BOOKS AND ARTICLES 0N POLITICS
By
JERRY ZEIFMAN
Former Chief Counsel
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House or Representatives
Most Recent Posting 6/13/08
(c) All rights reserved
PROFILES IN TREASON
Joseph Kennedy, Tyler Kent
And Scott McClellan
by Jerry Zeifman
In 1905 Harvard Professor George Santayana despaired of a younger generation's
ignorance, warning that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it.” After World War II John Kennedy published two best sellers: Why
England Slept and Profiles in Courage .
On May 29, 2008 Accuracy in Media (Aim.org) -- in an article titled The Network
Behind the Bush-bashing Book -- exposed the mendacity of Scott McClellan and
his editors. On May 30 Fox News reported “[Former Senator] Dole basically
described the former White House press secretary as a traitor looking to cash in on
the "liberal" media's distaste for President Bush.”
With my recollection refreshed by AIM, I have some painful remembrances of past
treasons.
My memories are of two close relatives who during the prohibition era were co-
conspirators of Joe Kennedy and mobster boss Frank Costello -- whose
headquarters were a short drive from my home. A decade later I was in the Navy
and regarded Kennedy as a traitor who had given aid and comfort to Adolf
Hitler.
Joseph Kennedy Sr.
One of my uncles was a part time Assistant District Attorney -- and also a well paid
"consiglieri" for Costello. The other relative operated an illegal still. At that time
Kennedy had a monopoly on imported Scotch. Since our relative had many
American competitors, his earning were less than those of Kennedy -- who diluted
Johnny Walker Scotch with our relative's low priced ethyl alcohol
In 1938, Roosevelt appointed Kennedy as the United States Ambassador to Britain.
Prior to the bombing of Britain in 1940, Kennedy had clashed with Winston
Churchill -- who had opposed efforts to negotiate a compromise with Hitler. Also,
without authorization from President Roosevelt, Kennedy supported Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement.
In 1938, as the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified, Kennedy attempted– again
without FDR’s approval -- to obtain an audience with Adolf Hitler. In September
1940, shortly before World War II broke out, Kennedy -- once again without
presidential approval -- sought to negotiate personally with Hitler.
On November 10, 1940 Kennedy told the Boston Sunday Globe "Democracy is
finished in England. It may be here…". It isn't that [Britain is] fighting for democracy.
That's the bunk. She's fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us...
I know more about the European situation than anybody else, and it's up to me to
see that the country gets it,"
When President Roosevelt read Kennedy’s quotes he recalled him from Britain, and
ordered him to resign or be fired. After Kennedy left the oval office, FDR reportedly
told the Secret Service: “Never let that son of a bitch in here again.”
Kennedy then became a supporter of the “America First” movement founded by
Charles Lindbergh, who had met Hitler and was also a Nazi sympathizer. At that
time “America First” was also supported Fritz Kuhn, the American fuehrer of the
“German--American Bund.”
My saddest memories are of 194O, when I was fifteen years old. During that
period my grandfather -- on learning that his brother and more than thirty of his
relatives in Poland were either dead or in Nazi prisons -- had a stroke.
Fortunately, during the pre-Pearl Harbor months of the Battle of Britain, a family
friend, Robert Spivack – a protégé of Eleanor Roosevelt -- had founded an
organization called “Fight For Freedom,” which mobilized African Americans and
Jews, to petition congress to declare war on Germany. My grandparents and
mother contributed funds to Bob’s group.
At that time Joe Kennedy had incited a student pacifist group to stage anti-war
demonstrations at Harvard’s Widener Memorial Library -- calling for the removal
from its walls of a large mural by John Singer Sargent commemorating Harvard men
who had died in the first World War.
Titled Death and Victory, the mural bore an inscription, “Happy are those who with
one last embrace clasp both death and Victory.” The demonstrators denounced it
for “glorifying war” and demanded its removal. A successful counter demonstration
was also waged that had included Bob Spivack my mother and grandfather , as
well as one of my high school teachers, Marjorie Hubbard -- whose son was later
die on a bombing raid over Nazi Germany.
I first saw the mural in 1943 when I was sent to a Navy training program at
Harvard. There President Conant -- in his welcoming address to our class of 1947
-- included advice that I have never forgotten: “The hallmark of a modern well
educated man is to know on which experts to rely.”
Sadly, these days a majority of Harvard Professors at the Kennedy School of
Government are experts at the art of “how to avoid telling the truth without lying?”
and revise history to sanitize the sins of the father of Camelot
Tyler Kent
Tyler Kent was an American diplomat and alleged spy who, while working under
Joe Kennedy as a cipher clerk at the U.S. Embassy in London -- under the
supervision of Ambassador Joe Kennedy, stole thousands of secret documents for a
pro-German organization during World War II.
Kent was born in Manchuria where his father was a U.S. Consul. Eventually,
through his father's connections, he joined the State Department and was posted to
our embassy in Moscow. There , he became responsible for encoding and
decoding Top Secret messages.
In 1939 he was under suspicion for espionage for the Soviet Union, but lacking any
solid evidence, the State Department – apparently with the approval of Ambassador
Kennedy -- transferred him to our embassy in London. At that time Winston
Churchill had just been appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, and was regularly
communicating with Franklin Roosevelt.
With a position which required him to encode and decode sensitive telegrams, Kent
had access to a wide range of secret documents, especially the communications
between Churchill and Roosevelt, and he stole many of them him. He also became
politically active in support of America First as well as British anti-war
campaigns
On May 18 Ambassador Kennedy was informed of Kent’ s treason, and agreed to
waive diplomatic immunity against his subordinate. On May 20, 1940 Kent was
arrested in a dawn raid at his flat. When officers of MI5 inspected the flat, they found
1,929 official documents: besides Churchill's cables, there was a book containing
the names of people under surveillance by Special Branch and MI5. Searchers also
found keys to the U.S. Embassy code room.
Kent was specifically charged with stealing documents that "might be directly or
indirectly useful to an enemy." On October 23 Kent was tried in camera in the Old
Bailey. On November 7, 1940 he was convicted and sentenced to seven years'
imprisonment .
Scott McClellan
As a high level White House aide, Scott McClellan -- like Joe Kennedy and Tyler
Kent -- had access to classified information. Although his book gives aid and
comfort to the enemy, it is unlikely that a jury would find him guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of the felony defined in the U.S. Criminal Code.
However, in addition to being a felony, the Constitution specifically makes Treason
an impeachable offense. It also gives Congress the authority to impeach former
federal officials -- and to prohibit them from ever again serving in public office. It is
also noteworthy that under the laws of impeachment it is not necessary to prove the
commission of a statutory crime -- or proof beyond a reasonable. Instead the
standard – as applied by the House Judiciary Committee in voting to impeach
President Nixon – is the “abuse of power.”
Today there are currently two House Members, Charlie Rangel and John Conyers,
whom I consider as my friends – and whom I counseled in 1974, during our
impeachment of Richard Nixon. Ironically, John led the successful fight to impeach
former Judge Alcee Hastings for bribery. Apparently -- because of either an
oversight or design -- John failed to add a clause in the article of impeachment to
bar Hastings from holding a future federal office. As a result Hasting was later
elected to Congress, now serves on the Judiciary Committee and Congressional
Black Caucus , and is an even more strident Bush basher than McClellan.
Sadly, unlike Republican Senator Dole, John and Charlie are not speaking out
against McClellan. Instead he and most my fellow Democrats are now aiding and
abetting the marketing of the book by the author whom Dole described as a
“traitor” and “a miserable creature.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book By Democratic Chief Counsel Exposes Why
Hillary Clinton Is "Ethically Unfit to Hold Public Office.”
Hillary's Pursuit of Power
Jerry Zeifman, a former counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for 17 years,
takes you to a behind the scenes account of Hillary Clinton, in a book based on
his personal experiences in dealing with her. In 1974, he had supervisory authority
of a staff that included Hillary Rodham – who was then engaged in a variety of self-
serving unethical practices in violation of House rules. In 1998, as consultant to a
member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Clinton, he gained
extensive personal insights into the unethical practices of Hillary Clinton in her White
House “West Wing” office.
A lifelong Democrat, Jerry Zeifman has concluded that Hillary Clinton is ethically
unfit to be either a Senator or President – and if she were to become President, the
last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and
Johnson will be destroyed.
Availability of Hillary's Pursuit of Power
Digital Edition $4.90
Autographed Paper Back $14.90 (free shipping)
Or send check or money order to: Marianne Zeifman
32 Walnut Tree Hill Rd, Sandy Hook, CT 06482
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIOR BOOK by Jerry Zeifman
Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot
and Impeachment of President Nixon
collectors item
Out of hardback first edition $13.00 (free shipping)
Autographed and inscribed to purchaser if requested
Or send check or money order to Marianne Zeifman
32 Walnut Tree Hill Rd., Sandy Hook, CT 06482
REVIEWS
Publishers Weekly: The House Judiciary Committee's recommendation in 1974 that
Nixon be impeached was nearly thwarted by a sham congressional inquiry, according to
this blistering expose. Zeifman was chief counsel to the committee during the
impeachment inquiry… He charges that John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry,
intentionally orchestrated a charade because he feared that a thorough investigation of
the Nixon administration's government-sponsored crimes would let out of the bag
Kennedy- era sanctioned murders carried out in the name of national security… Finally,
Zeifman maintains that Doar aide Hillary Rodham (now the First Lady) helped Doar gain
control over the investigation through unethical tricks and faulty legal opinions
John Dean: The House Judiciary Committee's recommendation in 1974 that Nixon be
impeached was nearly thwarted by a sham congressional inquiry, according to this
blistering expose. Zeifman was chief counsel to the committee during the impeachment
inquiry… He charges that John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry, intentionally
orchestrated a charade because he feared that a thorough investigation of the Nixon
administration's government-sponsored crimes would let out of the bag Kennedy- era
sanctioned murders carried out in the name of national security… Finally, Zeifman
maintains that Doar aide Hillary Rodham (now the First Lady) helped Doar gain control
over the investigation through unethical tricks and faulty legal opinions. Jerry Zeifman..
provides unique, often startling insights into the incomplete impeachment of Richard
Nixon. I found this book to be a real page turner… It provides missing information that
cannot be ignored by students of the period, the Nixon presidency, Watergate, and
Congress.
Saul Bellow (Nobel Laureate) I got a kick out of Without Honor. I liked it a lot. I
sometimes try to imagine myself functioning in the political circles of Washington. I
wouldn't have had the patience to cope with it. They would have had to send me
home in a wheel chair.
Edward Mortimer (Financial Times) The story is utterly fascinating and the
extraordinary quotes from his diary taped at the time surely make it a primary source
of considerable importance.
Henry Hyde (Chairman, House Judiciary Committee) After I started Jerry
Zeifman’s extraordinarily insightful book I could not put it down -- and finished it in
one sitting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior Articles
by Jerry Zeifman
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Still Abusing His Guests
April 1, 2008
Knowing that Kate Michelman, a preeminent abortion rights advocate, supports Barack
Obama, Chris Matthews' below-the-belt verbal assault on her was: "How does it feel to
have abandoned the cause of your life?" The Hardball master then badgered her by
asking how a feminist like her could support someone other than Hillary Clinton.
Ms. Michelman has spoken out well for herself. She has also succeeded in making me a
bit ashamed of myself for not having spoken out sooner of my own following
experiences with Chris Matthews.
In 1995, at the request of my literary agent, Matthews met in private with John Dean and
me to discuss my then recently published book Without Honor: The Crimes of Camelot
and Impeachment of President Nixon, which had previously received the following
review in Publisher's Weekly:
"The House Judiciary Committee's recommendation in 1974 that Nixon be impeached
was nearly thwarted by a sham congressional inquiry, according to this blistering
exposé... Zeifman charges that John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry, intentionally
orchestrated a charade because he feared that a thorough investigation of the Nixon
administration's government-sponsored crimes would let out of the bag Kennedy-era
wiretaps, burglaries and sanctioned murders carried out in the name of national
security...Finally, Zeifman maintains that Doar aide Hillary Rodham (now the First Lady)
helped Doar gain control over the investigation through unethical tricks and faulty legal
opinions."
John Dean had written the introduction to the book, which was based on a private diary
that I kept of closed door Judiciary committee meetings. Although he and I had assumed
that Matthews would discuss my book, he treated me discourteously by engaging in no
discussion with me-and conversing with John Dean only about matters other than my
book.
As I left his office, I reminded him that I had worked with his former boss Tip O'Neill to
oppose Ted Kennedy's efforts to keep Nixon in office and quoted the former Speaker as
follows: "the Kennedys are not real Democrats like you and me. They've got their own
Camelot Party. I was born a Democrat before I was baptized a catholic." Matthews reply
was, "What did he mean by that?"
Matthews is certainly not alone in the mainstream media in continuing to perpetuate the
Camelot myth and idolization of JFK and RFK by never mentioning the "Crimes of
Camelot" documented in my book.
Despite the efforts of my well-paid publicist the only TV interview of me ever given in
Washington related to my book was that by Reed Irvine of Accuracy in media-which
occurred within days after the book appeared in Washington book stores.
In retrospect I now find it amusing that Chris Matthews did not want me as an adversary
on his show. However, I regret that I have not spoken out sooner urging readers to
boycott him-and MSNBC for as long as he is in their employ.
Cancer on the Presidency
Wall Street Journal 10/29/96
Sadly, as a life-long Democrat and chief counsel of the House Judiciary
Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry, cannot in good
conscience vote to re-elect Bill Clinton. Having reached this decision, I am
proud to be among those Democrats who have chosen principle over party.
Defeating Mr. Clinton would help revive the traditional moral values of the
Democratic Party -- as they existed under Presidents Roosevelt, Truman,
Kennedy, Johnson and Carter.
Having long championed traditional Democratic causes, I simply cannot
accept Mr. Clinton's shameless election-year surge to the right as his
chosen means of winning a second term. And like most if not all traditional
Democrats, I have grave reservations about the Clintons' morality and
ethics. In my view there is now probable cause to consider our president
and first lady as felons, who are likely to be indicted after the Nov. 5 election.
The misdeeds of the Clinton administration have fallen into a pattern of
deceit and corruption that now clearly justifies denying Mr. Clinton a second
term in office. To date more than 30 high administration officials have been
investigated, fired or forced to resign, and the White House has illegally
obtained more than 900 confidential FBI files. Four independent counsels
have been appointed, three to investigate cabinet members and one to
investigate the president himself.
The White House suppressed documents under subpoena. The Department
of Justice, the FBI and the Treasury Department have been politicized and
misused to prosecute or investigate innocent staffers of the White House
Travel Office. The president's Health Care Task Force operated secretly in
gross violation of federal disclosure laws, misled the federal courts and
ignored conflict of interest laws.
The most recent scandal, involving former Commerce Department official
and Democratic Party fund-raiser John Huang (who still has failed to answer
a summons issued by District Judge Royce C. Lamberth), is but another
hauntingly familiar throwback to my days as an investigator of Watergate
crimes and a wide variety of other forms of presidential misconduct. The
1972 Republican Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) was involved
in many shady operations that mixed legitimate government funding
operations with the illegitimate re-funneling of money through backdoor
corporate contributions into CREEP coffers.
Now it appears that Mr. Huang, and his former associates from the
Indonesian Lippo financial conglomerate, were unlawfully funneling
contributions from foreign sources (that had both corporate and political
interests in U.S. policy) into Democratic Party coffers. This mixing of U.S.
policy with partisan fund-raising -- not to mention the questionable
background of some of the institutions and individuals given top clearance
by the White House and the DNC -- has produced a cancer on the Clinton
presidency painfully reminiscent of the cancer that brought down Nixon.
I am particularly saddened that the Clintons now believe that their unethical
and unlawful acts in the pursuit of power will be condoned by all but a few
Democrats in the name of party unity. During the Nixon impeachment
inquiry it was my view that the core of Nixon's corruption was his belief that
in politics his ends justified any means at all.
Ironically, it is now the Clinton administration that has given renewed
intensity to the corrupt notion that immoral means can be legitimized in the
pursuit of political ends. If
Mr. Clinton is re-elected it will be testimony to his success in putting politics
before principle.
A second Clinton term would polarize the nation even more dangerously
than did Richard Nixon's -- this time with Republicans as the new defenders
of integrity in government and Democrats as the defenders of a corrupt
administration. If Mr. Clinton is defeated, Democrats may find a new strength
-- and long remember the folly of marching in lockstep in support of a
corrupt president in the name of party unity.
By all accounts Robert Dole is a man of personal integrity. His principles are
conservative, and I will continue to oppose them. Yet because I must remain
true to my traditional Democratic moral values, I will vote for Mr. Dole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Kennedy Disgraced Himself
Newsmax 1/30/06
In my view (as a Democrat and former chief counsel to the House Judiciary
Committee), Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has disgraced himself
and our party by misusing his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to
achieve self-serving partisan ends.
Kennedy was the architect of an unprecedented tactic: using filibusters to
polarize the Senate along party lines thus denying the confirmation of
qualified conservative judges. In Bush's first term the Senate Democrats
used that tactic successfully against at least 10 nominees for judgeships on
circuit courts.
Fortunately, Kennedy failed in his partisan attempt to deny Judge Alito a
seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.] This occurred largely because Democratic
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska formed a non-partisan coalition of seven
Democrats and seven Republicans to oppose filibusters, except in
extraordinary cases.
Filibusters first arose after the Civil War as a means of defeating legislation
intended to foster desegregation. They were an anathema to those of us
who joined Martin Luther King's famous March on Washington in 1963.
Fifteen years later during the Clinton administration filibusters were
presumably also abhorrent to Senator Kennedy, who then wanted to outlaw
them entirely. On Jan. 28, 1998, he argued: " The president and the Senate
do not always agree [on judicial nominations]. But we should resolve these
disagreements by voting 'yes' or 'no.'" Three years later Kennedy put
politics above principle and became a champion of the filibuster. He also
threatened to boycott any work of the Senate that was not essential for
national security if a Republican majority was trying to outlaw filibusters by
amending the Senate rules.
Subsequently, in a badgering cross-examination of Judge Alito, Kennedy
tried to portray him as an undercover enemy of equal rights for women and
minorities.
For me, Kennedy's effort to impugn Judge Alito's integrity was reminiscent
of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, who tarred his victims with the brush
of guilt by association. Kennedy's charge against Alito was based on the fact
that 34 years ago, while a reserve officer in the Army, he joined a Princeton
alumni group that opposed the banning of ROTC programs from the
university's campus. Some members of the group (other than Alito) wanted
Princeton to continue its traditional policy of denying admission to women.
They also opposed affirmative action programs based on quotas. (Quota-
bases programs were subsequently prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court.)
On Jan. 17, Newsmax reported a story that most of the liberal media
ignored: Kennedy had admitted his own membership in the Owl Club, which
does not allow women, and was banned from the Harvard campus. He had
paid dues to the all-male club ever since his student days. Faced with
evidence of his hypocrisy, Kennedy said, "I am going to get out of it as fast
as I can."
Aside from the Senator's association with an all-male club there is other
more substantial evidence of flaws in Kennedy's character: Kennedy had
been expelled from Harvard for paying a friend to take a Spanish exam for
him.
He also has a history of mistreating women. In July 1969, with Mary Jo
Kopechne (his date for the night at a drinking party) beside him in his car,
Kennedy drove off the side of a bridge at Chappaquiddick on Martha’s
Vineyard..When the car began to submerge in water the Senator escaped.
Mary Jo remained in the car and drowned.
At that time Joan Kennedy, the Senator's wife, was pregnant. Traumatized
by the scandal and by her husband's philandering, she had a miscarriage.
She then started to drink her way into alcoholism. Eventually she went into
psychiatric treatment and divorced Kennedy.
To counter the bad reputation he acquired among women because of the
Chappaquiddick scandal and his mistreatment of his wife, the Senator
pandered to pro-choice feminists – causing his pro-life detractor to quip,
"Libertine men always favor abortion."
At the Senate's confirmation hearings Kennedy metaphorically picked up the
pro-abortion gauntlet and hoped to deliver Judge Alito's head on a political
platter to Washington's most radical feminist groups and other major
contributors of campaign money to the Democratic Party.
Finally, anyone interested in the flaws in Kennedy's character should read
"The Senator: My Ten Years With Ted Kennedy," by Richard Burke. The
author describes how he tried to save the Senator from his personal
excesses.
He also provides a behind-the-scenes account of Kennedy's 1980
unsuccessful primary race against then President Jimmy Carter; which
hopelessly polarized the Democratic Party - and helped Ronald Reagan
move into the White House.
During my own career on Capitol Hill I once told House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill
in confidence: "I have a low opinion of Senator Kennedy." He replied
discreetly: "The Kennedys are not real Democrats. They have their own
party."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Democratic Caucus Should Remove
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Newsmax 4/17/07
On April 6, a Washington Post Editorial aptly described Mrs. Pelosi’s trip to
Demascus as a “pratfall,” – which the dictionary defines as “a fall in which
one lands on the buttocks, often regarded as comical or humiliating.”
In my view that word was a discrete understatement. As a life-long
Democrat and former congressional chief counsel I regard her conduct as an
unconstitutional abuse of power that warrants her removal by our
Democratic Caucus,
As I previously noted in my article of April 7, she persistently fosters what
Thomas Jefferson denounced as "tyranny by the majority" — and violates
House Rules that give her the duty to maintain order, civility, and decorum,
and to foster "comity" (a word rarely used these days, meaning "mutual
respect"). Her trip to Damascus was more than a blunder. In denying
President Bush’s request as well as purporting falsely to Speak for Israel it
was a usurpation of Presidential power
As a result of her defiance of the president, Democrat Leon Panetta, the
former chief of staff to President Clinton, cautioned in the April 2 New York
Times that if the Democrats "go into total confrontation mode on other than
[domestic issues]… that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."
The Wright Precedent
The prior history of Democratic Speaker Jim Wright is now being repeated
by Nancy Pelosi. After Wright became speaker, five South American
presidents had agreed on a peace plan which the Reagan administration
vigorously opposed. Anti-Sandinistas and Contra hardliners became
incensed when they learned that Speaker Wright had secretly sat in on a
meeting between Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Cardinal Miguel
Obando y Bravo the Catholic leader being asked to mediate the peace.
Then House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich began filing numerous
accusations in the Ethics Committee of malfeasance by Wright. In the end
the House Democratic Caucus determined that Wright had lost his
effectiveness as Speaker and compelled him to resign. They voted to
replace him with Democrat Tom Foley — who restored the traditional civility
and comity that had prevailed under previous Democratic Speakers.
To date the Democratic Caucus has either been suffering from a loss of
institutional memory or is hopefully keeping its power dry before taking up
the matter of her counter-productive loss of effectiveness as Speaker.
Also few if any media writers ever refresh the public’s recollection of the
controversy in the Democratic Caucus in 2002 when she first ran for Minority
Leader. Then she was opposed by Rep. Harold Ford Jr, (D Tenn), a black
Southern Democrat who later became a Senator -- and without her support
was recently defeated for re-election by a Republican. Fiver years ago Ford
appeared on the Don Imus show and described Pelosi as: “destructive,”
“obstructionist,” and “not the kind of leadership we [Democrats] need.”
Last year after becoming Speaker Pelosi supported her closest ally, Abscam-
Scandal-tainted Rep. John Murtha, to be Majority Leader. However, she was
overruled by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D IL) and the Democratic Caucus which
by a large majority voted to appoint Steny Hoyer, Pelosi’s long time rival.
Mrs. Pelosi, whose San Francisco constituency is far left, currently claims
credit for leading the Democratic Party’s election victories last year.
However the credit really belongs to Emanuel – a former key member of
Chicago Mayor Daley’s staff, whom Bill Clinton hired to be his Chief of Staff.
The truth is that Emanuel had the political acumen to recruit enough
conservative Democrats to defeat Republicans and control the House.
In my view, the best way for Democrats to try to win control of both
Congress and the White House in 2008 is for Emanuel and the Democratic
Caucus now to follow the Wright precedent of 1989 and force Pelosi to
resign, Then Rahm Emanuel should use his political acumen to replace her
with a more moderate Democrat with a reputation for civility and comity.
This will shift our party’s partisan policies toward a more centrist position --
and reduce the demagogic political warfare that is now diminishing the
moral authority of both political parties.
The result will restore the pre-Pelosi Democratic tradition, in which
Democratic partisan policies are determined in the Democratic Caucus and
not in the Speaker’s office -- and our House Speakers are role models of
civility.
What Citizens Can Do About Pelosi
In the case of Wright the Democratic Caucus responded to a wide spread
public outcry against his fierce partisanship that was generated by the
proceedings of the House Ethics Committee that investigated his political
history. Under today’s House Rules such an investigation can be launched
by petitions filed by House Members. In my view, Republicans, Democrats,
and Independents alike should contact their Representatives in Congress
and urge them to file such a petition with the Ethics Committee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Nancy Pelosi Should Resign
Newsmax 4/6/07
Nancy Pelosi has persistently violated her duty to exercise her speaker
powers in accordance with the Constitution and the current "106th Congress
House Rules Manual" (House Document 106-320). In short, she has fostered
what is known as "tyranny by the majority" — and violated House Rules that
give her the duty to maintain order, civility, and decorum, and to foster
"comity" (a word rarely used these days, meaning "mutual respect").
The "House Rules Manual" includes Jefferson's "Manual of Parliamentary
Procedures," originally drafted by the founder of the Democratic Party when,
as vice president, he presided over the Senate from 1797 to 1801.
In 1837 the House, provided that the provisions of Jefferson's Manual should
"govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which
they are not inconsistent with [subsequently adopted rules]."
Jefferson's manual, which is still in effect, was a codification of 18th century
"common law" and re-affirms that House Rules are "the only weapons by
which the minority can defend itself . . . and by a strict adherence to which
the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses
which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of
power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities."
Currently, Pelosi, who is second in line to the president, often describes
herself as a partner in his power — a higher role than the Constitution grants
to the vice president, who is first in the line of secession — and whose only
official duties are confined to presiding over the Senate.
Pelosi Oversteps the Electorate
In closing the recent debate on the $125 billion Emergency Defense
Appropriations bill's provision to bring our troops home from Iraq next year,
Pelosi — purporting to speak for the entire electorate — proclaimed "The
American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war . . .
The American people see the reality of the war; the president does not."
Both before and after the debate she has also often derided him for waging
"a war without end."
As Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan once noted "Members of Congress are
entitled to their own opinions — but not to their own facts.” Mrs. Pelosi's
false assertion of a national consensus was then belied by a role call vote of
218 to 213."
The facts are that she presides over a House divided by both the war in Iraq
and a political culture war at home. She obviously wants to win the domestic
political war against the Republicans by setting a deadline for the Iraq war.
Another fact is that when she first became speaker she pledged to curtail
the "earmarking" of appropriation bills with pork. Yet she encouraged her
longtime Democratic ally John Murtha to use his powers on the
Appropriations Committee to load the bill with $24 billion of earmarked pork.
The New York Times of March 24 described it as "largely aimed at domestic
program unrelated to military expenses [and] was added by Democrats to
make the bill more acceptable to lawmakers."
Similarly, the Senate later approved a similar pork laden measure in a party
line vote of 51 to 47, with Sen. Lieberman the sole Democrat siding with the
Republicans. Despite the fact that, with defense funds due to expire in May,
Pelosi then used her powers to recess until April 29 — which even her
liberal supporters in the media have characterized as an exercise of partisan
brinkmanship.
Pelosi's Syrian Mistake
She also denied a request by President Bush (who has primary
constitutional authority over the conduct of foreign policy) that as the third-
highest official of the United State she not make an official visit to Syria,
which our government has officially declared to be a "terrorist state."
On a high profile televised visit to Syria, she conferred with President
Bashar al-Hassad. She not only purported to speak for the American people
in opposing Bush's policies and the Iraq war, she purported to have spoken
for Israel. As reported in the Jerusalem Post, "[Israel's] Prime Minister Office
issued a rare ‘clarification' Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms,
contradicted U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in
Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to
engage in peace talks."
As a result of her defiance of the president and persistent confrontation of
his foreign policies, Democrat Leon Panetta, the former chief of staff to
President Clinton, was quoted in the April 2 New York Times as cautioning
that if the Democrats "go into total confrontation mode on other than
[domestic issues] where they just pass bills and the president vetoes them,
that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."
Ironically, history is now repeating itself. Our first woman Speaker Pelosi
may well deserve to become the second Democratic speaker to be
compelled to resign from Congress.
The prior history of Democratic Speaker Jim Wright is now being repeated
by Nancy Pelosi — perhaps by a loss of memory of the House Democratic
caucus, which forced Wright to resign. After Wright became speaker five
South American presidents had agreed on a peace plan which the Reagan
administration vigorously opposed.
Anti-Sandinistas and Contra hardliners became incensed when they learned
that Speaker Wright had secretly sat in on a meeting between Nicaraguan
President Daniel Ortega and Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo the Catholic
leader being asked to mediate the peace. The Washington Post wrote
"[Wright's] approach marks a dramatic shift in the running of the House and
in the role of the House speaker as Washington's No. 1 Democrat."
The Wrong Way for Wright
As described 10 years later by Wright's own chief of staff: "[Then]
Republican Minority Whip Trent Lott described Wright's participation in
foreign affairs as "The most arrogant abuse of power I've ever seen . . . Dick
Cheney of Illinois, [then] chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, got
so mad at Jim Wright that he began to wax nostalgic about the warmth and
affection for the previous speaker, Tip O'Neill. ‘There are no such feelings
for Jim Wright,' he observed." Then-House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich
began filing numerous accusations of malfeasance by the speaker in the
House Ethics Committee.
In the end Jim Wright resigned.
With the unanimous endorsement of the Democratic caucus the House then
voted to replace him with Democrat Tom Foley — who restored the
traditional civility and comity that had prevailed under Democratic Speakers
Sam Rayburn, John McCormack, Carl Albert and "Tip" O'Neill.
Currently, with public respect for professional politicians at an all time low,
and the financing of presidential campaigns at an all time high, the moral
authority of both the Democratic Party and the GOP is diminishing. In my
view, the longer Nancy Pelosi remains our party's leading spokesperson the
more her penchant for political warfare and non-compliance with Jefferson's
"Manual" will enhance the chances of Republican control of Congress and/or
the White House in 2008.
She will serve our party and the nation best by resigning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Hillary Clinton Puts Politics Above Principles
For Thirty Years
Newsmax: 10/26/07
If Hillary becomes our first woman President she will have the dubious
distinction of having successfully thwarted the efforts of Senator Obama to
become our first Black -- and Governor Richardson our first Hispanic --
President. Her victory would also be the culmination of a political career
which she began in 1969 at Wellesley -- when she won prominence in Life
Magazine for her controversial condemnation of our first Black Senator, Ed
Brooke, a liberal Massachusetts Republican.
In high school Hillary had been a Republican “Goldwater Girl” and at
Wellesley she soon became President of the college Republican club that
supported Nixon. However, when Nixon fell into disrepute Hillary eventually
joined the then popular “New Left” wing of the Democratic Party.
At that time Senator Brooke had become an anathema to far left Black
Panthers and Black Muslims. Because of his prior military service and
membership in the Republican Party – despite his opposition to Nixon’s
escalation of Vietnam War – they maligned him as a “Right Wing Uncle
Tom”
In 1969 Senator Brooke was invited to receive an honorary degree and give
a commencement address at Wellesley. “New left” student protesters
persuaded the school’s president to allow Hillary to be the first student in
the schools history to give a commencement address in rebuttal to that of
another speaker.
In her speech Hillary assailed Brooke.
She suggested that the “words integrity, trust, and respect” were misused if
applied to him. To explain to her fellow students why she had abandoned
the Republican Party she added, “There's a very strange conservative
strain that goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate protests that I find very
intriguing because it harkens back to a lot of the old virtues, to the fulfillment
of original ideas. And it's also a very unique American experience.”
In my recent book Hillary’s Pursuit of Power I have documented her ethical
flaws since 1974 – when she served under my supervision on the staff of
House Judiciary Committee. At that time, she became allied with the far left
wing of our party, which opposed the confirmation of Gerald Ford to be vice
president. For self serving partisan purposes they vilified Nixon publicly –
but wanted us to keep him in office “twisting in the wind” for as long as
possible.
In my view, throughout her entire career Hillary has put politics above
principle -- and is ethically unfit to hold office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Ford's Forgotten Legacy
Newsmax 12/29/06
When the confirmation of Jerry Ford to be vice president was pending in the
House Judiciary Committee I, as a Democrat, was in charge of an
investigation that found him highly qualified.
I now continue to have the highest regard for his willingness to put principle
above partisan politics.
Sadly, his legacies are now being maligned by The New York Times.
In its Dec. 28 editorial, the Times assailed him for the pardon of Richard
Nixon. It also denigrated his prior role as a Republican minority leader by
describing him this way: "In essence a creature of Congress — more
precisely, of the House of Representatives, a place of perpetual compromise
that encourages neither the vision that sometimes attaches to the Senate
nor the managerial skills [of] a governor."
The New York Times and the current left wing of our Democratic Party now
give Ford no credit for a meeting he held in the Oval Office with Times
reporter James Reston and other prominent journalists.
At that time he disclosed that the CIA and Defense Department had jointly
sponsored political assassinations on a broad scale under presidents
Kennedy and Nixon.
Prominent Democrats such as Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton,
and Harry Reid — like the editors of The New York Times, the media in
general, and even many Republicans — would have us forget that John and
Robert Kennedy were responsible for the assassinations of President
Lumumba in the Congo, President Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam, and Rafael
Trujillo in the Dominican Republican.
In revising history, they would also have the present generation of
Americans not know that with the aid of Mafia leader Sam Giancana, the
Kennedys sponsored numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. In my
view, the current ignorance of most Americans of an assassination program
named "Operation Phoenix" — that went into operation during the Nixon
administration — also reflects poorly on the media.
Under that program, political assassinations of South Vietnamese civilians
were carried out on a broad scale. In my view, the fact that the Phoenix
program has not been widely reported is largely due to the collaboration of
most of the main media with the CIA — that has long been a major source of
leaks of scandals in other agencies.
In the 197Os, CIA Director William Colby himself admitted before the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence that the program, which was administered
jointly with the Defense Department, killed more than 20,000 suspected
civilian communists. Later investigative journalists reported that Colby's
figures had understated the assassinations. For more on this, read "The
Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA," by John Ranelagh (1986).
From 1965 through 1968 the program summarily executed about 600
civilians per month. Of these most were tortured prior to execution. From
1968 through 1971, more than 40,000 were reportedly killed by the program.
When it was first publicly exposed, the intelligence journal Counterspy
described the Phoenix Program as "the most indiscriminate and massive
program of political murder since the Nazi death camps of World War II."
To his credit, President Ford not only issued an executive order outlawing
political assassinations, he took positive steps to reform both the CIA and
the Defense Department. He fired William Colby and replaced him with
George Bush senior. He likewise fired Nixon's secretary of Defense, James
Schlesinger, and replaced him with Donald Rumsfeld. He also appointed
Dick Cheney as his chief of staff.
Now maligned by The New York Times as lacking managerial skills and
vision, the Ford administration was scandal free. In my view he was the
most nonpartisan and ethical president in my life time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL
New York Post
In December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House
Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now
Senator Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our
impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not
recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by as "establishing
the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and
impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended were
ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and
committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized
persons.
Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I
advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House
Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously agreed
not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted and
published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. 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. 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. She had done this despite the fact that --in our
then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding -- the committee had
afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for
public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the Douglas files were
then removed from our general files without my permission, transferred to
the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff, and were no longer accessible
to the public.
The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing that
the Judiciary Committee should neither (1) hold any hearings with or take
the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original
investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible
impeachable offense of President Nixon - but to rely instead on prior
investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.
The committee rejected Ms. Rodham's recommendations: It agreed to allow
President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live
witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be
amended to deny members of the committee the right to question
witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full House. (The
committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the drafting of the
articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special staffers.)
The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or
approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall - in violation of
committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also advocated by
her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior
Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had worked
under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.
It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of still
another questionable role of Ms. Rodham. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles
Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman
Rodino to look into a troubling set of events.
That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that
research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to
test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such
staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use,"
Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted - at
committee expense - by a team of professors who completed and filed their
reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public
hearings.
The report was not made available to members of Congress. But after the
impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially
and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote that he was "especially troubled by
the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members
in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally
suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation."
On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry
staff coordinated the work. ... After the staff received the report it was
reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Mr.
Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form."
On the charge of willful suppression, he wrote: "That was not the case ...
The staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its
existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical
utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with
the judgment."
During my 17 year tenure with the House Judiciary Committee, I had
supervisory authority over several hundred staff members. The only
attorneys whom I cannot recommend for future positions of public and
private trust are Hillary Rodham, John Doar, and Bernard Nussbaum
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
History Repeats Itself
GOP Sustains Lieberman's Lead
Newsmax 11/16/06
According to the latest polls, Senator Joe Lieberman - a longtime
Democrat turned independent candidate - is now leading the anti-Iraq
war candidate, and winner of the Democratic primary, Ned Lamont by
48 to 40 percent.
With 60 percent of those polled opposed to the war, the Republican
candidate Alan Schlesinger is getting only 4 percent. Ironically,
Lieberman - the Democratic Party's candidate for Vice President in
2000 – now owes his lead to overwhelming Republican support.
As a Connecticut veteran of World War II and a life-long Democrat, I
wholeheartedly support Lieberman. I recall that in 1940 during the
Battle of Britain, the "America First" movement assailed President
Roosevelt for lending American destroyers to Britain. Sadly, the most
wealthy and powerful Roosevelt basher was a Democrat, former
Ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy. Prior to that Kennedy had
been sacked by FDR for publicly predicting that Hitler would conquer
Britain.
With the Democratic Party polarized, the Republican Party's candidate
for President was Wendell Wilkie. Insisting that "politics ends at the
water's edge," Wilkie supported Roosevelt's military aid to Britain –
and lost the election. It was not until after the attack on Pearl Harbor
that Roosevelt - with the aid of Wilkie Republicans – was able to lead a
unified nation into World War II.
Today, we are engaged in a war against totalitarian fanatics who
believe that they will go to heaven if they commit suicide murdering
civilians – a fanaticism that exceeds that of Nazi and Fascist soldiers.
Yet unlike Wendell Wilkie and the Republicans of World War II, our
current Democratic Party leaders engage in fierce partisan politics
that extends far beyond the water's edge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1, 2008April 1, 2008
 | |  |
