Hillary Clinton was fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman. See Example( s )
Collected via e-mail, 2014
As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. 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."
On the (thankfully rare) occasions when Congress must consider whether the sitting President of the United States has committed misdeeds that merit his forced removal from office, the task of initiating the impeachment process rests with the House Judiciary Committee:
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 based that characterization were ones that he contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.
This passage leaves many readers with the belief that Hillary Rodham took it upon herself to decide that President Nixon should not be represented by counsel during evidentiary hearings, to deliberately draft a brief that ignored precedent in that area, and to personally hide evidence of the precedent she had ignored so that no one could discover her dishonesty. But nearly everything stated in this passage is wrong: Hillary Rodham didn’t draft a legal brief that was “unethical” (save that it made a legal argument Zeifman didn’t agree with), she didn’t “confiscate” public documents, and she didn’t do anything that she hadn’t been directed to do by the man who was her and Zeifman’s superior.
They also noted that the Washington Post‘s reviewer found (as we did) much of Zeifman’s book to be mere repetition of speculation with little or no evidence to substantiate it:
[The book] will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman’s book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue.
The lack of evidence makes his theory hard to swallow. Zeifman’s most reliable source — his diary — contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations. The book’s jacket cover, which promises readers “truths even more startling than those brought out in Oliver Stone’s movies ‘Nixon’ and ‘JFK’, ” does not help matters. Perhaps the book’s publicists forgot that “Nixon” and “JFK” were, after all, only Hollywood movies. "
Just more bogas accusations with lies and speculations from people who have no integrity. IMO
The point that I was making was that even though not only our political beliefs but our religious beliefs as well differ greatly, I still like and respect you and don't "hate you" as I was accused of because you are a liberal, you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions and even though we may not agree, that doesn't make either of us wrong, just different.
The first thing people will say is "rape and incest" but in a 1987 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in which abortion patients were asked why they were having an abortion, only 1 percent of the 1,900 women questioned named rape or incest. And 95 percent of those who mentioned rape or incest named other reasons as well for deciding to abort, the institute said.
This is according to The New York Times, a liberal newspaper.
Rape and Incest - Just 1% of All Abortions - NYTimes.com
In 2014, 652,639 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas.
I don't think anyone can really debate that the vast majority of abortions are performed simply because the woman didn't want to have the baby. The mantra is "My body, my choice." but the reality is that someone else's body is killed and they don't have a choice in the matter. They tend to ignore exactly what it is that they are doing to the child by calling it a "fetus" which is just a medical term for a baby prior to delivery.
The methods used to perform abortions are horrific, in a saline abortion a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mother's womb. The baby then gulps the solution. It burns the baby inside and out, and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours, it takes hours and yes, they do feel pain regardless of what people are told, they retract their limbs when pinched.
In a vacuum aspiration abortion a tube is inserted into the womb through the cervix. The contents of the womb are sucked out through this tube. Make that "ripped apart" by a strong vacuum.
Dilatation and curettage; In this method the woman's cervical canal is enlarged with tools called dilators. When the canal is sufficiently enlarged the womb is emptied by suction, or by having its contents scraped out with a tool called a curette, essentially carved apart while alive.
The most unbelievable is the partial birth abortion. I can't believe that there are doctors and nurses willing to do this. The procedure involves the extraction of the body of the fetus into the vagina before the contents of the skull are sucked out, killing the unborn, after which the intact fetus is removed from the woman's body.
I'm sure I will be blasted by the pro choice camp but I don't really care. I personally believe that if mankind lasts long enough they will look back on this period of time of human history in horror and revulsion equal to that of the holocaust.
I find it unbelievable that the same vegans who won't eat an egg because it is a "baby chicken" think nothing of tearing a living unborn child limb from limb in the womb or pulling the head out and sucking out it's brains so it can be delivered dead.
People have survived abortions, I won't post the links but their stories are out there if anyone cares to look.
God forgive us.
Lies on top of lies.
The Clinton Foundation received hundreds of millions of dollars from middle eastern countries in donations while Hillary was the Secretary of the State. This champion of women's and gay rights gladly accepted this money from countries that routinely throw gays from rooftops once outed and bury women up to the chest to stone them, mutilate their genitals to deny them sexual pleasure, beat them as the Koran dictates and treat them worse than dogs. She has no scruples when it comes to accepting money.
Isn't it funny how all of those donations suddenly dried up once she was no longer in a position to help them? She was selling us out to the highest bidder, again a trout in the milk.
Do your own research on the Clinton's collection for Haiti's earthquake.
Meanwhile, in America, Trump's administration is breaking records with the Dow, S&P 500 and NASDAQ and unemployment is at a 17 year low.
Fact-checking donations to the Clinton Foundation | PolitiFact
"For Republicans, the Clinton Foundation offers endless opportunities to cast Hillary Clinton as too cozy with the world’s elites. The multimillion-dollar charity has ties to governments and the ultra-wealthy around the globe.
Case in point: In the wake of the Orlando shootings, when Clinton called on several Persian Gulf states to crack down on wealthy citizens who were funding Muslim extremists, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump posted this response on Facebook.
"Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate," Trump wrote on June 13, 2016. "I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!"
About 300,000 people responded to that post, and it was shared more than 56,000 times. We wanted to know if Trump’s $25 million figure was correct.
We soon found that independently confirming information about the Clinton foundation is challenging at best."
Here read a Pulitzer award winning news source about the Clinton Foundation scandal reported by far rt. wing news as you just briefly regurgitated and compare the vast differences in your point of view and what really was going on there.
Once again you falled the credibility test and I called your kettle black as it seems you do not and have no desire to research anything outside far rt. wing false news sources and their constant lies taken as truth when in fact I like to find the closest to the truth I can and donīt support Hillary but find joy in exposing fake/lies malicious far rt. wing news for what it REALLY is [garbage digested by uneducated people IMO].
Pulitzer Prize... Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize as did Al Gore, I'm still laughing.
Meanwhile, back in America, the stock market is breaking all time records and unemployment is at an 17 year low and that can't be denied, only the credit stolen, which is what started this entire thread
Here is yet another "trusted news source" report at it's best.
Newsweek published a misleading headline on Tuesday that claimed First Lady Melania Trump demanded a historic Jackson magnolia tree be removed from the White House grounds, but it failed to mention that experts recommended the tree’s removal because it could fall down at any moment.
“Melania Trump orders removal of the near-200-year-old tree from the White House,” Newsweek tweeted from its verified Twitter account. The same text is used as the headline for the story, which is essentially fake news and paints Melania Trump as a tree-hating villain.
The First Lady did order the historic tree to be removed, but only after specialists determined that it needed to be removed. The tree has long been supported by poles and wires and posed a hazard for anyone standing near it.
“Newsweek's bias and disdain for the First Lady and our administration was on full display when they actively chose to use a false headline instead of practicing responsible journalism."
- Melania Trump Communications Director Stephanie Grisham
“Newsweek's bias and disdain for the First Lady and our administration was on full display when they actively chose to use a false headline instead of practicing responsible journalism. This is why Americans' trust and confidence in mass media continues to fall,” Melania Trump Communications Director Stephanie Grisham told Fox News.
Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor mocked the publication for partaking in the “usual war on Trump” that has become a hobby of the mainstream media.
“They either find something to attack him on or they just make it up,” Gainor told Fox News. “Remember, Newsweek sold several years ago for $1. It appears the buyers were cheated.”
White House Director of Social Media Dan Scavino Jr. called Newsweek’s headline “100% misleading” and added the hashtag, “#FakeNewsweek.”
Newsweek has updated the body of its story but the misleading headline remains. The story now cites a report that reveals the truth about the tree that could tumble at any moment.
“Without the extensive cabling system, the tree would have fallen years ago. Presently, and very concerning, the cabling system is failing on the east trunk, as a cable has pulled through the very thin layer of wood that remains. It is difficult to predict when and how many more will fail,” the updated story says, citing a document obtained by CNN.
Some industry insiders feel that Newsweek deploys over-the-top click bait on purpose in an attempt to gain coverage from media reporters at respectable news organizations. Even left-leaning reporters and news organizations criticized Newsweek for the misleading tweet.
“Another BS Newsweek tweet,” HuffPost reporter Yashar Ali wrote. “With 280 characters there’s no excuse for this.”
“Another Newsweek headline doing nothing for the credibility of the news industry as a whole. This headline is grossly misleading,” NBC News reporter Tom Winter wrote.
Newsweek sold for only $1 back in 2010 when the buyer was forced to assume the magazine’s financial liabilities. The magazine has issued at least 20 corrections in 2017 and even has a page on its website dedicated to its mistakes – however it has not been updated since September. The magazine admitted to over 50 mistakes in 2016 and recently issued an embarrassing retraction about a story that falsely detailed the life of the Las Vegas shooter's girlfriend with salacious information that turned out to be fake news.
The tree, which was planted in the early 1800s, is scheduled to be removed later this week.
Some questions for our "pro-lifer" who has painted a vivid picture of the horrors to the "unborn" of being aborted by various methods: Do you also object to the "morning after pill"?(Since you say life begins at conception)
Do you also object to artificial means of contraception? How about voluntary male vasectomy or female sterilization?
Second matter: Hardly anyone on here has maintained that Hillary is a "good person"...whatever your definition of that may be. Many people didn't care, and voted for her in order to put a Democrat in the White House instead of a Republican. As we have seen, those presidential appointments are important. Regardless of the election results, Zorro is posting paragraph after paragraph denouncing Clinton's character over a year after the election. What IS the point of doing that?
Since you have denounced Clinton repeatedly for having a poor character: do you think Trump is a "good person"? Why? I see absolutely no good qualities in the man. In the spirit of fairness, let's hear your opinion of some positive qualities in him, and I don't mean his campaign promises to "get rid of etc."
However, being a "good person" is not required for being eligible for POTUS. We've had a number of Presidents who didn't make the grade on that level. I want to see an effective leader who follows the spirit of democracy in governing a nation whose citizens have many different points of view; a nation which has newspapers and other media who can criticize any politician without fear of being suppressed, (as in threats to have their license pulled.) Most especially, one who wouldn't consider turning a religious group's viewpoint into the law of the land. Trump has repeatedly promised to do exactly that. Quotes abound.
Let's see if you're willing to give some direct answers to the above direct questions instead of carrying on the pointless Clinton bashing.
Furthermore, what's with Melania and tree and the press having to do with ANYTHING worth discussing? Don't we all know that the press on every side of the political spectrum will sell whatever is left of their souls to create "NEWS". We have few honest reporters and a multitude of paparizzi.
You are free to believe what you like as we all are. However we both have to consider the possibility that the news we are being fed are total distortions and outright lies.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.