More lies from the Democratic candidates

Dan Calabrese documents an explosive tale of how Jerry Zeifman, the Democratic general counsel and chief of staff for the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, fired Hillary Clinton and refused to give her a letter of recommendation after he discovered that she and others blatantly lied in an attempt to deny Richard Nixon the opportunity to use a lawyer during Watergate.

According to the column, Hillary told Zeifman that there was no precedent for people being impeached to retain counsel. Zeifman informed Hillary that William O. Douglas, a Supreme Court justice who faced impeachment in 1970, had retained a lawyer, so that there was such a precedent, putting a fatal hole in her argument. So what did Hillary then do? Zeifman says that she immediately took all of the documents regarding Douglas's hiring of a lawyer and locked them up away from the public. She 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."

So it seems that her propensity for stretching the truth started much earlier than anyone thought. I wonder if this incident gave her the idea for hiding the Whitewater billing records in the White House living quarters once she was First Lady.

On the other side of the Democratic Presidential race, we have Barack Obama's aides denying that he ever personally filled out a questionnaire from his 1996 Illinois Senate run, in which he outlines a good part of his socialistic agenda. His campaign instead blamed an unnamed "aide who mischaracterized his positions".

Well, it turns out that the website politico.com has dug up people from the organization that provided the questionnaire who actually watched him sit and fill it out and then interviewed him about it, and have given Politico the original questionnaire that has Obama's handwritten notes on it.

The question he answered that I was particularly interested in?

"Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers his presidential campaign disavows to questions about whether Obama supports...state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” He responded simply...'Yes,'".

Of course, his campaign now will only admit to the usual amorphous [He]"'has consistently supported common-sense gun control, as well as the rights of law-abiding gun owners'".

Like the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Washington, D.C., who chafe under the "common sense gun control" of a complete handgun ban, as well as having to keep all long guns disassembled or under trigger lock at all times. That's just the ticket, eh, Barack? You'd better consult with one of your bosses, Mayor-for-Life Emperor Richard Daley, to see how to get out of this pickle.

I can't believe that these two candidates were the best that the Democrat Party could come up with. Fortunately, there seems to be at least some honest, ethical, rights-supporting Democrats in lower offices who seem to be working their way towards higher positions. One stellar example would be Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, who has filed with others a legal brief supporting Mr. Heller in his pending case against the D.C. government for denying him his Second Amendment rights. She apparently is of the opinion that the Amendment means what it says, her personal opinions notwithstanding.

I've never voted for a Democrat, but in Ms. Swanson's case, if I were still a Minnesota resident, I would have to seriously consider doing so should she desire to further her political career. One can't ask for more than the impartial upholding of the law, something Ms. Swanson appears to be doing a good job of.