Hillary worked. (That authority rested with Special Counsel John Doar and, ultimately, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino.) Quite tellingly, Zeifman made absolutely no mention of having "fired" or "terminated" Hillary Rodham, nor of telling her that he "could not recommend her for any further positions," in his 1995 book; he only started claiming so much later. Back in 1995 he noted that Hillary had remained with the inquiry staff up until the end, leaving only when President Nixon's August 1974 resignation made the issue of impeachment moot and the Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry staff was therefore disbanded:

Hillary was twenty-seven when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded. The next morning she took a train down to Little Rock, Arkansas. She moved in with Bill Clinton and they eventually married.

And again in 1998, Zeifman was quoted in a Scripps Howard News Service article as unambiguously confirming that not only did he not "fire" Hillary, but that it was not even within his power to do so:

Jerome Zeifman, chief Democratic counsel on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 ... does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said.

Zeifman made no bones about having an ax to grind with Hillary Clinton (putting out the anti-Clinton paperback Hillary's Pursuit of Power in 2006), and as its blade grew sharper over the years, he quite obviously shifted his recollections of events from the 1973-74 timeframe to conform to his later point of view rather than the other way around.

Back in April 2008, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign site responded to Zeifman's claims by asserting:

In a column circulating on the internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s.

This is false. Hillary was not fired.

They also noted that the Washington Post's reviewer found (as we did) much of Zeifman's book to be mere repetition of speculation with little or no evidence to substantiate it:

[The 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.

The lack of evidence makes his 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.

LAST UPDATED: 06 July 2016

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: 21 October 2014



 
Remius said:
But unless a video of Clinton eating live kittens appears, I think the outcome is starting to become obvious.

Never underestimate the cat hater vote. And we dog lovers are a voting block to ignore at your peril.  [:D
 
Hey Cupper.  You and Recceguy are debating each other with information found on the internet.........
 
Well, you know what they say, it must be true, cause it's on the internet, and you aren't allow to post false information on the web. It's the law. Google it. :rofl:


Or to borrow from Trump: "He started it.  [Xp "

Tee Hee
 
I had a friend from back home call me tonight to find out if everyone down has gone batpoop.

Obama is the founder of IS IS (shout out to Jim Jefferies). Seriously?

But I blew his mind when I filled him in that the real truth goes deeper, and that it was really Obama that lead the Iranian Revolution.

But the deeper conspiracy is that Obama is the real father of Osama Bin Laden.

My friend just couldn't take it any more.

http://youtu.be/5j2F4VcBmeo
 
Back
Top