Ironic How Watergate 2 Loosely Involves Hillary

[easyt65]

She submitted what she had been directed by her superior to produce.....your insistence that it was "erroneous" enjoys all the currency of sheep flatus.....

No one directed Hillary to prepare and submit a briefing that was "so fraudulent and ridiculous, she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge".

Either she was "a “liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer", as Zeifman declared, or she sucked as a lawyer. WHICH IS IT?




Nice try, Slim....

 

[busybee01]

Hillary 'got her start' working on the 1st Watergate, being released from the team after being caught intentionally submitting a false / wrong legal paper in an attempt to deny Nixon his Constitutional Right to a fair trial / legal right to council.

Decades later, here she is, loosely connected to the potential 'Watergate 2'.

The DNC / Democrats rigged their Primaries and engaged in voter fraud in their Primaries, and had even fed Hillary debate questions in advance to try to help her win...unsuccessfully.

Barry was so afraid of everything he had done in 8 years and his 'Legacy' being wiped away - worried Hillary would lose that he illegally collected personal information on Trump and his team AND (allegedly) wiretapped the Trump Towers.

So Hillary could very well be at the heart of the reason why Barry illegally ordered 'Watergate 2'...and Hillary and Obama could be to blame for the entire DNC being destroyed.

There is no Watergate 2. Trump has not offered up 1 iota of proof that anything happened. For Congress to investigate at this point of time is crazy. You drag up a bunch of people to testify that they did not do it? A complete waste of time.

I have no love for Clinton but this is another talking point for Trump Davidians. Clinton won the nomination and even without the superdelegates, she had 400 more pledged delegates that Sanders. That was largely due to the South where Clinton beat Sanders by 2-1 and 3-1 margins. Where is the proof of voter fraud? Using the same rules, Obama beat Clinton in 2008.

There is no proof that Obama ordered any wiretapping. The heart of this is simple. Trump saw something said on state run media and that is his proof. So he smears people on this basis to divert attention from his troubles.

 

[paperview]

The usual easylie tripe.

FALSE: Jerry Zeifman Fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation

 

[The Original Tree]

Hillary 'got her start' working on the 1st Watergate, being released from the team after being caught intentionally submitting a false / wrong legal paper in an attempt to deny Nixon his Constitutional Right to a fair trial / legal right to council.

Decades later, here she is, loosely connected to the potential 'Watergate 2'.

The DNC / Democrats rigged their Primaries and engaged in voter fraud in their Primaries, and had even fed Hillary debate questions in advance to try to help her win...unsuccessfully.

Barry was so afraid of everything he had done in 8 years and his 'Legacy' being wiped away - worried Hillary would lose that he illegally collected personal information on Trump and his team AND (allegedly) wiretapped the Trump Towers.

So Hillary could very well be at the heart of the reason why Barry illegally ordered 'Watergate 2'...and Hillary and Obama could be to blame for the entire DNC being destroyed.

There is no Watergate 2. Trump has not offered up 1 iota of proof that anything happened. For Congress to investigate at this point of time is crazy. You drag up a bunch of people to testify that they did not do it? A complete waste of time.

I have no love for Clinton but this is another talking point for Trump Davidians. Clinton won the nomination and even without the superdelegates, she had 400 more pledged delegates that Sanders. That was largely due to the South where Clinton beat Sanders by 2-1 and 3-1 margins. Where is the proof of voter fraud? Using the same rules, Obama beat Clinton in 2008.

There is no proof that Obama ordered any wiretapping. The heart of this is simple. Trump saw something said on state run media and that is his proof. So he smears people on this basis to divert attention from his troubles.

 

[IcebergSlim]

She submitted what she had been directed by her superior to produce.....your insistence that it was "erroneous" enjoys all the currency of sheep flatus.....

No one directed Hillary to prepare and submit a briefing that was "so fraudulent and ridiculous, she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge".

Either she was "a “liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer", as Zeifman declared, or she sucked as a lawyer. WHICH IS IT?




Nice try, Slim....

Why do you persist in citing Zeifman as authority, long after it has been established that he lied?

Zeifman’s book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during hearings was not Hillary Rodham’s doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman’s book state that
“one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee’s impeachment proceedings” and that “in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel“. (Whether such a “right” existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)


Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino’s position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar. One might assert, as Chief Minority Counsel Frank Polk did, that Hillary could have taken a better approach to the task and “should have mentioned [the Douglas case], and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” but it’s highly subjective to suggest she was “unethical” and “dishonest” for carrying out the instructions of her immediate supervisor and his boss. One could just as plausibly argue that it would have been unethical and dishonest (not to mention insubordinate) for Hillary to presume to substitute her own judgment for that of her superiors and to refuse to comply with their directions.

 

[easyt65]

The usual easylie tripe.

FALSE: Jerry Zeifman Fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation

"Zeifman’s book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during hearings was not Hillary Rodham’s doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman’s book state that
“one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee’s impeachment proceedings” and that “in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel“.

If Hillary knew, as she and all other lawyers should have known, that this issue had already been decided by an earlier Supreme Court ruling, as reported, and still drafted and submitted the brief she was still intentionally submitting a known erroneous brief.

There was never any doubt Nixon was allowed to have counsel, throughout the entire process in which he was accused of wrong-doing.

 

[Care4all]

She submitted what she had been directed by her superior to produce.....your insistence that it was "erroneous" enjoys all the currency of sheep flatus.....

No one directed Hillary to prepare and submit a briefing that was "so fraudulent and ridiculous, she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge".

Either she was "a “liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer", as Zeifman declared, or she sucked as a lawyer. WHICH IS IT?




Nice try, Slim....

Zeifman is the KNOWN LIAR silly!

Was Hillary Clinton Fired from the Nixon Impeachment Inquiry?

FALSE: Jerry Zeifman Fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation

 

[Care4all]

oh, and pres obama can't order a wiretap on a US citizen


you need probable cause of a crime with investigative facts, then the attorney general approving it and then the FISA COURT JUDGE approving it for constitutionality and legality.

TRUMP IS A LIAR

TRUMP IS A SLANDERER

IMPEACH HIM FOR THE FELONY

 

[IcebergSlim]

The usual easylie tripe.

FALSE: Jerry Zeifman Fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation

"Zeifman’s book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during hearings was not Hillary Rodham’s doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman’s book state that
“one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee’s impeachment proceedings” and that “in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel“.

If Hillary knew, as she and all other lawyers should have known, that this issue had already been decided by an earlier Supreme Court ruling, as reported, and still drafted and submitted the brief she was still intentionally submitting a known erroneous brief.

There was never any doubt Nixon was allowed to have counsel, throughout the entire process in which he was accused of wrong-doing.

No....you persist in taking Zeifman's word for that........and he has offered too many interpretations of that event to be credible with respect to any particular iteration of his fiction....

and you don't understand the process......

 

[paperview]

She submitted what she had been directed by her superior to produce.....your insistence that it was "erroneous" enjoys all the currency of sheep flatus.....

No one directed Hillary to prepare and submit a briefing that was "so fraudulent and ridiculous, she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge".

Either she was "a “liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer", as Zeifman declared, or she sucked as a lawyer. WHICH IS IT?




Nice try, Slim....

Why do you persist in citing Zeifman as authority, long after it has been established that he lied?

Zeifman’s book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during hearings was not Hillary Rodham’s doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman’s book state that
“one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee’s impeachment proceedings” and that “in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel“. (Whether such a “right” existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)


Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino’s position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar. One might assert, as Chief Minority Counsel Frank Polk did, that Hillary could have taken a better approach to the task and “should have mentioned [the Douglas case], and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” but it’s highly subjective to suggest she was “unethical” and “dishonest” for carrying out the instructions of her immediate supervisor and his boss. One could just as plausibly argue that it would have been unethical and dishonest (not to mention insubordinate) for Hillary to presume to substitute her own judgment for that of her superiors and to refuse to comply with their directions.

"Why do you persist in citing Zeifman as authority, long after it has been established that he lied?"


Because that's what easylie does. It's her gig.

 

[IcebergSlim]

She submitted what she had been directed by her superior to produce.....your insistence that it was "erroneous" enjoys all the currency of sheep flatus.....

No one directed Hillary to prepare and submit a briefing that was "so fraudulent and ridiculous, she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge".

Either she was "a “liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer", as Zeifman declared, or she sucked as a lawyer. WHICH IS IT?




Nice try, Slim....

Why do you persist in citing Zeifman as authority, long after it has been established that he lied?

Zeifman’s book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during hearings was not Hillary Rodham’s doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman’s book state that
“one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee’s impeachment proceedings” and that “in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel“. (Whether such a “right” existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)


Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino’s position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar. One might assert, as Chief Minority Counsel Frank Polk did, that Hillary could have taken a better approach to the task and “should have mentioned [the Douglas case], and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” but it’s highly subjective to suggest she was “unethical” and “dishonest” for carrying out the instructions of her immediate supervisor and his boss. One could just as plausibly argue that it would have been unethical and dishonest (not to mention insubordinate) for Hillary to presume to substitute her own judgment for that of her superiors and to refuse to comply with their directions.

"Why do you persist in citing Zeifman as authority, long after it has been established that he lied?"


Because that's what easylie does. It's her gig.

So precious these snowflakes, aren't they?