The Clintons' War on Women (38 page)

53) “Write
down the name of that motherfucker. When I’m back in office, he’s a dead man.”

—Bill after he was called a “two-bit” politician during the 1982 Arkansas governor’s campaign (
Capitol Hill Blue
, April 8, 1999).

54) “I can see your concern. I understand [Barry] Seal was a friend of yours. His death does appear suspicious. And Bobby [William Barr] says you got a feeling somebody here in Arkansas may have had a motive to kill him. But nobody here had anything to do with that. Seal just got too damn big for his britches and that scum basically deserved to die, in my opinion.”

—Bill to Terry Reed on the murder of Barry Seal (
Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA
, pp. 264–265).

55) “Everyone knows I never wear a condom. They could have heard that anywhere.”

—Bill to Dolly Kyle Browning (
Perjuries of the Heart
, p. 51).

56) “If you cooperate with the media, we will destroy you!”

—Bill to Dolly Kyle Browning. Clinton used Dolly’s brother Walter Kyle to deliver this message. Dolly had been a longtime friend of Bill since they were about twelve years old. They also had been lovers for decades (
Perjuries of the Heart
, p. 9).

And now for a final word from Miss Emma, the cook at the Arkansas governor’s mansion, referring to Hillary during one of Hillary’s wild cursing fits (Ronald Kessler,
Inside the White House
, p. 246):

PART 5

OLD DOGS

CHAPTER 22

PUBLIC SERVANT, PRIVATE SERVER

A
s U.S. secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Hillary Clinton waged a war on government transparency and electronic security. In a clear breach of regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration, Clinton was found to have conducted her email correspondence as secretary of state through a private email account. This in itself was egregious.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario—short of nuclear winter—where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
511

The Benghazi Select Committee, conducting an open-ended inquiry on the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, made a request for Hillary’s emails.
The request was a fair one. As secretary of state, Clinton was accused of not doing enough to address concerns about inadequate security at the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that was attacked, of responding too slowly to reports of the attack, and of covering up information. At first Clinton said the incident was merely a protest that had gotten out of hand. In fact, this was a political maneuver to avoid public exposure of the fact that U.S. interests had been hit by an al-Qaeda–affiliated group only weeks before a presidential election. This head fake kept Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney flatfooted, as he too tried to learn the truth about what happened in Benghazi.

We now know, thanks to the House Committee investigating Hillary, operative Sidney Blumenthal first suggested the false narrative that the attack on our facility in Benghazi was a mob uprising caused by public reaction to an anti-Islamic video that appeared briefly on YouTube. The secretary of state forwarded Blumenthal’s political spin to her top deputies.

Thanks to
Daily Caller
writer Patrick Howley, we now know that this misdirection was the brainchild of Blumenthal’s radical blogger son, Max Blumenthal:

Hillary’s most egregious sin in the Benghazi affair was her brazen lying to the parents of the civil servants and U.S. citizens murdered in the U.S. compound. Only hours after being told in an NSA
briefing that the narrative supplied by Blumenthal through his father, Clinton hitman Sidney Blumenthal, was false, she still told the parents, “We will apprehend the people who made that video.” Quite clearly, Secretary Clinton knew at this time that the assault on the facility was a precision military operation conducted by highly skilled commandos who quite clearly knew the floorplan of our consulate. It is also noteworthy that the CIA facility, only two miles down the road, did receive the security upgrades they requested and repelled the attacks on that compound.

Later it was discovered that at the time an intelligence report was being circulated by the Defense Department that detailed that the attack was planned by an al-Qaeda–linked group, Hillary still maintained her false narrative of the attack.
513
When her email records were requested by the State Department last year, Clinton answered with the deliberate erasure of her private email server. Her top aide, Cheryl Mills, purposely obstructed the release of information requested by the House Committee. Stunningly, Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy noted that there were no emails whatsoever in Clinton’s records on the actual day of the attack on U.S. interests in Libya. How likely is that?

For those who want to understand more about Hillary’s dereliction of duty and lies about the Benghazi affair, Roger Stone has written a full exposé published with the stunning, bipartisan report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
vii

The comparison can therefore be made, in all fairness, between Hillary Clinton and former president Richard Nixon’s actions in the scandal of his time, Watergate. Nixon, as those of age will remember, had amassed hundreds of hours of tape recordings. The tapes would show a record of his conversations with his inner circle and most importantly could reveal what he knew and when he knew of illegal acts carried out by men hired by the White House. Nixon felt that the tapes belonged to him and him alone. He viewed any requests
by the Justice Department, the Congress, and the Senate to hand over the tapes as an invasion of privacy. Nixon looked guilty of withholding evidence relevant to an investigation. On these grounds, the articles of impeachment were drawn and proceedings to impeach Nixon were put in motion. Nixon, however, never destroyed the recordings.

Hillary, on the other hand, permanently deleted her emails, up to 55,000 pages of them, in direct violation of requests to hand them over. Guilty? If the emails showed no misdeeds, then why not give them up? Since she professed no wrongdoing, and the emails could have proved that, it seems odd that she would destroy her only proof. Or, logically, the emails would have shown something completely different; that she was engaged in unlawful and unethical activities in her role as secretary of state.

Hillary’s connection with Nixon goes back to Watergate. Believe it or not, Hillary Clinton worked on the Watergate investigation when she was twenty-seven years old. In a revealing article that was first published in 2008, the Clinton trend for dishonesty goes back to her work for the House Judiciary Committee in 1974.

Jeff Zeifman, now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation. Zeifman was a lifelong Democrat and no fan of Nixon. Hillary was hired by the committee thanks to a recommendation from her law school professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Senator Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick scandal. But when the Watergate investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary and refused to even give her a letter of recommendation.

Zeifman was disgusted by Hillary’s fraudulent and outrageous assertion that the president was not permitted legal counsel during the investigation. Young Hillary worked with Marshall, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior Associate Special Counsel (and future Clinton White House counsel) Bernard Nussbaum to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel, despite the precedent of Supreme Court Justice
William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970 and was allowed to retain legal counsel. They feared putting E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, knew too much about secret activities going back to the Kennedy presidency, including Kennedy’s complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro. After Zeifman told her about the Douglas precedent, Hillary went ahead in writing a legal brief that ignored it and physically took all the records of the Douglas proceedings into a private office she controlled. Hillary’s astonishing attempt to deceive the committee and hide a critical legal precedent shocked and disgusted Zeifman.

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 to maintain 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 thirty-four years later.

Zeifman’s diary details Hillary’s dastardly attempt to cover up the Douglas precedent for legal counsel during an investigation, as well as other deceitful actions. She even tried to have the rules of committee changed to deny the president legal counsel, to not hold any hearings, take any live depositions, or conduct any of its own investigation of the Watergate incident or any other potentially impeachable offenses on Nixon’s part but to rely solely on evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department’s special Watergate prosecutor. This would have, Zeifman explains, allowed Hillary and the few far Leftist cohorts on the impeachment committee staff and in Congress who supported such underhanded tactics to go after Nixon without worrying about someone like Hunt spilling the beans on the covert actions of the Kennedy White House. It would also have prevented Gerald Ford from recovering the
morale of the GOP and pave the way for a liberal Democrat, like Senator Ted Kennedy, to be elected in 1976.