Fact check: What was Hillary Clinton's position during the Watergate investigation?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Hillary Clinton served as a staff attorney on the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry during the Watergate investigation ^{[1] [2]}. She worked under John Doar, the chief counsel of the impeachment inquiry, not Jerry Zeifman ^[3].

The analyses consistently debunk a persistent myth that Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman during this period. Multiple sources confirm that Zeifman had no authority to fire Clinton since she reported directly to John Doar, not to Zeifman ^{[3] [4]}. Pay records from the Judiciary Committee show Clinton was compensated through September 4, indicating she completed her assignment rather than being terminated ^[4].

Clinton's role involved working on the impeachment case against President Nixon as a young attorney, giving her direct experience with the impeachment process ^[2]. This experience later informed her perspective on impeachment proceedings, where she emphasized the importance of avoiding partisan motivations and maintaining the solemnity of the constitutional process ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about the persistent misinformation campaign surrounding Clinton's Watergate service. Jerry Zeifman did express a negative opinion of Clinton's performance, but this personal assessment has been distorted over time into false claims about her being fired ^[3].

One source mentions that Clinton was not hired for permanent committee staff after the impeachment inquiry ended and references her failure of the D.C. bar exam during this period ^[3]. This provides additional context about her career trajectory following the Watergate investigation that goes beyond the simple question of her position.

The analyses reveal that Clinton's Watergate experience connected her to impeachment inquiries involving three different presidents throughout her career, making her one of the few individuals with such extensive constitutional crisis experience ^[2].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

While the original question itself appears neutral, it exists within a context of deliberate misinformation that has been repeatedly debunked. The Washington Post source specifically refers to this as a "zombie claim" - misinformation that continues to circulate despite being thoroughly disproven ^[4].

Political opponents of Clinton benefit from perpetuating false narratives about her early career conduct, as it serves to undermine her credibility and professional reputation. The persistence of the "fired from Watergate" myth demonstrates how fabricated stories can become accepted as fact when they align with certain political interests.

The analyses show that fact-checkers have had to repeatedly address this misinformation, citing concrete evidence including Zeifman's own contradictory statements and official employment records ^[4]. This suggests the false narrative serves ongoing political purposes rather than representing genuine historical inquiry.