<p>This is an interesting article regarding the Nixon era:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut[/url]”>http://www.aim.org/aim-column/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut</a></p>
<p>Thank you for the post it was an interesting read…do you happen to know which years Mr. Zeifman was associated with the House Judiciary Committee? </p>
<p>Was it during the Manny Celler years?</p>
<p>A review of Mr. Zeifmans book …</p>
<p>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
.
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.
Read More: <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/matthewdallek.htm[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/matthewdallek.htm</a></p>
<p>So I guess he does have more credibility than the Senator. Thank you for posting TommyBill.</p>
<p>I see two conflicting sources of power in the Dem Party slugging it out with Rodham in the middle. Out ethics? I’m sure. But that’s the way the game is played. That is, if the account is accurate.</p>
<p>Wow. Is there ever a gap between conclusory assertion and reality in that article!</p>
<p>I didn’t see one thing in it that supported his statement that she was unethical, not even close. She wrote memos he (and maybe Tip O’Neill) didn’t like, but which others (including Peter Rodino, chairman of the committee that employed her, and her actual boss John Doar) seem to have approved. Some of her recommendations were adopted by the committee and rejected by the House, others were rejected by the committee (and presumably still others were accepted – he doesn’t pretend to be providing a comprehensive assessment). Before she ever started working, he told her not to recommend rules changes, but she did (at whose behest he doesn’t say, but not very likely her own). He asserts, without any evidence whatsoever, that she was part of a grand conspiracy (including Rodino and Doar) to keep Nixon in office in order to facilitate a Democratic victory in 1974. And she commissioned an academic paper on behalf of the committee, which was never used or distributed, and which the authors later published as a book. (I’m sure it sold like hotcakes, the public being crazy about academic works on impeachment legal standards.) No one ever investigated whether she got a share of the princely royalties! (No one ever explains why anyone should have considered such an investigation.)</p>
<p>And . . . he fired her. After the project on which she was working was terminated by Nixon’s resignation. When all the staff hired for that project was being let go. But in her case, it was because of his “ethical concerns”. (And it’s completely unclear whether he had anything like hiring and firing authority over her, but the glimpses of evidence suggest no.)</p>
<p>What a tool! As happens from time to time in Washington, people from different teams within the same party have to work together. Maybe they annoy each other. Maybe the author was very, very easy to annoy. HE certainly seems to have been fond of petty bureaucracy. </p>
<p>I also find it strange to read that the author claims he was in league with O’Neill to “hold Rodino’s fee to the fire”, Rodino being his boss. That’s the most unethical thing he actually mentions in the article. I’m not sure it’s actually unethical – I don’t know the standards for Congressional committee staff – but it sure would give ME pause if I were thinking of hiring him to advise ME.</p>
<p>Thank you for posting TommyBill.</p>
<p>you are welcome</p>
<p>I can’t believe that anyone in their first legal job after law school would have any authority whatsoever to engineer grand Washington conspiracies. </p>
<p>After the events described above, Hillary Clinton was admitted to the Arkansas bar, ran for First Lady twice, and Senator twice, and has been scrutinized more than anyone on the planet…</p>
<p>“Hillary Clinton was admitted to the Arkansas bar”</p>
<p>She wasn’t in DC.</p>
<p>Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Failed Her Bar Exam
By JT Thompson (07/07/06) </p>
<p>"While most of the mainstream news media describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as one of smartest people in America, few noticed her admission in her book that she was a mediocre law student who failed the Washington, DC bar examination: </p>
<p>“I had taken both the Arkansas and the Washington, D.C., bar exams during the summer, but my heart was pulling me toward Arkansas. When I learned that I had passed in Arkansas but failed in D.C., I thought that maybe my test scores were telling me something.”</p>
<ul>
<li>Living History by Hillary Rodham Clinton</li>
</ul>
<p>“While the her attempt at spinning her failure to practice law in the nation’s capital appeared in the book, the audiotape of Living History omits this entry.”</p>
<p>“ran for First Lady twice”</p>
<p>I don’t believe first ladies are elected ;)</p>
<p>When I was Hillary’s age, it would have been really stupid to take the DC bar because no one took the DC bar; it was way too hard and you could take any other bar and waive in (Pennsylvania’s was easy). So I don’t know what she was thinking!!! Lots of very bright people fail bar exams, though. I’ll have to check on that; I thought she took DC, failed, then moved to AK and took that.</p>
<p>And impossible today since both exams are on the same day…</p>
<p>Oh, first ladies are definitely elected. I think John Kerry’s wife lost the last election.</p>
<p>JK lost the election for JK. Swift Boat ads were certainly a contributor.</p>
<p>Did anyone happen to read NY Times Today- David Brooks -Cooper Concerns.</p>
<p>(these are the kinds of things yet to emerge which will sink a Hillary as nominee-and, that scares me so much)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?em&ex=1202446800&en=71fcb9a2bceb4c8b&ei=5087[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?em&ex=1202446800&en=71fcb9a2bceb4c8b&ei=5087</a></p>
<p>“Cooper is one of the most thoughtful, cordial and well-prepared members of the House. In 1992, he came up with a health care reform plan that would go on to attract wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.”</p>
<p>"On June 15, 1993, Cooper met with Clinton to discuss their differences. Clinton was “ice cold” at the meeting, Cooper recalls. “It was the coldest reception of my life. I was excoriated.” </p>
<p>Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton’s response, Cooper now says, was: “We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me.”</p>
<p>I’m very upset by this; I just voted for Clinton…and I don’t know how she could have taken AK and NY bars in one summer. At present that just can’t be done! Must find answer.</p>
<p>“Oh, first ladies are definitely elected. I think John Kerry’s wife lost the last election.”</p>
<p>I think Giuliani’s wife was the stake in his heart.</p>
<p>And impossible today since both exams are on the same day…"</p>
<p>They aren’t</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thebarexam.com/dcbarexam.htm[/url]”>http://www.thebarexam.com/dcbarexam.htm</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.arkansasbarexam.com/[/url]”>http://www.arkansasbarexam.com/</a></p>
<p>“I think Giuliani’s wife was the stake in his heart.”</p>
<p>Which one? :)</p>
<p>Erewhon - you have 2007 AK dates compared to 2008 DC. </p>
<p>Usually one day of the bar exam is a test that’s the same for all states so the only way you can take two states at once is if one is a Tues-Wed and one a Wed-Thurs, with the common part on Wed. I guess it is possible she flew from one to the other, or that rules were different in 1973.</p>
<p>She was sworn into DC bar in Oct 1973 according to the AK bar website which would be appropriate for having taken the July 1973 AK bar.</p>
<p>Unrelated to the bar discussion- updated Hillary news.
Hillary Rodham Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million late last month as Barack Obama outraised and outspent her in the Democratic presidential race. </p>
<p>Clinton told reporters at her campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va., that she made the loan, adding, “I believe the campaign would have a great month fundraising in January. We intended to be competitive and we were.”</p>