Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Watergate: Fired for being a ‘liar’
Hillary actually played a role in the Watergate saga, and her actions as a young attorney may have set the tone for her career.
The 27-year-old Clinton was fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Watergate scandal in 1974. She was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, who called her a liar and much worse.
“She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” he said. “She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Zeifman also refused to give Clinton a letter of recommendation, making her one of only three employees he snubbed during his 17-year career.

This guy has been outted as liar on this issue but you still bang away.

No he wasn't. There was heavy-duty historical revisionism performed subsequent to him firing HRC.

snopes.com: Jerry Zeifman Fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation?

Originally Posted by JayZee

snopes.com: Jerry Zeifman Fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation?

Who you gonna believe? The left-wing leaning HRC covering up Snopes or:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/

Like I said, a false story.

A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he bases that characterization are ones that he has contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.

Read more at snopes.com: Jerry Zeifman Fired Hillary Clinton from the Watergate Investigation?

So, the Snopes piece is incorrect?

Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so

Originally Posted by Humbert

So, the Snopes piece is incorrect?

Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so

When pressed, Zeifman said he couldn’t recommend Hillary Rodham Clinton for future positions, “Because of her unethical conduct.” Despite that, however, Clinton was terminated because she was “no longer needed” — not because she had lied, according to Zeifman’s own account.

The money quote, Bert:

... "they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States."

http://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/

She didn't work for him you numptie! No wonder people think you teabaggers and wingnuts are idiots.

Originally Posted by Humbert

She didn't work for him you numptie! No wonder people think you teabaggers and wingnuts are idiots.

What are you smoking, Bert?

HRC didn't work for Zeifman?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

HRC didn't work for Zeifman?

You obviously did not read the Snopes piece about this false story. No, he was not her supervisor and had no authority to fire her.
Enough.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

HRC didn't work for Zeifman?

You obviously did not read the Snopes piece about this false story. No, he was not her supervisor and had no authority to fire her.
Enough.

I read and ammended my statement. Didn't you read?

btw, if he wasn't her boss, why did he write this: "But in a 2008 column Zeifman wrote, “My own reaction was of regret, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.” http://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/

Anyhow, not enough Bert old boy as this corruption taint will not be removed from either HRC oor Bubba. To wit:

Bill Clinton: Hey, no one’s proven we’re corrupt, right?

Clinton did an interview with Bloomberg in front of a live and friendly audience at the Clinton Global Initiative, and offered a response to allegations of influence-peddling and worse from the nexus of power and cash involving the family foundation and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. “Has anybody proved that we did anything objectionable?” Clinton asked, and then provided his own answer: “No.”

This is the guy who demanded what the definition of 'is', 'is', remember?



A rather stunning and revealing statement there, eh?

Jeb Bush in Warsaw: 'I'll Talk to My National Security Advisor' - Bloomberg Politics

I can't wait to hear the Clowns trying to wheedle their way of out this one.

Last week, in Houston, Texas, Hillary Rodham Clinton denounced the wave of restrictive new voting laws enacted by Republican legislatures around the country. Those of us who aren’t wild about disenfranchising eligible citizens welcomed Clinton’s passionate defense. It’s been years since a major candidate made democracy reform a central issue. But the most important thing about the speech was her embrace of a transformative policy innovation: automatic, universal registration of voters once they turn 18. It’s an idea that’s already begun to gain ground across the country, building on reforms with bipartisan support. Now we have a chance to take it even further.

In a campaign season criticized for a dearth of big new ideas, this one’s a doozy.

Why is it so important? Between a third and a quarter of all eligible Americans remain unregistered and therefore cannot cast a ballot. Automatic, permanent registration as Clinton proposes would add up to 50 million to the rolls. It would cost less than today’s paper-clogged system. And it would curb the potential for fraud. Amid rising political inequality and declining voter interest, this could give the ailing political system a much-needed jolt of citizen energy.

..character assignations... not quite true, as the posts are pretty much accepted fact these days as regards Shillery and crew...least trusted of all candidates by the American people...pretty funny there Hummer. No law siuts filed are there?

Originally Posted by ltnt

not quite true, as the posts are pretty much accepted fact these days as regards Shillery

Right, like BM's false claim about her firing. You teabaggers are such suckers for lies.

^ The alternate reality at work...

Originally Posted by ltnt

..character assignations... not quite true, as the posts are pretty much accepted fact these days as regards Shillery and crew...least trusted of all candidates by the American people...pretty funny there Hummer. No law siuts filed are there?

WTF is a character assignation?

Booners are you multinicing you dickhead?

I suppose you fellas disregard the nice lengthy post up of Boon Mee regarding Shillery's falsehoods, crimes and misdemeanors...more importantly looking for spelling errors and lame excuses for supporting the unsupportable...same old fellows, same old lies...

Originally Posted by sabang

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that Polls unanimously put Hillary as clear favorite to be the next Potus?

IGNORANCE, how's that? You need to up your game sabang and start or try to read at least 50% of the data regarding this unexplainable lack of actually knowing the person you are about to vote for as POTUS is without any doubt untrustworthy, a liar, cheat and a thief...LVI...says it all.

I don't understand it either, but then I haven't set foot outside Thailand in over 8 years and only once in the past 15 on the shores of America...what the fuck do I know about voters in America...absolutely nothing by reflecting on who's running for President on the Dem.'s side of the world.

Apathy was another stone to throw, but I gave up on that one. We're way past apathy in this case since everyone agrees this bitch is not qualified to change bed sheets in a Siamese whorehouse let alone become POTUS.

I'll have to ask Lucy, she can explain everything for sure.

Next question?

Originally Posted by ltnt

Originally Posted by sabang

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that Polls unanimously put Hillary as clear favorite to be the next Potus?

IGNORANCE, how's that? You need to up your game sabang and start or try to read at least 50% of the data regarding this unexplainable lack of actually knowing the person you are about to vote for as POTUS is without any doubt untrustworthy, a liar, cheat and a thief...LVI...says it all.

I don't understand it either, but then I haven't set foot outside Thailand in over 8 years and only once in the past 15 on the shores of America...what the fuck do I know about voters in America...absolutely nothing by reflecting on who's running for President on the Dem.'s side of the world.

Apathy was another stone to throw, but I gave up on that one. We're way past apathy in this case since everyone agrees this bitch is not qualified to change bed sheets in a Siamese whorehouse let alone become POTUS.

I'll have to ask Lucy, she can explain everything for sure.

Next question?

These denizens of the TDMA copyright koman know but won't give up the goods.

Troll-City my friend!

Originally Posted by ltnt

You need to up your game sabang and start or try to read at least 50% of the data regarding this unexplainable lack of actually knowing the person you are about to vote for as POTUS is without any doubt untrustworthy,

Once again the idiot alternate reality. Of course she sucks but not as hard as the repubtard clown car.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by ltnt

You need to up your game sabang and start or try to read at least 50% of the data regarding this unexplainable lack of actually knowing the person you are about to vote for as POTUS is without any doubt untrustworthy,

Once again the idiot alternate reality. Of course she sucks but not as hard as the rebuptard clown car.

See post #1775

Thats you, dipshit!

^ You have been pwnd lately as usual. Maybe you should find a big rock to hide under dippy.

Isntit caught up in a frenzied, inarticulate rant with no basis in reality other than a deep, lunatic hatred for progressive ideas. BM, with no other defense, proudly pointing to his earlier posts that simply rehash slanders for the umpteenth time. Bsub is right, of course she sucks but I will vote for her if Sanders is not nominated because she is a hundred times better than anyone in the rebutard clowncar.