2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...

[KensanIV]

HMMMMM?  Davik, Without a doubt, Reagan at that time had the beginnings of dementia.  He probably did not really recall. 

Hillary on the other hand is telling as usual an outright lie.  A shame she has never been tested. 

[scott_free]

name the lie, bitch, or go fuck yourself, you punk.  always running your huge gaping piehole without any facts to back your hummingbird ass up.  what a little bitch. 

[scott_free]

douche john proved once again he cannot read when he drooled:

If her boss, Jerry Zeifman, says she was fired, then I will believe him anytime over you.

first off, i didn't say it, the facts say it.  zeifman was never her boss, idiot.  he has admitted it in an earlier book.  yes, he did not like her.  he did not like her boss.  but he is a lying asshole who writes one thing in one book and then other shit in other books, and all of them are based on his own diary!!  that is not proof, that is a lying chickenshit trying to write books that fox and other right wingers will endorse and have him on as a guest because it lies about hillary...HE CLAIMED IN HIS SECOND BOOK SHE WANTED TO KEEP EVIDENCE, SHE LIED ABOUT THIS OR THAT, AND ALL SHE WAS IN THAT INVESTIGATION WAS AN INTERN FOR TWO OTHER BIG TIME LAWYERS!!  AND ACCORDING TO HIM, SHE WAS TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO AND MAKING DECISIONS FOR THEM!!  AND YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID AND BIASED YOU BELIEVE THAT SHIT, YOU MORON. 

Hillary was not fired from any job.  you are repeating easily debunked lies from your usual right wing sources (you believe dan calabrese?  hilarious!!).  as usual.  here ya go, lying, easily played sheep...

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.

But as noted above, Zeifman had no authority to "terminate" Hillary. They were members of different staffs, and Zeifman had no hiring or firing authority over members of the Impeachment Inquiry staff for which Hillary worked. (That authority rested with Special Counsel John Doar and, ultimately, with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino.) Quite tellingly, Zeifman made absolutely no mention of having "fired" or "terminated" Hillary Rodham, nor of telling her that he "could not recommend her for any further positions," in his 1995 book; he only started claiming so much later. Back in 1995 he noted that Hillary had remained with the inquiry staff up until the end, leaving only when President Nixon's August 1974 resignation made the issue of impeachment moot and the Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry staff was therefore disbanded:

Zeifman: Hillary was twenty-seven when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded. The next morning she took a train down to Little Rock, Arkansas. She moved in with Bill Clinton and they eventually married.

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.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

[duke_john]

Fuck off, asshole.  All we get is more shit from scott toilet paper.

[scott_free]

you shitstained teabaggers hate facts, douche.  admit it, and then go outside and fuck yourself. 

[duke_john]

Still fantasizing about sex with men, scott toilet paper.  Keep your fantasies to yourself.  Your doggie blow up doll might get jealous.

[sweetwater5s9]

Even though she destroyed all the evidence by wiping the server afterward, she assured the public that everything related to her conduct of official business had been kept and turned over, as the law requires.

It turns out that this is not true. Not only did Clinton fail to turn over work-related emails, but she or her staff also edited some of those emails before submitting them.

The missing materials, which the State Department says it does not have, came to Congress by other means. They include writings about the jockeying for oil contracts in Libya after President Obama engaging in a war without congressional approval to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi. This comes among her back-and-forth emails with Sidney Blumenthal, a former staffer who had been barred from employment in the Obama administration, to continue offering his insight and advice on Libya.

But the proof of intent to deceive comes in the fact that Clinton or her staff actually edited some of the emails and turned over censored versions to State before destroying her copy of the originals.

One of Clinton's emails to Blumenthal, for example, arrived at State missing a description of a telephone call she had with Libya's new president. She also tampered with Blumenthal's words in some cases. For example, she removed his admonition that "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy," and his warning that Libya could soon be ruled by Islamic law.

What was the motive for these excisions? Perhaps the motive was to spare Clinton some embarrassment, because surely she did not expect anyone to know about her reliance on Blumenthal as a source of intelligence.

There is no way to put a good face on this one: Hillary Clinton lied about her emails. She had something to hide, and she hid it. She deliberately deceived Congress, which asked for her communications on Libya, and she spoke falsely to the public.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-clinton-lied-about-her-emails/article/2567368


Comey and the FBI are not easily fooled...

[duke_john]

Hillary and her minions feel they've won in the court of public opinion, and to her, that's all that matters.  However, she's a lawyer and she has to face the law for her misdeeds.

[keep-left]

Republicans have been investigating the Clintons for more than 30 years and have come up with bupkis.

Now today the GOP thinks they have something on her?  The same exact "problem" that her two predecessors had?

That dog didn't hunt then, and it won't hunt now.

All the while, Republicans will demonstrate to America that they don't know how to govern.

[scott_free]

if having a server was against the law she would already had been charged.  i know teabaggers are stupid.  i know teabaggers are easily played chumps and dickheads.  i know teabaggers like to bend over so fox can fill them up with more bullshit to believe and repeat like the gullible stooges they are- BUT CAN YOU NOT AT LEAST GRASP THAT ONE CLEAR FACT BEFORE YOU REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME?  IF HER HAVING A SERVER WAS AGAINST THE LAW SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED BY NOW.  PERIOD.  the other bullshit you believe is almost as easily debunked but until the "investigation" is concluded with no charges, which will be the obvious outcome, you clownish dickheads can try to believe the opposite. 

[wxzyw]

Why do the leftwing nutjobs defend Hillary's crimes? Are they on Hillary's payroll?

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see!

[sweetwater5s9]

Comey and the FBI are not easily fooled...