Accuracy in Media

(Exclusive to Accuracy in Media)

I have just seen Hillary Clinton and her former Yale law professor both in tears at a campaign rally here in my home state of Connecticut. Her tearful professor said how proud he was that his former student was likely to become our next President. Hillary responded in tears.

Hillary Clinton crying

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.

Hillary as I knew her in 1974

At the time of Watergate I had overall supervisory authority over the House Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Inquiry staff that included Hillary Rodham—who was later to become First Lady in the Clinton White House.

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.

After President Nixon’s resignation, a young lawyer, who shared an office with Hillary, confided in me that he was dismayed by her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel—as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon. In my diary of August 12, 1974 I noted the following:

John Labovitz apologized to me for the fact that months ago he and Hillary had lied to me [to conceal rules changes and dilatory tactics]. Labovitz said, ‘That came from Yale.’ I said, ‘You mean Burke Marshall’ [Senator Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, with whom Hillary regularly consulted in violation of House rules.] Labovitz said, ‘Yes.’ His apology was significant to me, not because it was a revelation but because of his contrition.

At that time Hillary Rodham was 27 years old. She had obtained a position on our committee staff through the political patronage of her former Yale law school professor Burke Marshall and Senator Ted Kennedy. Eventually, because of a number of her unethical practices I decided that I could not recommend her for any subsequent position of public or private trust.

Her patron, Burke Marshal, had previously been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Robert Kennedy. During the Kennedy administration Washington insiders jokingly characterized him as the Chief counsel to the Irish Mafia. After becoming a Yale professor, he also became Senator Ted Kennedy’s lawyer at the time of Chappaquidick—as well as Kennedy’s chief political strategist. As a result, some of his colleagues often described him as the Attorney General in waiting of the Camelot government in exile.

In addition to getting Hillary a job on the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, Kennedy and Marshall had also persuaded Peter Rodino (D-NJ), then-Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to  place two other close friends of Marshall in top positions on our staff. One was John Doar; who had been Marshall’s deputy in the Justice Department—whom Rodino appointed to head the impeachment inquiry staff. The other was Bernard Nussbaum, who had served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York—who was placed in charge of conducting the actual investigation of Nixon’s malfeasance.

Marshall, Doar, Nussbaum, and Rodham had two hidden objectives regarding the conduct of the impeachment proceedings. First, in order to enhance the prospect of Senator Kennedy or another liberal Democrat being elected president in 1976, they hoped to keep Nixon in office “twisting in the wind” for as long as possible. This would prevent then-Vice President Jerry Ford from becoming President and restoring moral authority to the Republican Party.

As was later quoted in the biography of Tip O’Neill (by John Farrell), a liberal Democrat would have become a “shoe-in for the presidency in 1976” if Nixon had been kept in office until the end of his term. However, both Tip O’Neill and I—as well as most Democrats—regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon with Ford as soon as possible. As a result, as described by O’Neill, we coordinated our efforts to “keep Rodino’s feet to the fire.”

A second objective of the strategy of delay was to avoid a Senate impeachment trial, in which as a defense Nixon might assert that  Kennedy had authorized far worse abuses of power than Nixon’s effort to “cover up” the Watergate burglary (which Nixon had not authorized or known about in advance). In short, the crimes of Kennedy included the use of the Mafia to attempt to assassinate Castro, as well as the successful assassinations of Diem in Vietnam and Lumumba in the Congo.

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

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.

Only a few far-left Democrats supported Hillary’s recommendations. A majority of the committee agreed to allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to question witnesses. This recommendation was voted down by the full House. The committee also rejected her proposal that we leave the drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow impeachment-inquiry staffers.

It was not until two months after Nixon’s resignation that I first learned of still another questionable role of Hillary. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask Chairman Rodino to look into “a troubling set of events.” That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked “that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.” And, while “no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use,” Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted—at committee expense—by a team of professors who completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public hearings.

The report was kept secret from members of Congress. But after the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote: “I am especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course of our investigation.” He was also concerned that staff members may have unlawfully received royalties from the book’s publisher.

On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: “Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry staff coordinated the work. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form.” No effort was ever made to ascertain whether or not Hillary or any other person on the committee staff received royalties.

Two decades later Bill Clinton became President. As was later to be  described in The Wall Street Journal by Henry Ruth—the lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor—“The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party.”

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • David Roberts

    I pray we don’t go from one liar to another.

  • Wayne Leggett

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. that is our current president and Hillarious wouldn’t be any better.

  • Helen L. Hronec

    I, for one cannot wait until these ridiculous charges against Hillary come out and she gets the opportunity to set the record straight. I cannot believe if she did what you said she did, why was nothing done at the time then waits until now, all these many years later, to tell this fairy tale. Incredulous.

    I can see by the merchandise you sell, this is a right wing blog, so, OOPS! Your bias is showing

  • jimmbbo

    Betcha dollars to donuts she sidesteps it with her usual “What difference does it make” bullsh*t, and WILL NOT address them at all.

  • jimmbbo

    Do you mean the Communist News Network? Or the wholly owned 0blamea MessNBC?
    The watchdog turned lapdog lamestream media is in the job of carrying TONS of water for any progressive statist, and Shrillary is near the top of that list….

  • jimmbbo

    do you mean the sign of “666”?

  • Bill Griffin

    I think this constitutes ‘the charges coming out’. Where is her defense?

  • terry1956

    Yeah I suppose the spin will be that Jerry Zeifman and David Schipper have gone from being loyal democrats to right wing on the going ons of some key members of the DC ruling class on impeachment matters with the former on the Nixon event and the latter in his book Sell Out on the Senate impeachment trial of Slick Willy or the Waco Kid ( ?).
    Although in the later it also appears some Republicans in the Senate may have been part of a cover up to withhold evidence including maybe Fred Thompson who I thought a lot of and had strong hopes for in the early primary season back in 2008.
    If Fred and other Republicans in the Senate who voted not to convict or voted to withhold evidence and witness testmony , as well as Democrats are not being charged correctly or the vote report is not correct then you need to speak up.
    It appears that the Danforth Commission on Waco was a cover up also and that Bill Clinton may be long past due for an indictment by a Grand Jury in Texas on multiple murders of American and Texan men, women and Children and it very well may be that Hillary knew about it and both maybe should be sitting in a Texas prison now, maybe, maybe not but there is a reason that polls usually show that of federal, state and local government a far higher percentage of Americans trust the federal government the least and Congress the least in the federal government.
    There is hopes that your man or women will go to DC to help drain the nasty swamp but it appears usually they go up there and they just increase the slime.

  • terry1956

    you going to just leave it at that?

  • Paul Charles Harrison

    The Conservative Media
    “One of the conservative movement’s strokes of genius has been to invest a fortune in persuading the rest of the nation of the existence of a beast called the “liberalmedia”. This is, from a conservative standpoint, extremely useful nonsense. Journalists may be a bit more liberal on cultural matters such as abortion and pornography than many Americans, but they are probably more conservative on economic questions, and in any case take their orders from editors and producers who are often extremely conservative. The multinational or even family-controlled corporations that own the mainstream media do not appoint left-wing radicals to oversee their properties.”
    Yeah, yeah, I know it isn’t from Faux News(?), so you don’t believe it, no matter how much common sense it makes…

  • jimmbbo

    Not according to Gallup:

    Majority in U.S. Continues to Distrust the Media, Perceive Bias [TO THE LEFT]

  • jimmbbo

    Shrillay’s been taking lessons from Slick WIllie, the North American champion liar and sociopath!!

    Lesson 1 – Creating phony tears on demand

    Lesson 2 – Biting your lower lip while appearing sincere… Look for it next!

  • Paul Charles Harrison

    That is the point, Sport… The right-wingers have you duped, and you don’t even know it. “One of the conservative movement’s strokes of genius has been to invest a fortune in PERSUADING THE REST OF THE NATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A BEAST CALLED THE “LIBERALMEDIA”. This would necessarily mean that the writer of the article readily admits that the people have been FOOLED into believing this lie.I also get a kick out of you wingers using polls to support your theories when they agree with you, yet, dismiss them as. ‘left-wing liberalmedia’ when they do not. This article does not depend on what the public thinks; it depends on what common-sense dictates. Big Media is owned by billionaires, who do not entrust their empires to left-wing radicals… No getting around that tidbit without turning yourself into a pretzel, bub…

  • MelAnosis

    The same foolish voters will be at the ballot box. The mainstream media will not stress her unethical behavior (along with her more recent unethical, immoral behavior) and we probably will go from one liar to a much bigger one. Perhaps she will give us lessons on cattle futures trading when she is President. I hear she is a whiz at it.

  • Jason D Duncan

    Thats funny george soros is a democrat. Put shit tons of money in marijuana legalization, own 60% of monsanto, and is also 1 of roughly 10 people who owns 90% of the media. So do some homework. You target just fox news. But clearly to arrogant to realize the media left and the media right are owned by the same people and your one of the sheep to fall for their deception like so many others. Neither dems nor reps can be trusted! I just laugh at the generic responses some of you folks have. Do the fucking homework yourselves for once. All of it an not just from one point of view. As in dont look for just your leftist bullshit or your rightest batshit info. Your all intelligent human beings or atleast portray yourself as such. So if you are, put your shit on the shelf an do the homework. Put your high valued dems and reps under scrutiny for once an not just point fingers assholes. Thats what the politicians do professionally anyways………

  • Paul Charles Harrison

    You’re about 3 months late to the conversation. You’re also stupid. Why do morons tell other people to do some homework? Take your own advice jizz-stain.You don’t know how to differentiate between ‘to’ and too’, ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ and then you’re going to school anyone else..? PffT. I have happened upon a lot of inbred, dumber-than-a-box-of-rocks nitwits throughout the years on the internet, but boy, you take the cake. So shut the fuck up, already… P.S. sheep-dip, I won’t be responding to your insults again. I always like to give you insult-artists a taste of your own nasty medicine, and then cut you loose to wallow in your own self-aggrandizing, impotent rage… You moron.

  • LibertyChick

    I find the level of conniving and manipulation to be quite scary. These are not qualities that are acceptable for any person in elected position, and especially not the President. She has failed at each elected position, and should not even be considered eligible for President. At some point, we need to identify game enders for behaviors and performance.

    Like I could not believe that Weiner left elected office in shame for texting selfies of his privates, then ran for office again. At some point such behaviors should indicate a person is not mentally capable or emotionally mature enough for the position. If he was a Republican there would never have been another attempt to run as he’d know the media would destroy him. But as a Democrat the sky’s the limit, and accountability does not exist.

  • LibertyChick

    I checked Snopes on this and they say it’s false, mostly by saying he didn’t have the authority to fire her. Who cares! Truth is she’s a lying conniving incompetent, removed from her prior appointed government position, and based on that prior incompetence should not be eligible for higher office. Or any elected office for that matter.

    She and Bill are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which is a group determined to take down America and create one world order under the UN. Anyone who’s part of that should be imprisoned as traitors to America.

  • Rick Mellum

    It’s a technicality on the firing.

    Hillary was not fired from the Watergate Impeachment
    Inquiry staff. She was terminated with
    the rest of the staff. Jerry Zeifman, a
    life-long Democrat who had overall supervisory authority over Hillary and the staff,
    was asked in an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz,
    “You fired her [Clinton], didn’t you?” Zeifman responded, “Let
    me put it this way, I terminated her along with other staff members who we no
    longer needed.”

    Zeifman’s quote “”Because she was a liar. 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,” is why he refused
    to give Hillary a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who
    earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

    Zeifman would have fired her, if he could. “If I had the power to fire her, I would have
    fired her.”

    Jerry Zeifman, November 4, 1998, Scripps Howard News
    Service article, published in The Sacramento Bee,

    Zeifman wrote in his blog “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.” – Jerry
    Zeifman from his blog February 5, 2008.

    What did Hillary do not to receive a letter of recommendation
    from Zeifman? Zeifman told her that
    there was precedent for President Richard Nixon to be represented by counsel
    during the investigation. He told her that there were documents in the public
    file of the committee that illustrated this fact that he was entitled to
    counsel. Zeifman said in the Boortz interview “ Yes, she removed them. And she
    brought them to her office, which was in another building and it was secured;
    it was not accessible to the public.”

    And Zeifman also told Boortz “Well, I think that for any
    intellectually honest Democrat, her — it would be a moral imperative to vote against
    her (for president).”

    So technically, she was not fired. But the story shows she is corrupt.

  • nickshaw

    Question, how did a twenty seven year old lawyer get into such a position of influence?

  • davewyman

    “However, both Tip O’Neill and I—as well as most Democrats—regarded it to be in the national interest to replace Nixon with Ford as soon as possible.”

    There you have it. Jerry Zeifman was co-equal to Tip O’Neill. Or he is delusional.

  • Djay Leonos

    Vote sanity, vote honesty, just don’t vote Hilary.

  • mostberg

    Faa Cue, sorry to tell you this but I have known a good many journalists and was in fact married to one (she died of a genetic disease) who knew many others. Most of them have a Left Wing bias and are not supervised so closely as to monitor how they write an article. They can and do tend to distort the news. As for FOX so do they but more to the right. I like multiple sources for major stories for that reason including BBC and Reuters. Your cutsy about FOX only shows you to be one on the Left. That is fine but it would be good if you could be honest about your own biases rather than try to make 3rd rate jokes.

  • BigBossOgg

    If you’re using Snopes to check up on any Democrats in power, you’re basically asking someone who carried the water for the party to snitch the party out.The owners of that site are unrepentant liberals.

  • okokok

    Hillary Rodham was born October 29, 1947. Nixon resigned August 9, 1974. Hillary was 26 years old in August of 1974 not 27. Considering that the author made a point of mentioning her age and that his piece is published at “Accuracy in Media” seems worth mentioning.

  • SaguaroJack49

    People need to post this on their FaceBook pages to inform others.

  • Clint Fuller

    Yea right it depends what you definition of is is

  • harry freeloaderII

    I hereby nominate Hillary Clinton for an Emmy in the Bullshit category.

  • Grim Fandango

    If you believe in Snopes, you should do a bit of research on who they actually are, and what their agenda is. It may change your opinion of them, and cause you to refrain from using them as a source or factual reality.

  • Jim Lloyd

    Thank you Hillary.

  • armchairqback

    @Catch Dog – If you are a believer in truth. If you truly believed what you wrote 2 years ago, I ask you now, do you still believe that there is NOT a liberal media? The MSM has completely come out and endorsed this supposed human being for president. They even joke about it in her own circle openly. The MSM even jokes about amongst themselves. If you can honestly sit there and state that the MSM is not liberal…not just biased but full on liberal/controlled, then you are the one that has become hypnotized by the very thing you state doesn’t exist. Kinda like every Hillary Supporter. Try now to get around that tidbit and please explain why even faux News is becoming more slanted against the “right”.

  • testify

    These people are scum.