A little over 40 years ago, Hillary Clinton finished her employment by the House committee that was investigating the Watergate break in and the associated events. That's common knowledge. But how many people have heard that Hillary was fired by her supervisor Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat, for what he has called "lying" and "unethical behavior"? According to reports, Hillary violated the committees rules and legal ethics by coordinating her efforts for the committee with the political staff of senator Ted Kennedy. In fact, the story is that Hillary was trying to make sure that president Nixon would not be impeached so as to guarantee that there would be a Democrat victory in the 1976 presidential election. The source of the story is a group of statements made directly by Zeifman, who is obviously the one with the most knowledge.
As far as I can find, Hillary has never disputed or even commented on this story. As is her current practice with scandals, she just treats it as if it does not exist. There are a few media commentaries on this matter. Most of them adopt a standard of Clintonian analysis: there is no confirmation or evidence that the story is true. That may be the talking points from the Clintons, but those talking points are obviously not true. There is plenty of evidence; Zeifman himself made statements about what Hillary, who he supervised, had done and about why he fired her. That's about the most direct evidence one could ever have of this matter. Particularly since Hillary has never bothered to deny the story, the truth is that there is no evidence at all to contradict Zeifman's story. That's right, there's a lack of evidence, but the evidence that does not exist is anything that might exonerate Hillary from the alleged misconduct.
In an atmosphere where the New York Times is writing front page stories about Marco Rubio's four traffic tickets over the last 20 years, one might expect an in depth piece on the alleged lying and unethical conduct that got Hillary Clinton fired from her job a few decades ago. Instead, we hear nothing at all about it from the media.
As far as I can find, Hillary has never disputed or even commented on this story. As is her current practice with scandals, she just treats it as if it does not exist. There are a few media commentaries on this matter. Most of them adopt a standard of Clintonian analysis: there is no confirmation or evidence that the story is true. That may be the talking points from the Clintons, but those talking points are obviously not true. There is plenty of evidence; Zeifman himself made statements about what Hillary, who he supervised, had done and about why he fired her. That's about the most direct evidence one could ever have of this matter. Particularly since Hillary has never bothered to deny the story, the truth is that there is no evidence at all to contradict Zeifman's story. That's right, there's a lack of evidence, but the evidence that does not exist is anything that might exonerate Hillary from the alleged misconduct.
In an atmosphere where the New York Times is writing front page stories about Marco Rubio's four traffic tickets over the last 20 years, one might expect an in depth piece on the alleged lying and unethical conduct that got Hillary Clinton fired from her job a few decades ago. Instead, we hear nothing at all about it from the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment