Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I didn't think you of all people would resort to citing a single source story -- which is contradicted by it's own author -- and that has no outside verification.
There was more than the citing by Calabrese. There were other interviews and citations. There was also corroboration of much of the story by Franklin Pope, a chief Republican counsel on the committee. And, of course, there were Zeifman's diary and book "Without Honor" And Zeifman did not contradict the Calabrese interview.
Funny, from what I read the person quoted earlier said that he didn't fire her and wouldn't have had the power to do so. One would think such actions would be reported to the bar...if they really happened.
He did say in a Sacramento Bee article "if I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her." The rest of the article was not cited, so I don't know if there was any further clarification. He also said in an interview with Neal Boortz "Let me put it this way, I terminated her along with other staff members who were no longer needed. And I said that I could not recommend her for any further positions."
Seems that he retracted the word "fire" and replaced it with "terminated." According to Zeifman, she was "terminated" not "fired."
And he was quoted in a "Accuracy in Media" column that he had a "regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate Bar Associations." The brief Hillary wrote, according to Zeifman, was so fraudulent and ridiculous that she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. But there was no need to carry it any further since Nixon's resignation rendered the whole matter moot.
Sweet Jesus, it's going to be a long campaign.
When was the last short one. As usual, there will be lot's of phony rhetoric, twisted "narratives," gross or subtle pandering, outright lies, massive spending, and tremendous waste of our time and enjoyment of daily life. Maybe a horrific story of a dog riding on the top of a car. Or of a super wealthy candidate being out of touch with the "people" because of his wealth. Not that career politicians don't get to the top 1% while they are in office, but that is deserved. Running for office while wealthy makes one out of touch. But gaining wealth while in office is evidence that you have touched (up) the people.
The difference is this still is old news...because no evidence of wrongdoing was ever found. If there's a pattern of behavior established perhaps it's of those seeking to bring them down.
Has Zeitman shown a pattern of lying behavior? And what motive would he have to lie? He was urged by top committee members to keep the Watergate diary which is available for inspection in the George Washington University Library. That was a basis for his book about Hillary's actions "Without Honor." Why would he go through the trouble of faking a diary of the whole Watergate proceedings, then write a fake book about it all? He is a lifelong Democrat. He voted for Bill Clinton. But he later came to regret that the Clintons had "corrupted" the Democrat Party. And he saw the beginnings of their "pattern of behavior" starting with Hillary at Watergate, and the various scandals that followed.
Being "old news" does not make it irrelevant. It is old news which informs us of patterns of behavior that reflect on who we should vote for.
Christie will have to stand the test of time.
-spence
|
Wow--that's an endorsement for President! There is something to the old adage, where there's smoke, there's fire. That's not always the case. But when there's a pattern of smoky events, the probability of there being fire increases.
Christie's episode has only released a puff. And yet you do think that there's still a decent chance Christie misled when he learned about it.
Hillary has a long trail of smoke, yet you speak of no chance that she has "misled." On the contrary, you dismiss even her verified lie or any responsibility in the "misleading" narrative of Benghazzzzzzzzzzzzi. You spin and dismiss any negatives about her.
I can see why she is such a strong candidate. Her followers brook no doubts. And they view her opponents as suspect, at best. And, more to the point her agenda is attractive to the cultural elites. At least the language of the agenda is. My contention is that the language of the progressive agenda is a rhetorical pastiche which obscures the old top down, smarter than thou authoritative social order. Covered over with the same old vague but good sounding notions of fairness and equality. And elites, of all stripes, Democrat or Republican, are more comfortable with being part of a ruling class and not really "equal" with the lesser folks. It is absolutely fair that they get the lion's share and the ruled are equal in their lesser station. And, after all, being so gullible, they are easy to persuade that it is for their own good. And they really don't have the ability to rise above their station anyway. It IS for their good. Hillary is one of those strong ones who have risen in the ranks of the ruling class by the old method of tenacity and deception. She has stood the test of time. She is one of the elites. And the lower orders can have confidence in her, by her rhetoric, that she is strong enough, and tenacious enough, to do what is good and fair for them.
I, personally, don't see what is so compelling about her to be a President. I really do see her as a manipulative liar who will do whatever it takes, legal or not, moral or not, to get what she wants.