Hilary...has always been a liar, and corrupt...since she worked on Watergate...and was fired...

[HenryBHough]

When the red phone at the bedside rings would Hillary remember "What's a phone?"

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yes...hilary is corrupt through and through......

Hillary Clinton fired for lies unethical behavior

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

********************************************

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Ah good. Today's viral e-mail mythology.

>> The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim?

By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her << -- Snopes
​

Search took 0.76 seconds.
Not only debunked but debunked seventeen years ago.

What the fuck is it with you asshats who traffic in easily-debunked mythology thinking you can rewrite history?

Really, how do you imagine it's going to work? Essplain your thought process. I just don't get it.

Yes.... somebody here is corrupt through and through but it ain't "hilary" [sic].

/thread

Snopes said it, so it must be true.....(liberal logic).

I didn't see a quote from JF. I saw you purporting that he said that he couldn't/didn't 'fire' HC.

 

[RandallFlagg]

When the red phone at the bedside rings would Hillary remember "What's a phone?"

Funny! On a more serious note, Not too long after the Clinton's had left office, I attended an Alumni association meeting (DIA) and happened to run into an old colleague who was dating a member (ex-member) of the Clinton's personal detail. The stories this guy told us that night.....oh my God. The things that went on in the White House are STILL whispered about in Georgetown.....The most alarming thing that I learned (from his observations) were the screaming tantrums and the dish(s) being thrown on a regular basis....Apparently, the Secret Service thought she was Bi-Polar as hell.

I don't know. Typical I guess?

 

[HenryBHough]

Seems odd that someone launched an anti-Hillary thread with a list of all the things that make her so dear to her liberal base.....

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

Carville: Clinton challengers wasting their time (Hussein 'has damaged the Democratic Party')

The Hill ^
James Carville said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it would be a waste of time for any Democrat to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016. “I’ve had maybe three people come up to me and say, ‘Well, I’m for somebody else other than Hillary,’ “ the Democratic strategist told host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on AM 970 in New York. “And I know I run into more Democrats in more places than maybe anybody else in the United States,” he added. “Of course, Senator [Jim] Webb and Governor [Martin] O’Malley can say anything they want. But, in terms...

 

[Pogo]

Yes...hilary is corrupt through and through......

Hillary Clinton fired for lies unethical behavior

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

********************************************

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Ah good. Today's viral e-mail mythology.

>> The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim?

By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her << -- Snopes
​

Search took 0.76 seconds.
Not only debunked but debunked seventeen years ago.

What the fuck is it with you asshats who traffic in easily-debunked mythology thinking you can rewrite history?

Really, how do you imagine it's going to work? Essplain your thought process. I just don't get it.

Yes.... somebody here is corrupt through and through but it ain't "hilary" [sic].

/thread

Ah....shame you didn't look through that snopes article.....it reeks of left wing ass covering...including the Zeifman guy.....he said she was let go...yeah right...but for some reason he couldn't give her a recommendation.......just like the women bill clinton sexually assaulted...who were harrassed by private detectives and audited by the IRS, hilary covered her tracks well....

Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed:
Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.

Yeah.....he lied to his diary......

When will you lefties stop protecting this criminal.....

"His diary"? What diary?

You made it up, dood. Or rather you parroted (verbatim) something somebody else made up, because you're too dim to know any better. Do you have a link to this "diary"? No. Do you have a link to this interview? No. Do you have any background to conclude why a guy who did not have the authority you claimed he did, also "could not recommend her" for other positions? You do not. In fact you started out citing Zeifman with an Appeal to Authority premise, now you're poisoning your own well. The fact is you have nothing here.

Further, one of your ipse dixit ramblings is refuted in your own blog link:

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.​

-- Your own link.


As I said this was debunked back in the 20th century. Yet you choose to keep diggin'.

Let me ask you a question - and please leave your partisan BS at the door (if you are able). Be honest now. (1) Do you REALLY and truly believe that this woman is qualified to be President of the United States? and (2) Could you REALLY trust her judgement in a crisis or hell, for that matter even in domestic affairs? (3) Do you HONESTLY expect her to live up to the oath of that office? And finally (4) Do you believe her to be an honest person?

I haven't posted about Hillary here other than what the actual record is and how her name is spelled. Actually I haven't posted about her at all on this board except to opine that I don't think she's running for anything, which I've said consistently all along. Nor am I a particular fan of hers. Assssssssssssume much?

Far as I'm concerned this isn't a story about Hillary. This is a story about parroting easily disproved bullshit to try to rewrite history and the perils therein.

Which is actually what most of my posting is about.

 

[Pogo]

>> .... an alarming number of people asked why I hadn’t mentioned that Mrs. Clinton was fired for misconduct when she worked as a staff lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee investigating Richard Nixon during Watergate.

For the record, the reason is that she wasn’t fired from that job. It didn’t happen. I knew where that rumor originated—it’s not a new story—because it first arose in Bill Clinton’s second term, when I covered the White House. But I was curious how it flew around the world so fast. The short answer is Rush Limbaugh. The longer answer is the way Americans communicate with each other these days.

First, a brief recitation of the back story:

It begins in 1973, when a government lawyer named Jerome Zeifman started making entries in his diary. It was a momentous time in his career. Zeifman, a Democrat, was chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. Investigating a sitting president required staffing, and one of those hired was a 27-year-old Yale Law School grad named Hillary Rodham.

At first, he was impressed, but in time Zeifman soured on her. He began, as he wrote in a 1996 book, to suspect her of collaborating with Democratic Senate aides loyal to Ted Kennedy. Their supposed aim was to keep the lid on the Watergate investigation out of fear Nixon would expose the “crimes of Camelot,” a phrase that appears in the book’s title. There are other subplots in his farfetched conspiracy theory, and other conspirators, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino—but little evidence for any of it.

The book reads like a Hollywood intrigue, which apparently occurred to Zeifman’s publisher, who promised on the book jacket to reveal “truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone’s movies Nixon and JFK.” Those films, remember, were works of fiction.

This titillating tale was reprised in 2008 when Clinton ran for president, thanks to conservative columnist Dan Calabrese, who embellished it a tad, introducing Jerry Zeifman as “the guy who fired Hillary Clinton.” A catchy line, but untrue: Zeifman lacked the authority to terminate her, and it’s a matter of historic record that she wasn’t fired.

Nonetheless, at the height of the 2008 primary season, Rush Limbaugh repeated it to his millions of listeners. Today, with Clinton prepping for another presidential campaign, the old canard is being passed around again, this time in a “viral” email. Viral is the right word: One reader who read my assessment of Clinton’s 2016 chances sent an email asking if I was “going easy” on her “because she donates to your publication.”

My pen pal is a working-class guy, a carpenter by trade, who doesn’t know any better. << --The Smear Factor: Why We Hate Politics

Lush Rimjob. Imagine that. Golly jeepers, sure didn't see that one coming.

Do you realize how disingenuous your remarks appear? You deliberately avoid the underlying issues of how and why Hillary stopped working for the Senate Committee and instead try to redirect this thread into a discussion of media coverage. Aren't you interested in discovering the truth?

You're actually suggesting that exposing a viral e-mail bullshit story as bullshit -- is "not interested in discovering the truth"??

Are you, like, an insane person?

George Orwell warned us about your type...

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals have constantly poo-pooed Orwell.

You, Pogo, are off the reservation!

 

[RandallFlagg]

Yes...hilary is corrupt through and through......

Hillary Clinton fired for lies unethical behavior


Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

********************************************

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Ah good. Today's viral e-mail mythology.

>> The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim?

By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her << -- Snopes
​

Search took 0.76 seconds.
Not only debunked but debunked seventeen years ago.

What the fuck is it with you asshats who traffic in easily-debunked mythology thinking you can rewrite history?

Really, how do you imagine it's going to work? Essplain your thought process. I just don't get it.

Yes.... somebody here is corrupt through and through but it ain't "hilary" [sic].

/thread

Ah....shame you didn't look through that snopes article.....it reeks of left wing ass covering...including the Zeifman guy.....he said she was let go...yeah right...but for some reason he couldn't give her a recommendation.......just like the women bill clinton sexually assaulted...who were harrassed by private detectives and audited by the IRS, hilary covered her tracks well....

Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed:
Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.

Yeah.....he lied to his diary......

When will you lefties stop protecting this criminal.....

"His diary"? What diary?

You made it up, dood. Or rather you parroted (verbatim) something somebody else made up, because you're too dim to know any better. Do you have a link to this "diary"? No. Do you have a link to this interview? No. Do you have any background to conclude why a guy who did not have the authority you claimed he did, also "could not recommend her" for other positions? You do not. In fact you started out citing Zeifman with an Appeal to Authority premise, now you're poisoning your own well. The fact is you have nothing here.

Further, one of your ipse dixit ramblings is refuted in your own blog link:

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.​

-- Your own link.


As I said this was debunked back in the 20th century. Yet you choose to keep diggin'.

Let me ask you a question - and please leave your partisan BS at the door (if you are able). Be honest now. (1) Do you REALLY and truly believe that this woman is qualified to be President of the United States? and (2) Could you REALLY trust her judgement in a crisis or hell, for that matter even in domestic affairs? (3) Do you HONESTLY expect her to live up to the oath of that office? And finally (4) Do you believe her to be an honest person?

I haven't posted about Hillary here other than what the actual record is and how her name is spelled. Actually I haven't posted about her at all on this board except to opine that I don't think she's running for anything, which I've said consistently all along. Nor am I a particular fan of hers. Assssssssssssume much?

Far as I'm concerned this isn't a story about Hillary. This is a story about parroting easily disproved bullshit to try to rewrite history and the perils therein.

Which is actually what most of my posting is about.

So, you are a liberal democrat and this woman will most likely be your candidate yet you can't answer a few simple questions about this woman? Interesting.

 

[Pogo]

Yes...hilary is corrupt through and through......

Hillary Clinton fired for lies unethical behavior

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

********************************************

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Ah good. Today's viral e-mail mythology.

>> The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim?

By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her << -- Snopes
​

Search took 0.76 seconds.
Not only debunked but debunked seventeen years ago.

What the fuck is it with you asshats who traffic in easily-debunked mythology thinking you can rewrite history?

Really, how do you imagine it's going to work? Essplain your thought process. I just don't get it.

Yes.... somebody here is corrupt through and through but it ain't "hilary" [sic].

/thread

Snopes said it, so it must be true.....(liberal logic).

I didn't see a quote from JF. I saw you purporting that he said that he couldn't/didn't 'fire' HC.

Here ya go pal.

It's Jay-Z btw, not "JF".

 

[Pogo]

Liberals have constantly poo-pooed Orwell.

You, Pogo, are off the reservation!

No idea what the above means but the poser poster above actually posted, under his own name with a presumably straight face, the proposition that calling out bullshit, and proving it to be bullshit is, and I quote, "not interested in discovering the truth". Pray, what does that make the poster who purveyed the original bullshit?

That's what Orwell called Doublethink. Holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; and the most important to history revisionists: Ignorance is Strength.

Putting out bullshit fires is what I do in this joint.
Or haven't you noticed?

 

[Pogo]

Ah good. Today's viral e-mail mythology.

>> The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim?

By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her << -- Snopes
​

Search took 0.76 seconds.
Not only debunked but debunked seventeen years ago.

What the fuck is it with you asshats who traffic in easily-debunked mythology thinking you can rewrite history?

Really, how do you imagine it's going to work? Essplain your thought process. I just don't get it.

Yes.... somebody here is corrupt through and through but it ain't "hilary" [sic].

/thread

Ah....shame you didn't look through that snopes article.....it reeks of left wing ass covering...including the Zeifman guy.....he said she was let go...yeah right...but for some reason he couldn't give her a recommendation.......just like the women bill clinton sexually assaulted...who were harrassed by private detectives and audited by the IRS, hilary covered her tracks well....

Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed:
Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.

Yeah.....he lied to his diary......

When will you lefties stop protecting this criminal.....

"His diary"? What diary?

You made it up, dood. Or rather you parroted (verbatim) something somebody else made up, because you're too dim to know any better. Do you have a link to this "diary"? No. Do you have a link to this interview? No. Do you have any background to conclude why a guy who did not have the authority you claimed he did, also "could not recommend her" for other positions? You do not. In fact you started out citing Zeifman with an Appeal to Authority premise, now you're poisoning your own well. The fact is you have nothing here.

Further, one of your ipse dixit ramblings is refuted in your own blog link:

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.​

-- Your own link.


As I said this was debunked back in the 20th century. Yet you choose to keep diggin'.

Let me ask you a question - and please leave your partisan BS at the door (if you are able). Be honest now. (1) Do you REALLY and truly believe that this woman is qualified to be President of the United States? and (2) Could you REALLY trust her judgement in a crisis or hell, for that matter even in domestic affairs? (3) Do you HONESTLY expect her to live up to the oath of that office? And finally (4) Do you believe her to be an honest person?

I haven't posted about Hillary here other than what the actual record is and how her name is spelled. Actually I haven't posted about her at all on this board except to opine that I don't think she's running for anything, which I've said consistently all along. Nor am I a particular fan of hers. Assssssssssssume much?

Far as I'm concerned this isn't a story about Hillary. This is a story about parroting easily disproved bullshit to try to rewrite history and the perils therein.

Which is actually what most of my posting is about.

So, you are a liberal democrat and this woman will most likely be your candidate yet you can't answer a few simple questions about this woman? Interesting.

I'm a democrat, but not a Democrat, so this woman won't be "my" candidate. I don't even get a candidate.
And as I keep saying, I don't even think she's going to be their candidate.

Actually while I may not have a political party I do have a calendar, and it says we're living in 2015. That means this isn't even an election year, so in fact nobody is anybody's candidate.

Summa y'all need to get a grip.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Ah....shame you didn't look through that snopes article.....it reeks of left wing ass covering...including the Zeifman guy.....he said she was let go...yeah right...but for some reason he couldn't give her a recommendation.......just like the women bill clinton sexually assaulted...who were harrassed by private detectives and audited by the IRS, hilary covered her tracks well....

Ten years later, Zeifman's story had shifted. When asked by radio host Neal Boortz in April 2008 if he had fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate investigation, Zeifman hedged by stating Clinton had been let go, but only as part of a layoff of multiple personnel who were no longer needed:
Well, let me put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for any further positions.

Yeah.....he lied to his diary......

When will you lefties stop protecting this criminal.....

"His diary"? What diary?

You made it up, dood. Or rather you parroted (verbatim) something somebody else made up, because you're too dim to know any better. Do you have a link to this "diary"? No. Do you have a link to this interview? No. Do you have any background to conclude why a guy who did not have the authority you claimed he did, also "could not recommend her" for other positions? You do not. In fact you started out citing Zeifman with an Appeal to Authority premise, now you're poisoning your own well. The fact is you have nothing here.

Further, one of your ipse dixit ramblings is refuted in your own blog link:

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.​

-- Your own link.


As I said this was debunked back in the 20th century. Yet you choose to keep diggin'.

Let me ask you a question - and please leave your partisan BS at the door (if you are able). Be honest now. (1) Do you REALLY and truly believe that this woman is qualified to be President of the United States? and (2) Could you REALLY trust her judgement in a crisis or hell, for that matter even in domestic affairs? (3) Do you HONESTLY expect her to live up to the oath of that office? And finally (4) Do you believe her to be an honest person?

I haven't posted about Hillary here other than what the actual record is and how her name is spelled. Actually I haven't posted about her at all on this board except to opine that I don't think she's running for anything, which I've said consistently all along. Nor am I a particular fan of hers. Assssssssssssume much?

Far as I'm concerned this isn't a story about Hillary. This is a story about parroting easily disproved bullshit to try to rewrite history and the perils therein.

Which is actually what most of my posting is about.

So, you are a liberal democrat and this woman will most likely be your candidate yet you can't answer a few simple questions about this woman? Interesting.

I'm a democrat, but not a Democrat, so this woman won't be "my" candidate. I don't even get a candidate.
And as I keep saying, I don't even think she's going to be their candidate.

Actually while I may not have a political party I do have a calendar, and it says we're living in 2015. That means this isn't even an election year, so in fact nobody is anybody's candidate.

Summa y'all need to get a grip.

Interesting.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yes...hilary is corrupt through and through......

Hillary Clinton fired for lies unethical behavior

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

********************************************

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Ah good. Today's viral e-mail mythology.

>> The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim?

By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her << -- Snopes
​

Search took 0.76 seconds.
Not only debunked but debunked seventeen years ago.

What the fuck is it with you asshats who traffic in easily-debunked mythology thinking you can rewrite history?

Really, how do you imagine it's going to work? Essplain your thought process. I just don't get it.

Yes.... somebody here is corrupt through and through but it ain't "hilary" [sic].

/thread

Snopes said it, so it must be true.....(liberal logic).

I didn't see a quote from JF. I saw you purporting that he said that he couldn't/didn't 'fire' HC.

Here ya go pal.

It's Jay-Z btw, not "JF".

You can post what you gotta post. I ain't digging through your random links trying to find whatever you think you see.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Here is the plan for Hillary's Email-gate: The State Dept. will announce that it has misplaced Form 109 and Hillary will announce that she can't remember if she signed one. (Remember the phony bump on the head/facelift?) This sets up a clever legal argument that there is a 50/50 probability that she either signed or didn't sign it. As a result, there will not be a preponderance of evidence necessary to prosecute her for either criminal act.

Is this a great country or what!

What the State Department will do is create a fraudulent Form 109 for her like the White House did Obama's fraudulent birth certificate for him.

 

[Lakhota]

Hillary derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome are hilarious to see in action. Get a rabies shot.

 

[Pogo]

Yes...hilary is corrupt through and through......

Hillary Clinton fired for lies unethical behavior

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

********************************************

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Ah good. Today's viral e-mail mythology.

>> The notion Hillary Clinton was fired by Jerry Zeifman for "lying" and "unethical behavior" has circulated across social media and in e-mails for years. The belief that Clinton's early career was marked by this buried scandal is widespread, but is there any merit to the claim?

By Zeifman's own admission there is not. Statements made by Zeifman himself contradict the claim he fired Hillary Clinton. During a 1998 interview with the Sacramento Bee in which he discussed his work with Clinton on Watergate, Zeifman not only stated he hadn't fired her, but he didn't even have the authority to fire her << -- Snopes
​

Search took 0.76 seconds.
Not only debunked but debunked seventeen years ago.

What the fuck is it with you asshats who traffic in easily-debunked mythology thinking you can rewrite history?

Really, how do you imagine it's going to work? Essplain your thought process. I just don't get it.

Yes.... somebody here is corrupt through and through but it ain't "hilary" [sic].

/thread

Snopes said it, so it must be true.....(liberal logic).

I didn't see a quote from JF. I saw you purporting that he said that he couldn't/didn't 'fire' HC.

Here ya go pal.

It's Jay-Z btw, not "JF".

You can post what you gotta post. I ain't digging through your random links trying to find whatever you think you see.

Wtf dood? You were whining that a quote wasn't documented, I gave you the link, now you wanna go ?

You want me to hold your hand finding it? Poor widdle eyes hurt weading?
Column three, fourth paragraph up from the bottom. Which in its actual context we can all see is a simple internal squabble between lawyers about strategy. Told by a guy who was, at the time of the article cited, working to impeach Bill Clinton.

"I didn't see a quote from JF [sic]. I saw you purporting that he said that he couldn't/didn't 'fire' HC."

And now you've seen it. And true to form your response is --- not "OK I was wrong" but...



Denialists.... SMH

 

[Pogo]

Here is the plan for Hillary's Email-gate: The State Dept. will announce that it has misplaced Form 109 and Hillary will announce that she can't remember if she signed one. (Remember the phony bump on the head/facelift?) This sets up a clever legal argument that there is a 50/50 probability that she either signed or didn't sign it. As a result, there will not be a preponderance of evidence necessary to prosecute her for either criminal act.

Is this a great country or what!

What the State Department will do is create a fraudulent Form 109 for her like the White House did Obama's fraudulent birth certificate for him.

That's gotta be almost as easy as creating fraudulent quotes for your sigline.

It's like a disease with you people.