April 02, 2008
Shocking Revelations about Hillary Clinton's Watergate Committee Job
Rick Moran
According to this Daniel Calabrese article, Hillary Clinton was fired from her job as a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigations for, among other things, lying:

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.”

The fact that this hasn't come out prior to this election cycle (Patterico wrote about it here), is perhaps the most shocking revelation of all. One has to be convinced that if it were a Republican who had a past like this, the politician's career would never have gotten off the ground. Such a revelation - so easily discovered by simply asking her boss on the Committee - would have been all over the media if a Republican had been fired for "lying" amd violating "the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality."

Hillary Clinton has been a public figure for 20 years or more. She has run for office twice in New York. I am absolutely flabbergasted that the press was so incurious as to not dig this information out earlier or if it has been in the public domain, why it hasn't been given a huge amount of play by the news nets and major media. Is lying, violating ethics and the Constitution in a candidate's past not important to the voter when they make their decision on who to support for president?

Regardless, among Clinton's transgressions while on staff at the House Judiciary Committee were her apparent lying about not seeking to change House rules by assuring her boss she had no intention of doing so and then later being discovered that she was already advocating radical changes including a recommendation to deny President Nixon the right to counsel. Ziefman wrote on his own website:


In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff — where they were no longer accessible to the public.

As Ed Morrissey points out:

If all she did was to propose that as a tactic, that would not make it terribly concerning — but she did much more than just spitball ideas. When informed that public evidence showed a precedent for the right to counsel, she absconded with the files to eliminate the evidence.

Does that remind anyone of later incidents in the Clinton narrative, such as the billing records for the Rose Law offices and the 900+ raw FBI files on political opponents of the Clintons?

Hillary’s advocates could accuse Zeifman of conjuring up these stories in order to draw attention to himself in the middle of a presidential campaign. However, Calabrese reports that Zeifman kept diaries during this period, urged on by friends mindful of the historical nature of the Watergate investigation. No one would have known at the time that this 27-year-old barracuda would have any sort of national significance — which makes Zeifman’s testimony all the more compelling.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0..._about_hil.html


* Hillary Rodham gets a spot on the legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee upon the recommendation of a lawyer pal of Ted Kennedy.
* The man who hires Hillary is Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat.
* The House Judiciary Committee is investigating Richard Nixon with an eye on impeachment.
* A question arises as to whether or not Nixon is legally entitled to counsel during the investigation. If so, his council would be allowed to cross examine witnesses appearing before the panel.
* The concern about having counsel for Nixon cross examine witnesses centered on E. Howard Hunt. Democrats on the committee feared that Nixon's counsel would elicit information from Hunt that would be very damaging to the Kennedys.
* Zeifman tells Hillary that Nixon is entitled to counsel. He cites documents in the committee's public file referencing the fact that Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas had representation four years earlier while he was being investigated.
* Hillary removes the documents from the committees public file and places them under lock and key in her office where they are not available for media or public scrutiny.
* Hillary then prepares a brief for filing with a federal judge which falsely states that there is no precedent for an official being investigated by the committee to have legal representation during that investigation.
* Nixon resigns before Hillary has a chance to submit the brief in which she makes knowingly false claims.
* Zeifman then fires Hillary. Hillary asks for a letter of recommendation. Zeifman says no. This was only the third time in Zeifman's 17 years with the committee that he had refused a letter of recommendation.

Ouch!Lol

Politicians acting sleazy? I'm shocked. ;)

I'm convinced there would be a revolution if people knew what politicians were getting away with.

When Speaker Wright resigned and Tom Foley was going to replace him, Newt Gingrich started spreading the rumor that Foley was a closet homosexual (nevermind that Foley is married with kids). Newt had his secretary call the Wash Post and tell them that the NYTimes was about to break the story and that Newt would like to give the Post an interview about the story. He then had his secretary call the NYTimes and tell them the same false claim.

The goal was to get the papers to cover the "story" out of fear that the other paper would scoop them first.

The Republican National Committee that same day gave a press release comparing Foley's voting record to Barney Franks.

It was titled "Tom Foley: Out of the Liberal Closet".

Dirty tricks are the norm, not the exception.

That is beyond sleezy..That is criminal and unethical to the point she should have been disbarred.

And they should all be kicked out of Washington. h6534y

Can't say I'm even remotely surprised.

Depends. Did she argue in her court filings that there is no LEGAL precedent for someone facing impeachment to receive counsel? If so then she's technically correct. Did she argue that there was no precedent in terms of recent impeachment proceedings? If so, then it may not be criminal even if it is unethical.

I don't know what actions will get someone disbarred. Maybe one of our lawyers could answer that one?

Also consider your source. I wouldn't be surprised if she did this, but I don't think there's enough independent reporting to call it true. I'm always skeptical when some website makes claims that the credible press hasn't covered. Nine times out of ten the reason the story didn't get covered is because the facts don't like up quite as nicely as the website presents them.

Maybe he just was thinking of the wrong "Foley"?

Should, but won't.

67hhers56 :ph43r:

Trying to hide legal documentation providing for someone's right to legal counsel is a bit more serious than spreading a rumor about someone being gay. :mellow:

Is there a point to this? I mean politicians lie. Shit, look at the lying bush did/does and he's the frigging president

That's why I am so pro-transparency.

Do we get banded over here for posting pictures like this? :

you people are so naive - she didn't lie, she misspoke

I have no idea if this is true, but I would be surprised that it could lay dormant oh these many years and be 100% true

Plus, it was like 35 years ago!

Still . . . It's too good!

So true. They all lie, but some just do it better than others. :beer:

I hope not beyhg456y

The Clintons are pathelogical. Do not lump all politicians into this group. They lie rather then tell the truth.

She continues to shoot herself in the foot with the lies all these years later.