Hillary Clinton Slams Trump's 'Personal Law Firm' DOJ, Says Explosive New Report Reveals A Crisis 'Worse Than Watergate'

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton escalated her criticism of President Donald Trump on Monday, pointing to a new report describing internal turmoil at the Justice Department that she says shows a level of political interference unparalleled in modern history.

On Monday, Clinton posted on X, sharing a New York Times Magazine article detailing accounts from about 60 current and former attorneys who described a year of "chaos" inside the Trump Justice Department.

The report outlines allegations that Trump repeatedly pushed DOJ officials to pursue political opponents and protect close allies, often against internal legal recommendations.

"New information here on how Trump has turned the Department of Justice—which is supposed to work on your behalf—into his own personal law firm, punishing his enemies and rewarding his friends," Clinton wrote.

She added that "‘Worse than Watergate' doesn't begin to cover it," invoking one of the most notorious scandals in U.S. political history.

https://canadafreepress.com/article/watergate-era-judiciary-chief-of-staff-hillary-clinton-fired-for-lies-uneth

Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
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
Dan Calabrese image
Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives—January 24, 2013

. . .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.” 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 investigatio 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. . .

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. . .

If you’re a Democrat, that gives you an automatic “get out of jail free” card by 80% of our MSM.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/We4AAOSwITtitJze/s-l1200.webp

But then there are even the extra special Democrats like Obama who as a far left and black guy, make our journalists have “this thrill running up his leg:” https://youtu.be/9y8AxjJJOuQ?si=MDW9E5kxAh6WDNHX

The extra special Democrats like the Obama’s, Clinton’s or Biden’s are damn near immune from all criticism.

Look at Biden! That guy made blatant racist Freudian slips, supported Jim Crow laws in the past: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/joe-biden-didn-t-just-compromise-segregationists-he-fought-their-n1021626 (minimal coverage, HUGE issue).

He could incoherently mumble, fall up and down stairs, forget the names of his own staff, get lost on stage, at the White House, stumble around even as the Easter Bunny escorts him to safety, poop his pants at the Vatican and even do the leg lift as he let one rip before a British Royal, NOTHING mattered. He was according to our MSM, “sharp as a tack.”

Our MSM and Hollywood loooves Democrats.

They will make a TV series where basically every week you get an episode of Presidential apologetics on nearly every issue that had been in the news. Can you remember “The West Wing?”

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200276/

Any Democrat and especially a more liberal one, has an automatic boost from the MSM, Social Media (you’re not going to see a Mamdani get censored or deplatformed by Facebook) and Hollywood.

The influence of the MSM, Social Media, and Hollywood cannot be over stated.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.