Hillary And The Truth Have Never Crossed Paths

Hillary’s lying history goes all the way back to Watergate

Posted on November 18, 2015 by Bob Livingston

One would be hard-pressed to find another American politician more corrupt than Hillary Clinton. Certainly there is no female politician in American history who could hold a candle to her.

We are currently seeing a continuous drip-drip of evidence of Hillary’s malfeasance while serving as secretary of state. She used the office to solicit donations (from crony corporations and nation states) to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors. She was complicit, if not the mastermind behind, the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in an illegal war. She ran guns through Benghazi, Libya, to so-called “moderate” rebels in order to try and topple Bashar Assad in Syria in a demonstration of what she terms as “smart power.”

She abandoned Libyan gunrunner Ambassador Chris Stephens and three other operatives at the Benghazi consulate when Islamists attacked the compound. And she lied to the faces of the families of those operatives as their bodies were being unloaded from transports.

Her email server scandal seems to never have an end, with more revelations coming to light daily about her attempts to conceal them from the public and government investigators.

But let’s look back further into Hillary’s past. There we see that she cut her teeth in the political process with lies and double-dealing. Lying and attempting to skirt the law, it seems, comes as natural to her as breathing.

In 1974, at age 27, Hillary received a patronage appointment to the House Judiciary Committee investigating the Watergate scandal. Her patrons were her former law school professor Burke Marshall and Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Jerry Zeifman was chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. His efforts to expose Clinton’s “unethical behavior” while on the committee during the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest fell largely on deaf ears.

Zeifman claims he fired her from the committee for unethical behavior and for conspiring, in violation of his instructions, to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings.

Zeifman published a narrative of his dealings with Hillary at Accuracy in Media in 2008, writing:

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. 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.

Hillary had also made other ethically flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with — or take depositions of — any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department’s special Watergate prosecutor.

The goal for Hillary and a cadre of far-left Democrats, Zeifman writes, was to delay the hearings in order to keep Nixon twisting in the wind for as long as possible. This would, they reasoned, make it easier to elect a Democrat (preferably Kennedy) in the upcoming election, whereas forcing Nixon out of office would allow Gerald Ford time to heal the party.

Two months after Nixon’s resignation, Zeifman learned of a staff study compiled by Hillary and some of the Judiciary Committee staff that was kept secret from Congress. After the committee was disbanded, the secret study was published in book form and sold in bookstores. Who received the royalties has not been determined.