Hillary Clinton’s Watergate Scandal May Come Back to Haunt Her

 


Hillary Clinton, as a young communist lawyer, back when she worked for the Democrats on the Watergate Committee.
 

The people, left and right alike, who believe that Clinton's Watergate history can be used to harm her, assume she is going to run for president in 2016. In other words, they take for granted that there will be a legitimate presidential election. As I wrote on January 20, 2009, I make no such assumption.
 

Hillary Fired for “Lying, Unethical Behavior” on Watergate Committee

By Robert Gehl on January 12, 2014 Subscribe to Robert Gehl's Feed
Downtrend

Hillary Clinton might have a pretty hefty scandal brewing.

It turns when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”

 

This pic is from 2003. Some readers may wonder why I would re-post a picture of Clinton looking like a hot middle-aged lady, instead of a photo...
 

Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation.

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “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.

Dan Calabrese reports:

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.

 

... of her wearing the ugly black glasses which have become de riguer for many ruling elite females, or...
 

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.

 

... a picture of her as a beat, old broad. Well, the answer is that the first time I recall seeing her was in 1992...
 

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.

Follow us on twitter: @DowntrendCom
 

... when she appeared with her husband, the candidate, on 60 Minutes. And let me tell you, in her incarnation du jour, at 44, she was hot. She wore her blonde hair (nice dye job!) cascading down her shoulders, a royal blue sweater (I misremembered the color, but I got the rest right), and a sports jacket. That's when she was there to do damage control after the first of many "bimbo eruptions" (Gennifer Flowers), and she supposedly mangled the meaning of Tammy Wynette singing "Stand by Your Man," but all that was irrelevant to me and millions of other viewers, especially the men. Here was a sexy tigress standing by her man. (And all the more sexy, because she was so tastefully attired.) Mind you, I was a Democrat then, and I voted for her husband. It was the last time I ever voted for a Democrat for President.