No she wasn't. The bonehead who made the allegation did not have authority to fire her, even though he said he did. He and she disagreed on a number of issues. It wasn't about her lying. It was about her arguing that Nixon did not have the right to having his lawyer attend evidentiary hearings.
that Hillary Rodham took it upon herself to decide that President Nixon should not be represented by counsel during evidentiary hearings, to deliberately draft a brief that ignored precedent in that area, and to personally hide evidence of the precedent she had ignored so that no one could discover her dishonesty. But nearly everything stated in this passage is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn’t draft a legal brief that was “unethical” (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn’t agree with), she didn’t “confiscate” public documents, and she didn’t do anything that she hadn’t been directed to do by the man who was her and Zeifman’s superior.
It should be noted that the brief drafted by Hillary Rodham did not involve, as many people have misconstrued it, denying President Nixon the right to be represented by counsel during a trial on criminal charges. The brief addressed only whether Nixon had the right to be represented by counsel at evidentiary hearings conducted by a congressional committee tasked with determining whether potential grounds for impeachment existed.)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
Another factfree post from you, Carol.
