Cruz crushed the Left-heads at CNBC... no wonder the they're wetting their pant over this guy!

[mudwhistle]

Says if he could, he would have fired Hillary......because of suggestions she made that were highly unethical.....and illegal.

So technically, the story is practically identical.

Your picture quotes that Zeifman said he fired her, and in the newspaper article Zeifman said he didn't have the power to fire her, so is Zeifman is lying in at least one of those quotes, and therefore is not credible, like you, in any quote.

You article doesn't change the story much at all. You're trying to dodge the real issue by arguing a detail that isn't important to the scope of the story.

Hillary was unethical, dishonest, and showed a pattern which is present today. Her penchant for playing loose with the rules.

Zeifman's ability to fire her isn't important. You're pulling a Clinton tactic of discounting evidence in its entirety over what could be just a silly detail that was misreported....or misquoted.

This only works on people that cannot face the truth, not people who think logically.

Beside.....being fired means different things. Being reassigned because of incompetence or lying on a case can be called a firing.....even though the person still works at the same office. They just won't be allowed to work on important cases anymore because of possible legal ramifications.

ALL of Zeifman's claims were exposed as lies from Zeifman's own book in the link I posted earlier that you were too lazy to read.

Everything stated in your picture 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 her supervisor (and Zeifman's).

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)

Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino's position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar.

Moreover, Zeifman plainly stated in his book that Hillary Rodham didn't "confiscate" files related to the Douglas impeachment case. Rather, he asserted that it was her supervisor, John Doar, who — withChairman Rodino's assent — took possession of those files, writing that "Doar got Rodino's permission to place all of our Douglas impeachment files in his exclusive custody."

And she didn't confiscate FBI files that showed up in her private quarters when she was First Lady either. Somebody else put them there. She never lied or done anything wrong in her life.

Yeah...right.

I read the article you linked on a pdf. It said clearly that Hillary made a suggestion that was illegal. I didn't see any of the crap you're talking about on there. Perhaps because I'm reading it from a cell......but the shit you're claiming wasn't in that pdf.

As I have shown over and over, when caught lying the Right just continue to lie. Hillary suggested nothing, Zeifman's own book said it was RODINO, the CHAIRMAN of the committee.

And the link you didn't read was in an earlier post before the pdf.

It's the only link I saw.....from media matters.

Hillary’s crew of propagandists.

 

[edthecynic]

Your picture quotes that Zeifman said he fired her, and in the newspaper article Zeifman said he didn't have the power to fire her, so is Zeifman is lying in at least one of those quotes, and therefore is not credible, like you, in any quote.

You article doesn't change the story much at all. You're trying to dodge the real issue by arguing a detail that isn't important to the scope of the story.

Hillary was unethical, dishonest, and showed a pattern which is present today. Her penchant for playing loose with the rules.

Zeifman's ability to fire her isn't important. You're pulling a Clinton tactic of discounting evidence in its entirety over what could be just a silly detail that was misreported....or misquoted.

This only works on people that cannot face the truth, not people who think logically.

Beside.....being fired means different things. Being reassigned because of incompetence or lying on a case can be called a firing.....even though the person still works at the same office. They just won't be allowed to work on important cases anymore because of possible legal ramifications.

ALL of Zeifman's claims were exposed as lies from Zeifman's own book in the link I posted earlier that you were too lazy to read.

Everything stated in your picture 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 her supervisor (and Zeifman's).

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)

Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino's position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar.

Moreover, Zeifman plainly stated in his book that Hillary Rodham didn't "confiscate" files related to the Douglas impeachment case. Rather, he asserted that it was her supervisor, John Doar, who — withChairman Rodino's assent — took possession of those files, writing that "Doar got Rodino's permission to place all of our Douglas impeachment files in his exclusive custody."

And she didn't confiscate FBI files that showed up in her private quarters when she was First Lady either. Somebody else put them there. She never lied or done anything wrong in her life.

Yeah...right.

I read the article you linked on a pdf. It said clearly that Hillary made a suggestion that was illegal. I didn't see any of the crap you're talking about on there. Perhaps because I'm reading it from a cell......but the shit you're claiming wasn't in that pdf.

As I have shown over and over, when caught lying the Right just continue to lie. Hillary suggested nothing, Zeifman's own book said it was RODINO, the CHAIRMAN of the committee.

And the link you didn't read was in an earlier post before the pdf.

It's the only link I saw.....from media matters.

Hillary’s crew of propagandists.

The perpetual dumb act!

And it was a pdf of a newspaper article that mediamatters did not write.
The fact remains that Zeifman's own book contradicts what he claims in interviews he gave after Clinton became famous, so he is clearly a liar, as are ALL Right-wing sources.

 

[mudwhistle]

You article doesn't change the story much at all. You're trying to dodge the real issue by arguing a detail that isn't important to the scope of the story.

Hillary was unethical, dishonest, and showed a pattern which is present today. Her penchant for playing loose with the rules.

Zeifman's ability to fire her isn't important. You're pulling a Clinton tactic of discounting evidence in its entirety over what could be just a silly detail that was misreported....or misquoted.

This only works on people that cannot face the truth, not people who think logically.

Beside.....being fired means different things. Being reassigned because of incompetence or lying on a case can be called a firing.....even though the person still works at the same office. They just won't be allowed to work on important cases anymore because of possible legal ramifications.

ALL of Zeifman's claims were exposed as lies from Zeifman's own book in the link I posted earlier that you were too lazy to read.

Everything stated in your picture 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 her supervisor (and Zeifman's).

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)

Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino's position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar.

Moreover, Zeifman plainly stated in his book that Hillary Rodham didn't "confiscate" files related to the Douglas impeachment case. Rather, he asserted that it was her supervisor, John Doar, who — withChairman Rodino's assent — took possession of those files, writing that "Doar got Rodino's permission to place all of our Douglas impeachment files in his exclusive custody."

And she didn't confiscate FBI files that showed up in her private quarters when she was First Lady either. Somebody else put them there. She never lied or done anything wrong in her life.

Yeah...right.

I read the article you linked on a pdf. It said clearly that Hillary made a suggestion that was illegal. I didn't see any of the crap you're talking about on there. Perhaps because I'm reading it from a cell......but the shit you're claiming wasn't in that pdf.

As I have shown over and over, when caught lying the Right just continue to lie. Hillary suggested nothing, Zeifman's own book said it was RODINO, the CHAIRMAN of the committee.

And the link you didn't read was in an earlier post before the pdf.

It's the only link I saw.....from media matters.

Hillary’s crew of propagandists.

The perpetual dumb act!

And it was a pdf of a newspaper article that mediamatters did not write.
The fact remains that Zeifman's own book contradicts what he claims in interviews he gave after Clinton became famous, so he is clearly a liar, as are ALL Right-wing sources.

Right.....a story with obviously conflicting content. Saying at first that Hillary was so happy and friendly.....but then saying at the end that she should have been fired.....the unethical, dishonest bitch.

 

[edthecynic]

ALL of Zeifman's claims were exposed as lies from Zeifman's own book in the link I posted earlier that you were too lazy to read.

Everything stated in your picture 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 her supervisor (and Zeifman's).

Zeifman's book plainly stated, more than once, that the viewpoint that President Nixon should not be allowed representation by counsel during evidentiary hearings was not Hillary Rodham's doing; rather, it came from the top, Committee Chairman Peter Rodino himself. Separate passages in Zeifman's book state that "one [rule] which was also espoused by Rodino was the surprising notion that the President was not entitled to representation by counsel in the committee's impeachment proceedings" and that "in April [1974], Rodino began recommending that we deny Nixon the right to be represented by counsel". (Whether such a "right" existed is far from certain: the committee was engaged in neither a criminal proceeding nor an impeachment trial; they were merely investigating whether grounds for impeachment might be present.)

Accordingly, Hillary drafted a brief in support of Rodino's position under orders from her supervisor, John Doar.

Moreover, Zeifman plainly stated in his book that Hillary Rodham didn't "confiscate" files related to the Douglas impeachment case. Rather, he asserted that it was her supervisor, John Doar, who — withChairman Rodino's assent — took possession of those files, writing that "Doar got Rodino's permission to place all of our Douglas impeachment files in his exclusive custody."

And she didn't confiscate FBI files that showed up in her private quarters when she was First Lady either. Somebody else put them there. She never lied or done anything wrong in her life.

Yeah...right.

I read the article you linked on a pdf. It said clearly that Hillary made a suggestion that was illegal. I didn't see any of the crap you're talking about on there. Perhaps because I'm reading it from a cell......but the shit you're claiming wasn't in that pdf.

As I have shown over and over, when caught lying the Right just continue to lie. Hillary suggested nothing, Zeifman's own book said it was RODINO, the CHAIRMAN of the committee.

And the link you didn't read was in an earlier post before the pdf.

It's the only link I saw.....from media matters.

Hillary’s crew of propagandists.

The perpetual dumb act!

And it was a pdf of a newspaper article that mediamatters did not write.
The fact remains that Zeifman's own book contradicts what he claims in interviews he gave after Clinton became famous, so he is clearly a liar, as are ALL Right-wing sources.

Right.....a story with obviously conflicting content. Saying at first that Hillary was so happy and friendly.....but then saying at the end that she should have been fired.....the unethical, dishonest bitch.

That is because the article interviewed two different people.
DUH!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I agree... The Left uses deceit and fraud as a means to influence it's ignorant constituency... and there's not 150 IQ points in that entire ideology.

Well, I beg to differ.

There are still a whole lot of very intelligent, honest liberals who still love their country as much as anyone else.

The problem is that they have bought into the Marxist rhetoric that is toxic to the public. Sanders seems nonMarxist, looking at his policy proposals and votes. For example he supports gun rights and no Marxist does that.

Let me be clear:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.

And this is due to the law of nature that precludes the means for anyone to simultaneously adhere to both, the thesis and the antithesis.

Understand that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism.

Relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity essential to understanding truth. The therefore lowly liberal does not possess the means to be honest, to act honorably or to so much as recognize the need for such.

They are not capable of it... If they were capable of it, they wouldn't be leftists.

 

[tigerred59]

Give me a fuckin break....when you can't come clean or with something substantial to say, DEFLECT, DEFLECT, DEFLECT....thats all you conservative fucks know how to do...deflect and point fingers. I can not believe how gullable and pathetic GOP supporters are. He looked like a moralistic diaper wearing cry baby, like all you ingrates appear.

 

[the_human_being]

Ted Cruz reports that he has raised $1.1 million since the debate. People are listening.

 

[the_human_being]

I agree... The Left uses deceit and fraud as a means to influence it's ignorant constituency... and there's not 150 IQ points in that entire ideology.

Well, I beg to differ.

There are still a whole lot of very intelligent, honest liberals who still love their country as much as anyone else.

The problem is that they have bought into the Marxist rhetoric that is toxic to the public. Sanders seems nonMarxist, looking at his policy proposals and votes. For example he supports gun rights and no Marxist does that.

Let me be clear:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.

And this is due to the law of nature that precludes the means for anyone to simultaneously adhere to both, the thesis and the antithesis.

Understand that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism.

Relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity essential to understanding truth. The therefore lowly liberal does not possess the means to be honest, to act honorably or to so much as recognize the need for such.

They are not capable of it... If they were capable of it, they wouldn't be leftists.

Actually, there exist no known strain gage sensitive enough to measure the IQ of a Liberal. Their IQ remains a mystery to science since scientists have not even been able to actually observe any indicators of Liberal intelligence.

 

[bodecea]

Cruz has audio graphic memory. (like photographic) What ever he hears, he can repeat word for word comments remarks made by the CNBC panel...including the pauses. That's why he could repeat all the insulting thing said to each f them.

Bullshit.

Link?

The third Republican debate transcript, annotated

CRUZ: You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media.

(APPLAUSE) This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions -- "Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?"

What was actually asked, please show the word "villain" in the question.

HARWOOD: Let's be honest.

(LAUGHTER)

Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?

C'mon now...we're supposed to be afraid of Cruz....the OP said so. Get with the program.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are Leftists RACISTS? And by Racists, I mean the actual meaning of the word and not the illicit definition that is asserted when the Left uses it... .

LOL! Of course they are... below is the photo found in the signature of this sites most pathetic Leftists... .

And what does it say? It says that "ALL BLACKS are feckless, American hatin' Islamic Insurgents."

And THAT is the fundamental concept OKA: RACISM!