David Brock in 1996 in his first book on Clinton, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham”, warned of her “dangerous character flaws.” Brock reported Hillary set up a bogus advisory committee [while working on education reform in Arkansas] and staged an elaborate public consultation process to validate a preconceived initiative. She gave the appearance of working very much within the established political process, building consensus and seeking votes, while short-circuiting debate within her own advisory group.
Brock wrote: “Hillary discovered the usefulness of identifying an enemy and demonizing it to galvanize public support. Thus the idea that the failure of health care reform was largely due to Hillary’s political inexperience cannot be sustained. … Unfortunately for Hillary, the same tendencies and characteristics that had worked for her in Arkansas, and appeared there as strengths, when tested now in a truly partisan political environment, would reveal not just surprisingly poor judgment on her part but character flaws of a particularly dangerous and self-destructive sort.” [p. 329-330].10 of the most unflattering accusations Brock leveled against Clinton in Seduction include:.
1. ‘Decided to go Nixon’ “The lesson Hillary drew from her Watergate experience was: stretching and manipulating legal procedures could produce victory on the political battlefield. Stonewalling, artful dodging, the benefit of a press corps that shared her politics, and a little luck might do the trick … By any measure this was bad lawyering. At worst, it suggested that the Clinton White House viewed itself as above the law. [p. 304-305]
Hillary’s closest confidant, Huma Abedin had to pay back $10,000 “Overcompensation” working as a so-called SGE, advising Clinton while receiving a paycheck from the Clinton Foundation and a private-sector consulting firm, a clear “Conflict of Interest” and evidence of at least a larcenous heart.