Congratulations, House Republicans!

Funny hows there's only one source for this a book by the guy who later denied he fired her!

STOP READING RW BLOGS, THEY'RE MAKING YOU STUPID!!!!!!!


Limbaugh repeats assertion by Watergate committee counsel Zeifman that he "fired" Clinton -- an assertion reportedly contradicted by Zeifman himself
Research April 4, 2008 8:41 PM EDT ››› ANNE SMITH

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/04/04/limbaugh-repeats-assertion-by-watergate-committ/143117

Rush Limbaugh asserted that Jerry Zeifman, former counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, was "the guy who fired" Sen. Hillary Clinton when she worked as an attorney on the committee, apparently basing his claim on an article that cites Zeifman. But Zeifman's reported claim is undermined by his own previous reported acknowledgement that he did not fire Clinton and did not have the power to do so.

On the April 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Jerome "Jerry" Zeifman, House Judiciary Committee counsel during Watergate, was "the guy who fired" Sen. Hillary Clinton when she worked on the committee. Limbaugh made these claims while apparently reading from a March 31 article by conservative writer Dan Calabrese, which asserts: "When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation." Calabrese cites Zeifman as his source. But Zeifman's reported claim is undermined by his own previous reported acknowledgement that he -- Zeifman -- did not fire Clinton and did not have the power to do so. Limbaugh also touted other unsubstantiated claims by Zeifman about Clinton's work on the Watergate committee.

Contrary to what Calabrese now writes, Zeifman was quoted in a November 4, 1998, Scripps Howard News Service article, published in The Sacramento Bee, as saying, "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her."

"The Fact Hub" of Clinton's HillaryHub.com states, "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."

On April 2, Zeifman was asked in an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz, "You fired her [Clinton], didn't you?" Zeifman responded, "Let me put it this way, I terminated her along with other staff members who we no longer needed. And I said that I could not recommend her for any further positions."

In a February 5 Accuracy in Media column, Zeifman expressed "regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations."

From the April 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The name Jerry Zeifman ring a bell? It ought -- Jerry Zeifman -- yes, during the Clinton impeachment. Jerry Zeifman was a head honcho during the Nixon Watergate period hearings. He was the guy who hired Hillary Clinton on that committee. He's also the guy who fired her.

He supervised her when she worked on the Watergate investigation. He says, Hillary's history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther, goes much deeper than anybody realized. Now, Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of Hillary Rodham Clinton -- or Hillary Rodham -- on the committee. He fired her from the committee staff, refused to give her a letter of recommendation. She was only one of three people who earned that distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career.

Why? In an interview last week, Zeifman said, "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."

"The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats up to and including the majority leader at the time, Tip O'Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel." She tried to see to it Nixon didn't get a lawyer in all of this.

Zeifman says that Hillary "was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says that Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception."

Now, this comes from -- this is Dan Calabrese at NorthStarWriters.com. Hillary removed -- and William O. Douglas had been brought up and they -- he was granted -- when he was on the Supreme Court, he was granted the right to a lawyer. I mean, it's fundamental in our judicial system. "So Hillary removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time were secured and inaccessible to the public." This from Zeifman.

"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."

She just stole the documents, then wrote a fraudulent brief, and she tried to hide the evidence. "The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge." So I don't know if this is going to get wide play but if it does, it could finish her off. Well, really only they can finish themselves off, and they're in the process of doing it.

From the April 2 edition of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:

BOORTZ: As I understand it now, Hillary Clinton, when she was counsel on the Judiciary Committee, knew -- because you told her -- that there was precedent for the person being investigated -- in this case Richard Nixon -- to be represented by counsel during the investigation. You told her that there were documents in the public file of the committee that illustrated this fact that he was entitled to counsel. Did she then remove those documents from the public file?

ZEIFMAN: Yes, she removed them. And she brought them to her office, which was in another building and it was secured; it was not accessible to the public.

BOORTZ: Did she do that to keep other people from seeing those documents?

ZEIFMAN: Oh, well. I assume so, yeah.

BOORTZ: Yeah. Now, Richard Nixon resigned, and do you think that his resignation, before you proceeded with the investigation, do you think that might have saved Hillary Clinton's legal career?

ZEIFMAN: Uh --

BOORTZ: Because the judge never saw her memorandum that she prepared?

ZEIFMAN: No. No, I can't speculate about that. I -- my point, however, let me put it this way.

BOORTZ: OK.

ZEIFMAN: At that time, to be very frank, I really had a kind of compassion for Hillary. She was a pleasant enough young lady, and she certainly treated me with respect and courtesy. And in retrospect, she was corrupted, and I think that was a tragedy.

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.

BOORTZ: Why not?

ZEIFMAN: Because of her unethical conduct.

BOORTZ: Now, to get this on the record, you are now, were then, and you are a lifelong Democrat, are you not?

ZEIFMAN: Yes, very much so.

BOORTZ: How do you feel about her candidacy for president of the United States right now?

ZEIFMAN: Well, I think that for any intellectually honest Democrat, her -- it would be a moral imperative to vote against her.

BOORTZ: Because of her lack of ethics when she was working for you?

ZEIFMAN: Well, no. Frankly, I had hoped when she eventually became first lady, I had hoped that we had taught her a lesson. And I had voted for Bill Clinton, knowing that he was advocating a two-for-one presidency. But after two -- [coughs] excuse me --

BOORTZ: That happens to me all the time, too. And I'm on the radio, so --

ZEIFMAN: [coughs] There I go again.

BOORTZ: Yeah.

ZEIFMAN: And I don't even smoke. Now, what happened was that I voted for Bill Clinton out of loyalty to the Democratic Party. And -- but within a short time, I became very disenchanted with the Clinton administration because of its corruption and deceit.

Sez you. Where and when and in what context did you read that crap?

Those are all requirements for the office of USA president, and all their staffers.

Rule of law, the USA. It has never worked, Thomas, not even for you. A criminal enterprise from the get go.

What happened to the lost IRS emails?

Updated by Andrew Prokop on June 23, 2014, 3:20 p.m. ET @awprokop [email protected]





What's the background?

In the early years of the Obama Administration, when Tea Party and conservative nonprofits sought tax-exempt status from the IRS, their applications were often delayed for months on end. Eventually, the IRS acknowledged that its screening process — intended to weed out groups focusing on electoral politics, which do not qualify for tax-exempt status — improperly burdened many of these conservative groups with extra scrutiny. Though none of these groups actually had an application outright denied, some conservatives suspected that a White House-directed crackdown on dissenting groups was at work.

But so far, no evidence has emerged that the IRS was acting at the behest of any White House official. And though it's undisputed that many more conservative groups than progressive groups were actually flagged, it has since become clear that the IRS's guidelines also called for extra scrutiny for some groups focused on progressive issues. So the scandal gradually faded from the headlines. Still, Republicans were unsatisfied with the administration's answers, and kept requesting more and more documents.
What are the emails in question?

GOP-led House committees have requested documents from various agencies and individuals since the scandal broke — the IRS says it has already spent $10 million complying with such requests. But particular suspicion has always focused on the director of the relevant IRS unit, Lois Lerner, who was placed on administrative leave shortly after the scandal broke, and has since retired. Though Lerner has repeatedly said she's done nothing illegal, she has twice pled the Fifth to avoid answering questions under oath from Congressional committees. And in May, the House of Representatives voted to hold her in contempt of Congress, because of her refusal to cooperate with the investigation.

"Last week, the IRS admitted that many of Lerner's emails were missing"

At first, the IRS used search terms to narrow down and provide the relevant Lerner emails to the inspector general and Congress — in 2013, the agency handed over more than 10,000 emails Lerner sent or received. But GOP committee chairs Darrell Issa and Dave Camp weren't satisfied, and wanted to see all of Lerner's emails since 2009. Early in 2014, the IRS finally agreed to supply them all, and set about collecting them — an expensive, time-consuming process. According to the agency, while doing so, it realized that many of Lerner's emails prior to April 2011 were missing, and sought to ascertain why.

Last week, the IRS told Congress of its findings — Lerner's computer crashed in mid-2011, and many of her emails appear to be gone. The agency did manage to reconstruct and supply some of them by pulling them from other employees' accounts — and 67,000 emails that Lerner wrote or received were handed over. But Congressional Republicans were unsatisfied, to say the least, as you can see in this angry statement from Rep. Paul Ryan:

Is there documentation of this alleged computer crash?

Yes. On June 13, 2011, reference first turns up in internal IRS emails that Lerner's hard drive had crashed. In a series of emails afterward, Lerner attempted to get technical help restoring her data — but on August 5, 2011, she was informed that it was unrecoverable.

While this occurred two years before the IRS scandal actually broke, some observers have been suspicious of this timing — because only a short time earlier, on June 3, 2011, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp sent a letter to the IRS requesting various documents, including from Lerner's division. The letter mainly focused on whether the IRS was improperly enforcing a "gift tax" on certain donors, but it alluded to broader questions about whether the IRS was acting with improper political bias.

An email chain that the IRS provided to Congress shows Lerner trying to recover her data, and following up several times, saying there were some "irreplaceable" documents there that she needed:

Lerner email to IRS official, 7/19/11: "I'm taking advantage of your offer to try and recapture my lost personal files. My computer skills are pretty basic, so nothing fancy — but there were some documents in the files that are irreplaceable. Whatever you can do to help, is greatly appreciated."
Email from Customer Service Support, 7/20/11: "I checked with the technician and he still has your drive. He wanted to exhaust all avenues to recover the data before sending it to the 'hard drive cemetery.' Unfortunately, after receiving assistance from several highly skilled technicians including HP experts, he still cannot recover the data."
Follow-up email from Customer Service Support, 8/05/11: "Unfortunately the news is not good. The sectors on the hard drive were bad which made your data unrecoverable. I am very sorry. Everyone involved tried their best."

A computer crash wouldn't usually wipe out email — except that the IRS had a policy that only 500 megabytes of data could be stored on the email server at any one time — and that, if this limit was hit, older emails would have to be moved to the employee's computer.
Didn't the IRS back up its email?
It did — but only for six months. After that, the backup tapes were taped over "for cost-efficiency," the agency wrote. (They've since changed their policy.) As mentioned, Lerner's computer crashed nearly two years before the scandal broke, so those backups would have been long gone by then. IRS employees are also supposed to keep hard copies of some important emails, but, as Philip Bump of the Washington Post explains here, the policy is vague and it's not clear whether Lerner saved any.
What happens next?

More of the same, most likely. Democrats are arguing that this is just the latest mountain-out-of-a-molehill from GOP investigators. But Republicans are more convinced than ever that a cover-up is at work, and some commentators are now calling for a special prosecutor to restore confidence in the process.

Correction: The original version of this piece did not include the fact that, 10 days before Lerner reported her hard drive broken, House Ways and Means Committee chair Dave Camp sent a letter to the IRS asking for various documents related to the IRS, and Lerner's division. We regret the omission and have updated the language of the piece to take this fact into account.

Primary sources

6/03/11: Rep. Dave Camp's letter to the IRS
Summer 2011: Lerner's email exchange about her hard drive
May 2013: The Treasury Department Inspector General report on the IRS
March 2014: House Oversight Committee report on Lerner
June 2014: IRS response to Congress's requests for Lerner's email

Read This

Three big reasons war is going away
Study smarter, learn better: 8 tips from memory researchers
Why can't you remember being a baby? Science explains
Court ruling: parents don't have the right to send their unvaccinated kids to school
The IPO is dying. Marc Andreessen explains why.
Prisons are terrible, and there’s finally a way to get rid of them

Tweet (474) Share L

Kindly direct your questions to someone who gives a ****. I posted the sources and I believe them. If you don't, it is only because you can't accept that Killary is nothing but another elite on a power trip, who could careless about what is good for the country.

The moron went to work for the Clinton White House. Can you imagine how shocked .... SHOCKED!! .... he was to find out on hid first day that Hillary Clinton actually hung around the White House after he went and fired her and stuff?

What about the 6 others? When did their hard drives crash? Do you have another page of bullshit for each of those people? Anyone who looks at this objectively has to see this is a deliberate destruction of evidence that would prove this administrations guilt.

It on your own freaking GOP Teapublican Congressional Record, ding bat! Read more than BlOGS for the love of Pete!!!


Primary sources

6/03/11: Rep. Dave Camp's letter to the IRS
Summer 2011: Lerner's email exchange about her hard drive
May 2013: The Treasury Department Inspector General report on the IRS
March 2014: House Oversight Committee report on Lerner
June 2014: IRS response to Congress's requests for Lerner's email

Where is the date? Summer is a season, dumbass.

You're another of these simple minded folk who cling to propaganda even after you know the truth. Folks like you don't do objectivity.

I used to think you were so eager to contribute - that it explained your inability to cite record or recite fact and source. Then I thought you were like Romeo and arguing in some sort ironic comedy understood only by you.

Now truly I understand. You're just like a kid who asks continually "are we there yet?" over and over again. That little kid was a pain in the ass. You're just being an asshole. You don't like the facts.

Tough ****. Just because you're deluded or ignoring doesn't mean we have to gulp alternative view of reality.

Even if this is true, what problem would you have with it?

That is a loaded question, because it is true.

Ironic. All you spout is liberal opinion. I don't see facts from you either. And we certainly don't see any on the MSM who are silent on numerous scandals.
You push a narrative that is controlling and one sided to the extent of futility. And are so eager to criticize those with the slightest disargeement and with name calling or the race card. It is you that avoid the facts.

You haven't explained why it would be a problem for you.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/06/29/bill-ayers-parents-financially-supported-foreign-student-attend-harvard-guesses/