Conservative Review - Hillary’s Watergate

Hillary: Wait a Minute

REX Shutterstock | AP Photo

Hillary’s Watergate

By: Jeffrey Lord | October 26th, 2015

  • Font Size
  • A
  • A
  • A
Print Images

She lied. She knew. And she did it to re-elect the president.

Sound familiar? Of course it does. Shades of 1972 and Richard Nixon.

How is it possible for one human being to leave as long and consistent a trail of utter contempt for the American people?

The Wall Street Journal got it exactly right, opening its lead editorial on Benghazi and Hillary Clinton with this:

The House Benghazi hearing Thursday with Hillary Clinton featured plenty of partisan brawling, but don’t believe those who say we learned nothing. The hearing turned up new information that relates directly to the former Secretary of State’s political character and judgment as a potential Commander in Chief.

She had told Americans that Benghazi should be blamed on the video. She knew it to be a lie. Here is the exchange between Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan and Secretary Clinton.

Congressman Jordan: I want to show you a few things here. You're looking at an e- mail you sent to your family.

Here's what you said at
 11:00 that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, "Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group.”

You tell -- you tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story.

Also on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here's what you said to him:

"Ansar al-Sharia is claiming responsibility.”

It's interesting: Mr. Khattala, one of the guys arrested in charge, actually belonged to that group.

And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister.

You told him this, "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

Let me read that one more time.

"We know," not we think, not it might be, "we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

State Department experts knew the truth. You knew the truth. But that's not what the American people got. And again, the American people want to know why.

Why didn't you tell the American people exactly what you told the Egyptian prime minister?”

The answer to Congressman Jordan’s pointed question is obvious. It explains why Hillary Clinton desperately tried to delete her e-mails and reminds exactly of why Richard Nixon fought so fiercely kept his tapes from being heard. The Watergate scandal began with a directive to the CIA to stop an FBI investigation into the Watergate burglary for fear it would embarrass his reelection campaign. The reason Hillary Clinton lied is precisely the same. Again from the Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine):

If Mrs. Clinton was telling people privately that it was a terror attack, why hint publicly at some other motivation? Keep in mind that this was in the heat of an election campaign in which one of President Obama’s main themes was that al Qaeda was all but defeated. If an al Qaeda offshoot could kill a sitting U.S. Ambassador for the first time in 30 years, that narrative would have been shown to be false.

Can you imagine the outcry if this happened in September of 2004 when George W. Bush was seeking reelection? Perhaps it would have been similar to when Richard Nixon deliberately lied to protect his reelection campaign and was investigated to a fare thee well and ultimately forced to resign.

But you would never know this reeks of Watergate because the media—shocker!—has rallied to protect Clinton, just as it rallied to protect her husband years ago. Over in Politico the headline is that Clinton “survives” and makes “few mistakes.” The Washington Post headlines that “Clinton Emerges Unscathed.”

Recall the media uproar over the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to be a Supreme Court Justice? He was accused of sexual harassment and Americans were inundated with finger-wagging liberal lectures about how “women tell the truth” and what a dastardly assault on women all of this was. Then a handful of years later, when the same issue was raised regarding President Clinton—magnified by accusations of harassment from multiple women, not to mention another of rape—liberal and media outrage vanished. The story line that “women tell the truth” became the angry retort, “it’s only about sex.” 

How does this kind of thing happen with Hillary Clinton over and over and over again? How does one human being continually get in these scrapes that always come down to the realization that she has not told the truth?

And no one was more out front on this issue than, yes, Hillary Clinton, who took to NBC’s Today show where, in an interview with Matt Lauer, she not only denied the accusations against her husband but insisted as follows:

Matt Lauer: "You have said, I understand, to some close friends, that this is the last great battle, and that one side or the other is going down here.”

Hillary Clinton: "Well, I don't know if I've been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this — they have popped up in other settings. This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

And, shocker again, this turned out to be a lie. Bill Clinton had indeed had that illicit affair with Monica Lewinsky and had indeed lied about it. He had indeed harassed Paula Jones and lied about it (the latter causing him to lose his law license as a result). 

The real question here is obvious. How does this kind of thing happen with Hillary Clinton over and over and over again? How does one human being continually get in these scrapes that always come down to the realization that she has not told the truth? 

Recall this January 1996 New York Times column by the late William Safire titled Blizzard of Lies, in which Safire said this of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton:

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

And here we are a full 19 years later and yet again Mrs. Clinton’s ability to tell the truth is at the center of events. Over at Fox, legal beagle Judge Andrew Napolitano also notes this Nixon-esque touch to Hillary’s testimony:

Judge Andrew Napolitano told viewers on ‘Special Report with Bret Baier’ that in Hillary Clinton’s testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Thursday, in addition to the committee members, Clinton had to address ‘25 FBI agents and investigators in the Justice Department, not far from where she testified today, who are looking at the following things she said: they're looking for material misrepresentations, they're looking for the willingness to deceive, they're looking for actual material lies, remember she's under oath, and they're looking for how many different versions she can possibly give of the various events. And I suggest to you that they found a field day today.

Swell. Just what America needs in a new president: an FBI investigation.

Not to be left aside are the bleats from Democrats about the cost of the Benghazi investigation: $5 million. Back in the 1980s the Democrats had no compunction about spending money to investigate Ronald Reagan, spending over $47 million alone on a special prosecutor. There is a double standard here of Grand Canyon proportions.

Make no mistake. What America witnessed with Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony—the revelation of deliberate lying, the look of utter contempt on the face of the witness, the brazen incompetence (there were some 600 pleas for more security that were ignored)—was yet again a startling look at the character of a major political figure: the same person Democrats are hell-bent on putting in the Oval Office. 

Unless the various GOP presidential campaigns, not to mention the campaign of whomever emerges as the GOP nominee, makes her character an issue, then the sauce for Nixon’s goose, will not be allowed to be sauce for Hillary’s gander. A failure to bring this to the forefront would be a serious GOP dereliction of duty given the Quinnipiac poll from August that revealed that when asked what words best described Hillary Clinton Americans responded with “liar” and “dishonest.”

Watching her testimony this last week, one can have no doubt as to why this is so.  Before the 2016 election year actually arrives, one issue is already front and center. And that issue would be a question of character. Hillary Clinton’s character. 

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director, author and CNN commentator. He writes from Pennsylvania at

Login to view and add your comments!