As Hillary begins to gear up for her upcoming run at the presidential race, it appears that her competitors are doing just the same. A recent interview bore substantial fruit toward the anti-Hillary campaign. Clinton’s ex-supervisor is speaking out saying that Hillary has a “history of lies” and “unethical behavior” and is in no way, fit for the Oval Office.
Jerry Zeifman, a Democrat and former chief of staff on the House Judiciary Committee, happened to be the man responsible for watching over Hillary Clinton’s work on the Water Gate Investigation. As she was a lawyer back then, and heavily involved with the investigation, what Zeifman is accusing, is actually, not that surprising.
In a recent interview, Zeifman told reporters that, “She was a liar.” Furthering his accusations, he explains that, “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.”
Now of course these bombshell allegations couldn’t come as mere speculation and when asked for proof, boy, did he deliver. He claims that in the 1970’s Hillary worked as a staff member on the Judiciary Committee—a job that she was only able to obtain with the help of her law professor. It turns out this law professor was none other than, Burke Marshall, “Sen. Ted Kennedy’s head counsel during the Chappaquiddick trial.”
Needless to say, Zeifman claimed that Hillary was trying to prevent Nixon from hiring an attorney during the Watergate investigation. Of course, as she has shown time and time again, there were more mischievous reasons for suggesting such an unconstitutional act. She feared that if the investigation were allowed to dig too deep—on account of the counteractive measures of Nixon’s would-be attorney(s)—they would stumble across some of the “less well known” facts of the Kennedy administration.
And as we all know Hillary to be a self-preservationist—that’s why she stayed with Bill after the Lewinski scandal and that’s why she pleaded, “What difference does it make?”—these facts, most probably, implicated her in some way.
Hillary opposed the majority of her Democratic party when she unconstitutionally went to great lengths in order to keep Nixon from obtaining counsel. This is what got her fired, and 30 years later, Zeifman still feels the woman is unfit for public office let alone the White House.
If she would go through such drastic measures of blatantly violating the constitution when she was just starting her career and held little power, imagine what she would do with the full power of the United States Presidency—I shudder at the thought.
Let us know your thoughts on Hillary’s past actions and what the future could hold for her in a comment below!