Hillary Clinton fired from Watergate committee for fraud, ethics violations

[sigma6]

Hillary Clinton was fired from Watergate committee for fraud, ethics violations
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/05/10/hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-committee-for-fraud-ethics-violations/



Did you know Hillary Clinton was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C.? Clinton was advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal back in 1974. I didn’t either until I read her Wikipedia entry. I also discovered another rather interesting story. Back in 2008 when Clinton was running against Obama in the Democrat primary the Digital Journal ran a revealing story. The story says Hillary Clinton was fired from the committee staff. Jerry Zeifman, supervised Hillary Clinton during the Watergate impeachment inquiry.

He refused to give her a letter of recommendation because of her lies and unethical behavior. Clinton obtained a position on the committee staff through her political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Chappaquiddick Senator Ted Kennedy. Jerry Zeifman says Hillary Clinton was unethical and a liar (as if we didn’t already know that.) He also described Hillary Clinton as a dishonest lawyer. Finally, Zeifman says Hillary Clinton conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality. Sound familiar? Like Benghazi maybe? Zeifman had this reaction after Hillary Clinton’s phony tears at a campaign rally in 2008:

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

[sigma6]

A new beginning for Hillary: Prison
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/fraud/gw_bush_ghw_bush/news.php?q=1427731323



Hillary Clinton recently gave a speech and joked, in the context of the email scandal, that she needs a “new beginning” with the press. Right on, Ms. Hillary does need a new beginning: to be sent to prison.
Legal challenges facing Hillary Clinton are getting hotter, starting with a case on appeal I will argue Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. What is coming soon may be more significant than all of the whirlwinds around Hillary that have come before.

On April 2, I will argue to the appeals court that the U.S. Department of State withheld documents that I asked for under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A big reason why the documents were withheld was because they were hidden on Hillary Clinton’s private email account in her Chappaqua residence. I will ask the appeals court to send the case back to the U.S. District Court and order that the computer file server be taken into custody by a neutral forensic computer expert under the direction of the Court, to reconstruct and release responsive email records.

One of the two FOIAs that we are pursuing involves Hillary as secretary of state granting waivers of economic sanctions on Iran. Those economic sanctions imposed by Congress were part of efforts by the grown-ups in Washington to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Hillary granted waivers to European and Middle Eastern businesses so they could do business with Iran. It has recently been revealed that Iran has laundered monies to the Clintons. This likely explains why Hillary thus undermined the congressional sanctions regime.

Our FOIA request asked for all records about those waivers. The State Department produced nothing, not even one single sheet of paper. So, I filed a lawsuit. Freedom Watch looked for documents that should have been produced on the State Department’s website and in minutes found four news releases from Hillary Clinton herself released at her press conferences. Clearly, there must be many documents leading up to a public presentation by the secretary and the distribution of a news release. Yet none of those documents was provided.

The other FOIA request I will argue before a court in a few days involved leaks from Hillary’s State Department to David Sanger of the New York Times. The leaks involved not-yet-implemented and not fully implemented plans by Israel to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. These leaks are similar to telling the Washington Post the time and place of the Normandy landing on D-Day in World War II, except that back then reporters wouldn’t have printed it.
In this FOIA request, State released a few heavily redacted documents, designed to disguise what is clearly – reading between the lines – meetings between Hillary Clinton and David Sanger by name. Hillary obviously worked to sabotage Israel’s national defense and the national defense of the United States by pre-emptively revealing Israel’s military plans. However, the documents provided are inadequate.

A few days before this writing, I also filed an even more hard-hitting RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and The Clinton Foundation.

See www.freedomwatchusa.org. Revelations recently broke that Hillary ran all her emails while secretary of state through a secret private email server apparently located in her illegally purchased mansion in Chappaqua, New York.

My new lawsuit alleges Hillary stole the documents FOIA gives us and the public the right to see by the Clintons hiding Hillary’s email communications. And our lawsuit alleges that the reason for those hidden emails is that the Clintons were horse-trading official actions by the State Department for $100,000 to $225,000 per night speaking fees to Bill and hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign donations to The Clinton Foundation.

Why did Hillary use a private email server? When I led Judicial Watch, which I conceived of and founded in the 1990s, we discovered and documented a massive enterprise during the Clinton administration of selling government action and favors in return for campaign donations and personal benefits. Let us not forget amidst the flood “cattle-gate” – how Hillary with no experience turned a $1,000 investment into $100,000 of personal profit trading in cattle futures. Trading in futures is so specialized and risky that an investor normally needs special approval to trade.

But what we also discovered was that the mastermind of trading official government assets and actions was mainly Hillary, not Bill. Bill pressed the flesh, literally, and smiled for the cameras. But Hillary was the hard-nosed broker who turned the Clinton administration into a sleazy, open-air, Arab-style bazaar.

As explained by distinguished law professor and ethics expert Ronald D. Rotunda, Hillary committed the crime of “anticipatory obstruction of justice” under 18 U.S.C. § 1519: “Mrs. Clinton was worried that communicating through email would leave a trail that might be subject to subpoena. ‘As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that,’ she said in 2000, ‘why would I ever want to do email?’ But when she became secretary of state, she didn’t have much choice. So she set up a private server in her house. That way, in the event of an investigation, she could control which emails would be turned over.”

The incredible thing about Bill and Hillary Clinton is the astounding breadth, depth and variety of their illegal conduct, scandals and corruption. To simply list and briefly explain all of the incidents of unethical and illegal conduct would take a multi-volume treatise on crime. And yet just as amazing, the Clintons never seem to fully answer for their illegal and/or unethical conduct.

But as the Clintons have stayed one step ahead of the long arm of the law since their slimy start in Arkansas in the 1980s, is the law finally closing in on Hillary Clinton? Prosecutors sometimes share a wry joke about “the pig theory.” In crimes such as stock fraud and tax fraud or the like, it isn’t those who steal a little who get caught, the quip goes, it’s the real pigs who go for too much who get caught.

The problem with getting away with breaking the law for so long is that one develops a sense of immunity. Since leaving the White House, Bill and Hillary Clinton have expanded their corrupt enterprise many-fold, rather than laying low and covering their tracks. Even though I had a court rule in the late ’90s that Bill Clinton had committed a crime when he illegally released the Privacy Act-protected file of Kathleen Willey, a woman he harassed in the Oval Office, Hillary has thus far escaped scot-free. The time to be held to account under the rule of law has finally come for Hillary Clinton.
Media wishing to interview Larry Klayman, please contact media@wnd.com.

[Words of Joy]

If someone goes to court, why spill so much on the internet?

[Bill Ryan]

.
I found an original source for this, dated 23 Jan, 2013:

http://eohistory.info/2013/hillaryHistory.htm

(Note: at the foot of the article, it's reported that Hillary knew that future-husband Bill Clinton would be president... interesting.)

~~~~~



"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

It may help you to remember this bit of history regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton....

Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff:

Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

Published by: Dan Calabrese on Wednesday January 23rd, 2013

By DAN CALABRESE - Bet you didn't know this.

I've decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton's performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary's conduct at the time.

I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn't reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary's arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I've combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you're interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it's worth your time to read it.

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.

http://www.eohistory.info/2013/HillaryRodham1974.jpg

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.”

http://www.eohistory.info/2013/HouseCommittee1974.jpg

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.

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”

That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.

But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.

After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.

Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.

(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)
This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.

According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.

The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:

Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.

Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential "abuse of power" as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.

As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.

Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.

In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:




Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.

“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.

But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.

All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.

“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.

“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”

Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.

A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.

Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.

By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.

“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”

Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.

Vote wisely.

[Carmody]

Beyond the psychosis of what is a Hillary:

I suspect that she put herself at severe risk due to her own desires .....combined with the dictates of an inner, deeper machine/group, whom she was and is involved with.

Proving her loyalty by taking extreme risks. To go to the edge, run the risk.. and illustrate her willingness to take ultimate risks, and thus cement her position in the given deeper organization. Unless the risk to her was full and real, then, did she actually do all she could to gain position for her associated group?

Which brings her, and us... to...today.

Who is really running her?

As after all, we know that presidents don't get to actually run the USA. They've got one move and then it all gets taken away via scandals, meeting makers, and so on.

[Bluegreen]

As after all, we know that presidents don't get to actually run the USA. They've got one move and then it all gets taken away via scandals, meeting makers, and so on.

These politicians are like one who has been taken out to the desert for forty days and forty nights and didn't even make twenty-four hours