Hillary Rodham Clinton's Questionable Behind the Scene Actions During Watergate

artpax — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:10:11 -0500

Can anyone in the DC area go to the GWU library and photocopy or transcribe the information that would corroborate Jerry Zeifman's statements in his February 6th AIM piece? In it, he stated,

During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book Without Honor and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library.

The real killer statement in that piece is Zeifman's statement that:

"My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her (Hillary Rodham) employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations."

This is the first published version of Zeifman's statement that I can find. My question is why didn't the corporate media pick up this story on February 6th? Why do I have to hear about it from a wacko neo-con and his 83,000 wannabe pundit echo-chambers?

I initially blew off the neocon article my husband sent me because the writer only referenced himself and seemed to be more interested in his own tongue and tail wagging -- see the scoop, it's my scoop, I have the interview -- than in getting the accurate story out. Zeifman's comments on Clinton are significant and could have far reaching impact and deserve accurate links and complete references.

The neo-con cult of personality has to stop. As a progressive blogger I admit my biases but I do not try to deceive or misdirect.

This is what Zeifman says about Clinton in his article on the AIM (gag, sputter) website.

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.

This first source, the February 6th one, is not to my liking, as it is a little puddle of "news" that is also teaming with conservatism but it does offer Zeifman in his own words.

All the current buzz seems to reference the wrong source. That infuriates me. If anyone knows how to link to images of or a transcript of the original source in the GWU library, please leave a comment. The current net buzz also seems to imply or overtly states that she was fired. I'm not at all sure about this one. The ivestigation closed when Nixon resigned. I would presume that everone moved off the case at that point. That does not constitute firing. Her lying is probably a matter of opinion. The movement of files might be able to be proven. This report casts doubt but does not constitute proof.

BlogHer - Hillary Rodham Clinton's Questionable Behind the Scene Actions During Watergate - Comments

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Questionable Behind the Scene Actions During Watergate