3
Apr

Hillary Fired from Watergate Legal Job

Posted by: Mike's America @ 7:44 am in The Clintons

Visited 1517 times, 1 so far today

She wanted to deny to President Nixon the same legal protections her husband used to the fullest. And she lied to do it!

Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
By Dan Calabrese
North Star Writer’s Group
March 31, 2008

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.

Why?

“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 investigation.

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.

Hillary and Obama: Two peas in the same pod. Both liars!



Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 am and is filed under The Clintons. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

24 comments so far

Philadelphia Steve
 1Reply to this comment  

Can we also talk about George w. Bush’s behavior back in 1972? Or is that “old news” and therefore not allowed?

April 3rd, 2008 at 9:23 am
wesmorgan1
 2Reply to this comment  

You guys do realize that the “story” of Zeifman’s ‘revelations’ is actually more than a decade old, right?

From the Washington Post’s 1996 review of Zeifman’s book, “Without Honor: The Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of
President Nixon”, we find:

In 1973 Jerry Zeifman, chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, decided to keep a diary of the “extraordinary events” surrounding the impeachment of President Nixon. Now, Zeifman draws on that diary to give us Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon, in which he accuses government officials of obstructing the impeachment inquiry. Their reason? Not any sympathy for the besieged Richard Nixon, but a desire to protect the reputation of John Kennedy. Zeifman’s book will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman’s book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.

Zeifman’s theory goes something like this: John Doar, Hillary Rodham, Bernard Nussbaum and other Kennedy loyalists investigating Nixon obstruct his impeachment “to cover up malfeasance in high office throughout the Cold War.” The scheming starlets are abetted by Peter Rodino, a weak, corrupt chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who is afraid that Nixon might expose his own Mafia ties. Rounding out the list of conspirators is Burke Marshall, Robert Kennedy’s assistant attorney general, who orchestrates the bogus investigation in the hopes of keeping Nixon in office, which will, he believes, help Ted Kennedy win the White House. Using a variety of dubious legal strategies — still with me? — Doar and his co-conspirators do everything they can to avoid putting the president on trial, a strategy, they hope, that will prevent Nixon’s lawyers from revealing the “crimes of Camelot.”

The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman’s most reliable source — his diary — contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book’s jacket cover, which promises readers “truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone’s movies ‘Nixon’ and ‘JFK’, ” does not help matters. Perhaps the book’s publicists forgot that “Nixon” and “JFK” were, after all, only Hollywood movies.

Zeifmam also tried to push this story (and, apparently, his book) in 2003, in a letter to the NY Post (as reported on Free Republic - see Google for links).

I’m always suspicious of a ‘whistleblower’ or ‘truthteller’ who just happens to be trying to sell something. It also bothers me to see old stories–questionable when they first surfaced–rebroadcast with no new information or confirmation.

I think we should step carefully on this one; it has that hint of conspiracy theory that just doesn’t smell right.

April 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 am
crosspatch
 3Reply to this comment  

“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.”

This is something that an extreme narcissist would do. They would believe they could get away with it and they could create a new reality by simply saying so. Sadly, so many of our politicians are extreme narcissists that this is not unusual behavior. Witness the recent actions by the Governor of New York. What I find interesting is the fact that “filegate” never comes up. Where she got the personal security background check files from the FBI on former White House staffers going back to the Nixon days. She had no need and indeed no right to see those files as they often contained very personal “dirt” on people. They were found in a room in the First Lady’s office suite in a box … next to the copy machine.

April 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 am
wesmorgan1
 4Reply to this comment  

This is something that an extreme narcissist would do. They would believe they could get away with it and they could create a new reality by simply saying so. Sadly, so many of our politicians are extreme narcissists that this is not unusual behavior. Witness the recent actions by the Governor of New York.

Not to mention the infamous ‘unnamed aide’ to President Bush:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Sad, but true - national politicians live in bubbles of their own creation. The pursuit of unfettered power tends to do that…

April 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 am
 5Reply to this comment  

Since both Accuracy in Media & Accuracy in Academia are Hillary Clinton creatures, it’s a wonder Mr. Zeifman ever got his account of firing Hillary Clinton into the light of day. His story is important though. Not only does it go to character, it goes to a lifelong pattern of lying and obfuscation on the part of Hillary Clinton. This is what we must know; before electing a person to a position of trust; and it is this awareness that every white-collar criminal must fine-tune his or her antenna for. The things I did hear about Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham during the Watergate Investigation were wholly consistent. They were in fact true. Word of mouth may travel only so far, but today we have new technologies. Lest anyone doubt Mr. Zeifman’s veracity regarding Hillary Clinton: http://theseedsof9-11.com

April 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Philadelphia Steve
 6Reply to this comment  

Re: “This is something that an extreme narcissist would do.”

This is how the Right-wing media and loyalists work.

A dubious story is put out. Usually with little or no proof other than what Conservatives “know” to be true. (The Washington Times and NewsMax being the usual first outlets).

Then the story is immediately debunked, or cast into extreme doubr.

No at all deterred, Conservatives immediately pretend that the story is Biblicaly true and begin expounding on what they “know” must be the personal motivations of the Liberal/Democrat in question must have thought, felt and knew. (The “mind reading phase”. Bill O’Rielly does this on a weekly basis when he “body language” expert tells us what Liberals are “really thinking”).

From there it gets spun into all kinds of stories that eventually are cemented into “fact” pur pure repetition, from one Conservative to another.

That is why, despite all the public comisssions, we have “absolute proof that Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear bomb and mushroom clounds were only minutes away from Cleveland” and “Sddam was fullin in bed with bin Laden from day one”. (as well as absolute proof of Creationism and the fact that Bill Clinton personally ordered the murder of Vince Foster).

Facts never get in the way of a good Conservative rumour.

April 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
luva the scissors
 7Reply to this comment  

i know most politicians are dirty and dishonest, but good lord, she started before she was anywhere near the whitehouse. how is it possible that she isn’t in jail, with all of the illegal things she has done, all of the people around her that have died due to “traffic accidents”, and “gunshot wounds”? what makes people like her tick. how can she even hold her head up in public?

April 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
wesmorgan1
 8Reply to this comment  

Since both Accuracy in Media & Accuracy in Academia are Hillary Clinton creatures, it’s a wonder Mr. Zeifman ever got his account of firing Hillary Clinton into the light of day.

Oh, it not only saw the “light of day,” but Zeifman wrote a book about it back in 1995. Later, in 1996, he wrote a book entitled “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power.” The fact that this story has been “out” for almost 15 years tells me that there isn’t much here. Apparently, his personal papers, including the diary mentioned in the original articles, are in the Gelman Library at GWU. I’m sure that someone will be reviewing them…just as the review I posted did years ago.

April 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
 9Reply to this comment  

Wes: If you doubt the veracity of Zeifman’s account it’s easily checked. Just get Hillary to release the letter of recommendation Zeifman claims was never written.

No doubt one is on file at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock which I visited last fall. Maybe the letter is “lost” in the same box that withheld the Rose Billing Records from view for so many years?

Perhaps it’s in the Clinton Liebrary which I also visited. Maybe those Bush bureaucrats at the Liebrary are sitting on it just to mess with Hillary.

I’m sure you can think up all kinds of excuses to dismiss this story. But the old saying “there’s no smoke without a fire” proves true in this case. There is so much smoke of Clinton lies that the behavior described in Zeifman’s account rings true.

For most people that is.

April 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
yonason
 10Reply to this comment  

The woman was fired for profoundly unethical conduct, and some would have us dismiss it because it was “a long time ago?”

It is to laugh!

But, I suppose it’s good to ask what has happened since then.

Here is just one of many links with insight into the lack of character of that character.

“Move along. Nothing to see there” — Wesmorgan1

Yeah, riiiight!

April 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
suek
 11Reply to this comment  

Peggy…

Very interesting page. I don’t really see the connection to Hillary, though. Certainly enough graft and corruption to fill a book, but not much about Hillary.

Still, I hope one of the investigative souls opens it up a bit more…I found it confusing and difficult to read and absorb. Maybe a second read will make it clearer. I was particularly interested since I lived at Ft Ord for a year, and was back there to visit my d-i-l about 2 years ago. What a disastrous change in the intervening years! It used to be a really beautiful place - now it’s just run down and dilapidated.

April 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
wesmorgan1
 12Reply to this comment  

Mike wrote:

Wes: If you doubt the veracity of Zeifman’s account it’s easily checked. Just get Hillary to release the letter of recommendation Zeifman claims was never written.

Nice rhetorical flourish - but I don’t think anyone is claiming such a letter exists.

I’m sure you can think up all kinds of excuses to dismiss this story. But the old saying “there’s no smoke without a fire” proves true in this case. There is so much smoke of Clinton lies that the behavior described in Zeifman’s account rings true.

It rings so true that absolutely nothing happens in almost 15 years? It “rings true” that he thought her behavior was bad enough to warrant disbarment, but never took any steps to discipline her or let others know until years later? It rings so true that, from what I can discover (and, please, correct me if I’m wrong) there’s no one corroborating Zeifman’s claims in all these years?

yonason wrote:

“Move along. Nothing to see there” — Wesmorgan1

Yeah, riiiight!

I didn’t say that - I just suggested that the story should be corroborated. When the media comes of with a single-sourced (or anonymously sourced) story, we always ask for (or, at least, hope for) corroboration; why not do so in this case?

April 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
 13Reply to this comment  

Oh my!

Kool Aid Alert!

You’ve said absolutely NOTHING to refute the charge except that it hasn’t been refuted.

I wonder why that is?

Could it be… dare I say it? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE?

Again, it fits the entire pattern of behavior and history with Mrs. Clinton.

April 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
wesmorgan1
 14Reply to this comment  

Save your snark for someone who can’t do anything but spout partisan drivel. I just find it difficult to take this stuff at face value when no one else involved in the Nixon impeachment–the most significant impeachment crisis in US history, and probably the best documented from all sides–has come forward to back Zeifman’s claims.

It isn’t mine to refute, but I did cite at least one source that seems to do so. In fact, the contemporary reviewer of Zeifman’s book wrote:

The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman’s most reliable source — his diary — contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations.

Gee, forgive me for wanting more than “suspicions and speculations”…just as I don’t buy the innuendo around McCain and Vicki Isemann, I don’t buy this without some evidence. As I’ve said here any number of times, I’m cynical about anything dealing with national politics or national politicians.

April 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
yonason
 15Reply to this comment  

@wesmorgan1

Ok., it looks like there doesn’t appear to be a whole lot of independent verification on this story. (I tried posting a longer response, but wasn’t able to. ….don’t know why.)

I do have to agree that one should proceed with caution before pushing a story too far when the corroborating evidence isn’t there (just ask Dan Rather). Besides, we have PLENTY of other solid dirt on the Clintons, so it’s not like we are desperate, or anything.

Anyway, I see a deeper and more disturbing question that Zeifman’s allegations raise, and that is, “if he sees it as such a profound lack of ethics now, why didn’t he back then? (especially since he was supposed to be one of our ethical watchdogs.)” You don’t suppose that Zeifman’s being a self-styled “lifelong Democrat” would have anything to do with that, do you?

From the looks of things, Henry Ruth’s alleged (by Zeifman) comment that “the Clintons poisoned the soul of the Democrat Party,” should have been, “We served KoolAid, and the Cliintons all too eagerly joined us in consuming it.” (Birds of a feather, and all that, you know).

…or, maybe,… “We served KoolAid, and the Clintons hogged the punchbowl.”?

April 4th, 2008 at 1:05 am
wesmorgan1
 16Reply to this comment  

Anyway, I see a deeper and more disturbing question that Zeifman’s allegations raise, and that is, “if he sees it as such a profound lack of ethics now, why didn’t he back then? (especially since he was supposed to be one of our ethical watchdogs.)” You don’t suppose that Zeifman’s being a self-styled “lifelong Democrat” would have anything to do with that, do you?

I think that Zeifman’s political career plans went straight into self-protection mode. We see political players of every stripe pull this kind of stuff on a routine basis; let them get into a cushy position or achieve financial security, and here come the tell-all books and the post-dated “I knew it was wrong” comments. Look at Feith’s book; according to him, the fault for all our missteps in Iraq lie with everyone but–guess who?–Rumsfeld and Feith himself.

Try “lifelong political player,” and you’ll be closer to the truth.

April 4th, 2008 at 9:00 am
 17Reply to this comment  

Wes: Still no refuation of Zeifman’s claim!

Hmmm… wonder why?

April 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
wesmorgan1
 18Reply to this comment  

Mike, get off your hobby horse. I never disputed the question of any letter of recommendation. Given the rest of Zeifman’s (apparently uncorroborated) allegations, a letter of recommendation isn’t even worth arguing about. I don’t really care if he gave Clinton a letter, and I can certainly believe that he didn’t. (His allegations would have little merit whatsoever if he had given her some glowing recommendation, true?)

Give up on the red herring, dude - you can’t yell at someone to “refute” something they never challenged. I, as well as reviewers at the time who reviewed his diary, challenged the whole conspiracy theory Zeifman presented, not the particular point of a recommendation letter.

April 4th, 2008 at 11:11 am
 19Reply to this comment  

Wes: Your comments continue to suggest that you don’t really believe Zeifman’s account, even though it hasn’t been refuted. Is there NOTHING bad about the Clinton’s you will believe?

I’m not sure why you would be so angry with me for pointing out that this report is most likely true, especially in light of Hillary’s known history.

Go back and take another swig of the Hot Springs, Arkansas Kool Aid and try again.

April 4th, 2008 at 11:24 am
wesmorgan1
 20Reply to this comment  

Guess what? There’s TONS of stuff to dislike about the Clintons, and there’s tons of pure political manipulation in their history. That doesn’t mean that every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike is true, or even that it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

All I said was that there should have been some third-party confirmation/corroboration of this stuff at some time in the last 15 years. That’s a completely reasonable statement, but you basically accused me of drinking the Kool-Aid (with your ever-so-special graphic to boot).

It’s really simple - I have a hard time believing ANY single-sourced story, especially one that comes wrapped in a conspiracy theory. I said the exact same thing about the McCain/Isemann “story” on this very blog, remember? I wasn’t on this blog at the time, but I said the same thing about “W snorting coke” back in the day.

As far as the Clintons are concerned, go read the “Hillary Spins More Tall Tales” article currently on the front page. Someone posts a “this couldn’t be right” article, everyone chimes in with “she’s lying,” and then 5 minutes’ worth of Googling shows–and in a rather straightforward fashion–that there was, indeed, a time when the situation facing the survivors of our fallen military matched what Clinton described.

Color me Reaganesque - I like “trust, but verify.” (Yes, I participate in Democratic/liberal blogs too, and they get the same treatment from me.)

April 5th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
yonason
 21Reply to this comment  

You know, as bad as the accusations are, I would think they should fall under the category of “Liable” and warrant legal action, …if false. Just another item to consider in the “they might just be true” column. Still, I think that sitting on the info until a more opportune moment than blowing the whistle BEFORE the horse got out of the barn is, well, at least as unethical.

April 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
wesmorgan1
 22Reply to this comment  

Oh, and you don’t anger me by “pointing out that this is most likely true.” It isn’t possible for you, or anyone in the “blogosphere,” to anger me.

April 5th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
wesmorgan1
 23Reply to this comment  

yonason wrote:

Still, I think that sitting on the info until a more opportune moment than blowing the whistle BEFORE the horse got out of the barn is, well, at least as unethical.

On this we are in complete agreement.

April 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
 24Reply to this comment  

How did this simple story become a “conspiracy theory?”

You either believe it or you don’t Wes. Which is it?

P.S. “Reaganesque?” Give me a break!

April 5th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

Email me if your comment is caught in spam

If you find your posts being held for moderation, sign up at OpenID and login using that. This will avoid moderation.