Benghazi: Hillary’s Second Watergate?

© Miri WTPOTUS May 6, 2013

Back in 1974, Hillary Rodham Clinton worked for the House Judiciary Committee, which was writing articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon. Clinton, however, was fired from that job.

Jerry Zeifman, her supervisor on the committee, was the person who fired her. [emphasis added]

Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, … contends Clinton was collaborating with allies of the Kennedys to block revelation of Kennedy-administration activities that made Watergate “look like a day at the beach.” …

[Franklin] Polk [once Chief Republican Counsel and Staff Director for the House Judiciary Committee] confirmed Clinton wrote a brief arguing Nixon should not be granted legal counsel due to a lack of precedent. But Clinton deliberately ignored the then-recent case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who was allowed to have a lawyer during the impeachment attempt against him in 1970.

Moreover, Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed.

Polk confirmed the Clinton memo ignored the Douglas case, but he could not confirm or dispel the claim that Hillary removed the files.

Looking back on the case amid Clinton’s fierce battle [in 2008] with Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, [WND columnist Dan] Calabrese sees a picture emerging “of a very ambitious young lawyer who was eager to please her political patrons, and was willing to mislead and undermine established committee staff and senior committee members in order to do so.” …

When the Watergate probe concluded, Zeifman said, he fired Clinton from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. …

“She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” Zeifman said. “She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Flash forward to 2012, when Hillary Clinton was U.S. Secretary of State.  On her watch,  on the night of Sept. 11, Muslim jihadist terrorists, likely associates of Al Qaeda, attacked a U.S. “mission” in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans and wounding many others.  Although it was suspected within hours to be a terrorist attack, the Obama administration did everything in its power to pretend otherwise.

Now Clinton’s words and actions in the aftermath of that event are being investigated by the House of Representatives.  Ironic?

Lies and coverups.  Unethical behavior.  Conspiracy. A leopardess doesn’t change her spots.  Will Benghazi be yet another “Watergate” for Hillary?  Or will it be her Waterloo, when whistle blowers finally get to speak in hearings this week? [emphasis added]

… Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department’s own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to … Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau.

[A]nother official from the counterterrorism bureau — independently of Thompson — voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick [F.] Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October. …

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress. …

Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council … showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda’s known involvement in them from “talking points” being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.  …

[T]he statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks — sought instead to depict the Americans’ deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest … 

[T]he conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General.