Reply With Quote
Well, she is a politician, isn't she?
I heard an interview with the author of this story today. Thought I would share:
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
Doesn't surprise me at all...
Well, she is a politician, isn't she?
And an attorney. Sounds like typical conduct.
Yep and so is Obama, but he is getting the kid glove
treatment. He is more of a liar than Hillary. He has been
caught how many times in lies and they were all brushed
under the rung. The man of change....yeah, you bet.
I don't trust a politician that doesn't lie...
All of these lies and zero prosecutions, indictments for perjury..
Source? Please provide a link.
So can we get the Hillary/Obama haters to set the record straight. They are now claiming that anyone who has lied in their past is excluded from being President. Correct? or is this one of those selective outrage things again? For some reason I have a feeling the cowards won't respond but I have long figured out hypocrites won't ever go on the record..
QUOTE=Wild Cobra
I heard an interview with the author of this story today. Thought I would share:
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
Doesn't surprise me at all.../QUOTE
Interesting. This seems to be making the blog rounds, but I was unable to find any real corrobaration by an outside source yet, i.e. all the hits in search engines seem to be copy and pastes, with no real fact-checking done by a second en y.
Not to be too dramatic, but this would, if true, be a heavy blow, if not a fatal one, to her campaign.
So much for her "I've already been vetted" claim. This is new to me.
I will ultimately withhold judgment on this until more investigation is done into it and it's veracity can be independently confirmed.
Links, Ha! Read the paper and listen to a little news other
than the left wing. Obama changes his stories like he
changes his socks, daily. The 100 year thing about
McCain. His relationship with the Minister. His response
to a left wing liberal questioneer. Links my foot. You
disprove what I said with your dumb links.
And then you have old GGA saying: "So can we get the Hillary/Obama haters to set the record straight. They are now claiming that anyone who has lied in their past is excluded from being President. Correct? or is this one of those selective outrage things again? For some reason I have a feeling the cowards won't respond but I have long figured out hypocrites won't ever go on the record.."
Who said they were disqualified and should be excluded.
I just don't want to hear you folks saying they are purer
than the driven snow and that they want to make real
change. The only damn change they want to make is
for higher taxes and more government programs. Just
be honest, yourself, about what Obama and Hillary
really want. Both of them are dumb as a doorknob
about everything that they attempt to talk about without
a script. Consider me on record.
so you are ok with liars if they are conservatives? or is your probelm with the liars who proclaim to be "more pure than the white driven snow"? It's hard to actually understand your logic.. seems to me that your logical thought applies differently depending on political affiliation..
If that is the case, then I certainly hope you didn't vote for Bush in 2000.
Ray, you are confirmation bias personified.
well bush was correct in saying china and russia are big countries...
Ray's logic set consists of the following rules:
"If it is unflattering and about a liberal, it must be true."
"If it is unflattering and about a conservative, it must be false."
"If it is unflattering and about a conservative, I will never bring it up and do my best to forget it."
"If it is unflattering and about a liberal, I will bring it up at every opportunity and do my best to spin it as negatively as possible when doing so."
"I will believe no ill of a conservative."
"I will believe ill of any liberal."
All information Ray reads/hears passes through this filtration process.
(shrugs)
I don't dislike ray, I just wish he would set aside his emotions sometime and be a bit more fair when it comes to looking at the world. I like him, but am embarassed sometimes for his total lack of critical thinking.
Bill will shake your hand and piss on your foot at the same time and you will like it.
Hillary will shake your hand and devour your soul while ripping out your heart and you will wish for death.
I like him, but am embarassed sometimes for his total lack of critical thinking.
He lost it in the second world war.
Keep this in mind. The liberal mainstream media will not report such things against a popular democrat until they have no choice. I believe the interview I heard. He said what his sources were. They can be checked, and to my knowledge, nobody had denied them. This is one of those open secrets nobody talks about, but it needs to be.
Clinton isn't so popular these days with the editorial pages of the MSM.. I wouldn't classify her as a 'popular' democrat anymore..
RG, OG, Chump and Clammy. Why do you hate the elderly white
America?
Is this the weekly Oh, Gee! contribution to the board.....
Well, today, Neal Boortz interviewed the man who fired Hillary. It was an interesting and informative interview. He's a true old school democrat and he said anyone with ethics will vote against Hillary!
Interesting thing. The nature of her actions were that if Nixon hadn't resigned, and went to impeachment hearings, Hillary would have likely been disbarred! Who knows, maybe even jailed and fined...
From Boortz's site:
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
HILLARY FIRED? SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISBARRED!
We touched on this yesterday, and I'm told that we've received a mess-o-emails asking me to put something about it on the Nuze today. Ok .. so here we go with the abbreviated version of Hillary's shenanigans when she was working for the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment mess. If you want the full story click here to read the column by Dan Calabrese.
* Hillary Rodham gets a spot on the legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee upon the recommendation of a lawyer pal of Ted Kennedy.
* The man who hires Hillary is Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat.
* The House Judiciary Committee is investigating Richard Nixon with an eye on impeachment.
* A question arises as to whether or not Nixon is legally en led to counsel during the investigation. If so, his council would be allowed to cross examine witnesses appearing before the panel.
* The concern about having counsel for Nixon cross examine witnesses centered on E. Howard Hunt. Democrats on the committee feared that Nixon's counsel would elicit information from Hunt that would be very damaging to the Kennedys.
* Zeifman tells Hillary that Nixon is en led to counsel. He cites do ents in the committee's public file referencing the fact that Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas had representation four years earlier while he was being investigated.
* Hillary removes the do ents from the committees public file and places them under lock and key in her office where they are not available for media or public scrutiny.
* Hillary then prepares a brief for filing with a federal judge which falsely states that there is no precedent for an official being investigated by the committee to have legal representation during that investigation.
* Nixon resigns before Hillary has a chance to submit the brief in which she makes knowingly false claims.
* Zeifman then fires Hillary. Hillary asks for a letter of recommendation.
Zeifman says no. This was only the third time in Zeifman's 17 years with the committee that he had refused a letter of recommendation.
Zeifman told Dan Calabrese that if Hillary had actually submitted the brief she most likely would have been disbarred. We're trying to arrange for Jerry Zeifman to be a guest on the show today.
So .. all you Hillary fans out there. Here we have your hero once again hiding do ents that could be damaging to her cause (Rose Law Firm billing records, Vince Foster's files) and then committing an unethical act in preparing a brief on a point of law she knew to be false. And you want this lady to be our president?
Oh ... and why haven't we heard about this before? It seems to me that the media would be interested in this level of dishonesty and unethical behavior by Hillary Clinton.
The article I posted earlier is on Jerry Zeifman's web site. Here is another one on the subject on Jerry Zeifman's web site:
P.S.HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL
New York Post
In December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House
Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham
(now Senator Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our
impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could
not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by as
"establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the
inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she
recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had
violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential
information to unauthorized persons.
Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I
advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House
Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously
agreed not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted
and published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O'Neill's statement that:
"To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be
like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World
Series."
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any
such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already
drafted changes, and continued to advocate them.
In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President
Nixon representation by counsel. She had done this despite the fact that
--in our then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding -- the
committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice
William O. Douglas.
I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were
available for public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the
Douglas files were then removed from our general files without my
permission, transferred to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff,
and were no longer accessible to the public.
The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing
that the Judiciary Committee should neither (1) hold any hearings with or
take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original
investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible
impeachable offense of President Nixon - but to rely instead on prior
investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.
The committee rejected Ms. Rodham's recommendations: It agreed to
allow President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings
with live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the
House be amended to deny members of the committee the right to
question witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full
House. (The committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the
drafting of the articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special
staffers.)
The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or
approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall - in violation of
committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also
advocated by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and
Senior Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had
worked under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.
It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned
of still another questionable role of Ms. Rodham. On Sept. 26, 1974,
Rep. Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to
ask Chairman Rodino to look into a troubling set of events.
That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that
research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which
to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no
such staff study was made available to the members at any time for
their use," Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been
conducted - at committee expense - by a team of professors who
completed and filed their reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff
well in advance of our public hearings.
The report was not made available to members of Congress. But after
the impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published
commercially and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote that he was
"especially troubled by the possibility that information deemed essential
by some of the members in their discharge of their responsibilities may
have been intentionally suppressed by the staff during the course our
investigation."
On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-
inquiry staff coordinated the work. ... After the staff received the
report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr.
Sack, and by Mr. Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was
useful in its present form." On the charge of willful suppression, he
wrote: "That was not the case ... The staff did not think the material
was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time
to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the
committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment."
During my 17 year tenure with the House Judiciary Committee, I had
supervisory authority over several hundred staff members. The only
attorneys whom I cannot recommend for future positions of public and
private trust are Hillary Rodham, John Doar, and Bernard Nussbaum
Zeifman is the author of "Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and Impeachment of President Nixon"
For your listening pleasure, "Love Me Like Barak":
MP3
Stream
Bull . This kind of nasty stuff doesn't get reported until it can be confirmed. It makes for juicy ratings, and that is what drives the "liberal media" far more than any ideological slant.
I am really ing tired of the "liberal media" delusion, and I have asked repeatedly for data supporting this from any sucker that has fallen for this myth, and after years of lame-ass attempts at trying to justify this rather successful lie, I have yet to see anything that even approaches sufficient proof.
... and I believe that.
Serious charges require higher levels of proof than one interview, though, and that level of proof has not been met to my satisfaction yet, but hey I am an auditor, and that is just the way I swing in that regard. Trust but verify.
Where would the right wingers be without being able to blame the media? Of course you have the resident rightwing nut huggers who will believe ANYTHING that is negative about Clinton or other Democrats no matter the source of the story.. yet when stories that come out showing the dems in a positive light it's because the media is biased.. see it's really easy to be a conservative nowadays because if things aren't reported the way the rightwingers want them to there is the 'blame the MSM' card in their back pocket.. of course you will NEVER get the folks who use the blanket term to define who they consider the MSM is specifically.. pretty good deal huh? You bet!
Now a newspaper article in the 'Small town USA paper' can represent the MSM as a whole when the article shows bias...
So I guess your current definition of a 'true story' is when no one comes out and denies the story? Kind of weak don't you think?
By the way hating the Clintons these days is good business..
when you have evidence, you use it.
when you don't, you pound on the table.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
