Thursday, January 24, 2013

Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

In view of Secretary Clinton's performance during testimony on the  Benghazi debacle  yesterday, it's well worth reviewing her performance when she worked on the Watergate Investigation. Dan Calabrese at the Canada Free Press has thoughtfully rerun an article of Mrs. Clinton's behavior that he originally wrote back in 2008 after she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Here's a slice:

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.


“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “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.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigatio

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, 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 Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. 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.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

Read the whole thing here.


Anonymous said...

It's so much fun watching you guys go after Hillary like this. You really have no idea how far in the bubble you are. Outside of Fox News land, Hillary is being celebrated for going to the Hill and screaming exactly what most of America would like to scream to these grandstanding dolts.

At this point you should just cut your losses. At this point, you're only preaching to the converted (i.e. Fox viewers), and that's a shrinking minority that will have a hard time ever winning back power. Do you really expect to sway anyone in the middle to your side after her performance yesterday?

You guys have been so blinded by hatred of her and Obama that you're going to walk off a cliff.

I have to say, I voted for Obama twice and was never quite over my resentment of her until yesterday. If that's what a Hillary presidency will look like, I'll take it. And if the republicans keep acting like this, it looks like she can go ahead and start measuring the drapes.

Tantric Logic said...

I'm glad to see you agree with this liar, Anon.

And I'm sure you'd vote for her in a second like the sheeple you are. That tell us all that truth and ethics mean nothing to you, and neither do four dead Americans.

I call that borderline treason. So why should anyone rational care what you think?

Tantric Logic said...

And oh yeah, someone like you is the last person I'd want on my side. Go gargle razor blades, you lefty jerkoff.

UCSPanther said...

Anon is like the Canadians who think Pierre Elliot Trudeau, an unapologetic power hungry communist sympathizer, was the greatest prime minister ever, despite the fact he tried to turn Canada into a Socialist dystopia and left us deep in debt in the process.

Face it anon: Your democrats are the last of the pathetic 1990s left wing politicians, and history will NOT remember them fondly. It runs a LOT deeper than your petty political party structures.