What did Jerry Zeifman say about Hillary Rodham in his writings and interviews, and how have historians evaluated his claims?
Executive summary
Jerry (Jerome) Zeifman, who served as general counsel and chief of staff to the House Judiciary Committee during the 1973–74 impeachment inquiry, accused 26–27‑year‑old Hillary Rodham of unethical conduct — calling her a “liar” and saying she engaged in self‑serving violations of committee rules — and later repeated those charges in print and interviews [1] [2] [3]. Subsequent historians and mainstream fact‑checkers have concluded Zeifman’s characterization is overstated or inaccurate in key respects: he had no unilateral authority to “fire” Rodham, many of his procedural accusations are contradicted by the record, and his account has been amplified and embellished in partisan retellings [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What Zeifman said: blunt judgments, procedural accusations, and a book-length critique
Zeifman publicly condemned Rodham’s conduct on the Judiciary Committee, telling reporters that she was “a liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” accusing her of drafting what he called fraudulent legal briefs, withholding or “confiscating” documents, and urging procedural moves that violated committee rules — charges he reiterated in newspaper essays and in his book criticizing how the Watergate inquiry was handled [1] [8] [2]. He also asserted that Rodham and others sought to change committee rules to deny Nixon counsel and even suggested partisan motives — that some Democrats preferred Nixon remain in office for electoral reasons — framing her actions as politically driven [7] [3].
2. The narrow truth: Zeifman supervised staff but not the impeachment inquiry hires
Contemporary and later reporting makes clear that Zeifman did supervise Judiciary Committee staff and remonstrated privately and publicly about certain staff decisions, but he did not have hiring or firing authority over the separate Impeachment Inquiry staff for which Rodham worked, and describing him as “the guy who fired Hillary Clinton” misstates the administrative reality [1] [4]. Fact‑checkers emphasize that Zeifman performed administrative “discharge” tasks when the inquiry wound down after Nixon’s resignation, and that Rodham’s departure was part of that broader wind‑down rather than a formal dismissal for cause authorized by Zeifman alone [4] [6].
3. What the documentary record and historians say about procedural claims
Analysts and historians who have examined the record — and fact‑checkers who reviewed Zeifman’s public claims — found several of his specific allegations either unsupported or explained by contemporaneous directives from superiors: items Zeifman described as improper (legal briefs, use of documents, recommending closed deliberations) were, in many instances, initiatives led by other senior counsel or were arguable legal positions rather than clear ethical breaches [4] [7]. Snopes and PolitiFact summarize that Zeifman’s language compressed administrative realities into condemnatory sound bites and that many of the sensational claims lack corroboration in committee records [4] [6].
4. How the story has been used and amplified — partisan framing and embellishment
Zeifman’s sharp language and later memoir material proved irresistible to later political commentators and campaign opponents; conservative columnists and viral posts repeatedly framed the episode as proof of lifelong dishonesty, sometimes adding claims — such as that Zeifman “fired” Rodham — that the historical record does not support [5] [1]. Fact‑checking outlets have flagged both the original exaggerations and subsequent embellishments, noting that Zeifman’s status as a partisan critic of Nixon did not prevent him from insisting he opposed some committee tactics, yet his retrospective account has been selectively republished with partisan intent [5] [6].
5. A balanced judgment: credible grievance, limited corroboration, and contested legacy
Zeifman was an insider who believed committee procedures were mishandled and he singled out Rodham as emblematic of those problems, and his criticisms are part of the historical record and public debate [2] [1]. However, historians and reputable fact‑checkers conclude his most damaging claims are overstated or lack documentary support — he could not unilaterally fire Rodham, many procedural issues he raised are contestable, and his account has been amplified and sometimes distorted by political actors [4] [5] [6] [7]. The result is a contested legacy: Zeifman’s accusations remain a footnote cited by critics, but mainstream historical appraisal treats them as contested testimony rather than settled proof of ethical misconduct.