Fact-checking website examines claim that Hillary was fired from the Watergate investigation

[A Perez]

The Snopes fact-checking website determines it is false.

Zeif-geist

Conservatives in this board have been parroting the false claim.

 

[depotoo]

Fact Check: Was Hillary Clinton fired from Watergate investigation?
"After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation.

According to the Calabrese column as reported by TruthOrFiction.com, Zeifman said he regrets not reporting Rodham to the appropriate bar association.

So what are we to make of all this? Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth.

In addition, neither www.TruthOrFiction.com nor we could find any response from Hillary Clinton to Zeifman’s book or to his accusations."


So, you tell me, do we believe Zeifman, or Hillary, the proven liar?

 

[konradv]

Sounds like a has-been trying to make some bucks off his association with Hillary, the truth be damned.

 

[easyt65]

Hillary Clinton intentionally - knowingly - filed a false brief, ignoring precedence set that was pointed out to her, in an attempt to deny Nixon due counsel.

The GOP Chairman said that while unethical the act was so amateurish that it was 'more STUPID than sinister'.

It was opined at the time that had Hillary been reported to the bar for actions, like her husband later for his own personal ethics violation, Hillary would have been disbarred!

In defense of Hillary liberals continue to offer differing links/sources than others to argue she was not 'fired' (but rather 'let go because she was no longer needed'); however, what they can NOT dispute is her actions that are undisputably documented in the Waterfate Commission.

What seems to be important to them is not the unethical, unprofessional, and deceitful actions perpetrated in an attempt to deny a US citizen of rightful defense counsel but the fact that she was / was not 'officially' appropriately punished for actions.

Decades ago Hillary attempted to deny an American citizen of a fair trial...ironically years later her husband was found guilty of Contempt of Court, in the 1st-ever Sexual Harassment / law suit against a sitting President, in attempting to deny another US citizen of her right to a fair trial by unethically, deceitfully evading providing truthful answers. For his violation / crime Clinton was disbarred. The case was thrown out for lacking evidenciary merit. An appeal was filed, but Clinton paid off his accuser ($850,000) to make the case go away.

Bill Clinton proved in that case that the Constitution, Rule of Law, his oath of office, and protecting the rights of citizens meant nothing. He was President at that time.

Hillary was a legal intern / lawyer tears ago when she proved it. Now she wants to be President. We don't need 'another one' in the WH!

But you libs continue to ignore her proven acts while focusing on the symantics of her punishment....

 

[NYcarbineer]

...and Obama was born on the Moon.

 

[easyt65]

...and Obama was born on the Moon.

WTF?! Pathetic...truly parhetic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...and Obama was born on the Moon.

WTF?! Pathetic...truly parhetic.

Do you think your dopey thread will prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected president?

 

[easyt65]

No, NY...that would be her conviction for crimes under the Espionage Act.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...and Obama was born on the Moon.

WTF?! Pathetic...truly parhetic.

lol, I'm a Parhetic!

 

[Rustic]

The Snopes fact-checking website determines it is false.

Zeif-geist

Conservatives in this board have been parroting the false claim.

Snopes is an absolute left wing site, that performs fellatio to Barry... Daily

Get your information from a credible source, not bunch of cock sucking asshats for the White House...

 

[konradv]

Snopes is an absolute left wing site, that performs fellatio to Barry... Daily Get your information from a credible source, not bunch of cock sucking asshats for the White House...

They're a well respected site that's been around since before the Web was a thing. The only reason you're characterizing them the way you do is because they call you on your bullshit with well sourced articles. Most wingnuts apparently only believe things that arrive as emails with subject lines all in caps and way too many punctuation marks or websites that believe "they" are out to get us.

 

[Rustic]

Snopes is an absolute left wing site, that performs fellatio to Barry... Daily Get your information from a credible source, not bunch of cock sucking asshats for the White House...

They're a well respected site that's been around since before the Web was a thing. The only reason you're characterizing them the way you do is because they call you on your bullshit with well sourced articles. Most wingnuts apparently only believe things that arrive as emails with subject lines all in caps and way too many punctuation marks or websites that believe "they" are out to get us.

Too bad you're so gullible, just like media matters and move on. Org are in the tank for progressive whack jobs.
Are agendas are only corruption...
SNOPES.com Exposed: Left Wing Website Not Quite the Impartial Arbiter of Truth

 

[Camp]

...and Obama was born on the Moon.

WTF?! Pathetic...truly parhetic.

lol, I'm a Parhetic!

Do you still have relatives in Parhetica?

 

[SwimExpert]

Surely, this is the most important issue of 2016. Nothing since then has been relevant at all in deciding against voting for Hillary Clinton.

 

[konradv]

Snopes is an absolute left wing site, that performs fellatio to Barry... Daily Get your information from a credible source, not bunch of cock sucking asshats for the White House...

They're a well respected site that's been around since before the Web was a thing. The only reason you're characterizing them the way you do is because they call you on your bullshit with well sourced articles. Most wingnuts apparently only believe things that arrive as emails with subject lines all in caps and way too many punctuation marks or websites that believe "they" are out to get us.

Too bad you're so gullible, just like media matters and move on. Org are in the tank for progressive whack jobs. Are agendas are only corruption... SNOPES.com Exposed: Left Wing Website Not Quite the Impartial Arbiter of Truth

I'm afraid you're the one that's gullible. The article cites another that says:

"...for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding." Snopes exposed

That post was from 2010. Since the early 90s when I started on the net, they were regular and well-known contributors to the Usenet newsgroup alt.legend.urban. To say that someone had to "get to the bottom of it" that late in the game smacks of propaganda to feed the noobs that don't know any better. I'm afraid your cite isn't proof; it's a hit piece.

 

[A Perez]

No, NY...that would be her conviction for crimes under the Espionage Act.

She was convicted?

 

[konradv]

Too bad you're so gullible, just like media matters and move on. Org are in the tank for progressive whack jobs. Are agendas are only corruption... SNOPES.com Exposed: Left Wing Website Not Quite the Impartial Arbiter of Truth

I'm afraid you're the one that's gullible. The article cites another that says:

"...for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding." Snopes exposed

That post was from 2010. Since the early 90s when I started on the net, they were regular and well-known contributors to the Usenet newsgroup alt.legend.urban. To say that someone had to "get to the bottom of it" that late in the game smacks of propaganda to feed the noobs that don't know any better. I'm afraid your cite isn't proof; it's a hit piece.

Thought I'd check out that damning Wiki page sand see what they actually said:

David Mikkelson has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.

Snopes.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it appears that the case against snopes is just another right wing hatchet job. Their M.O. is that most people don't check sources and those that do are shouted down. For example: "Snopes is an absolute left wing site, that performs fellatio to Barry... Daily Get your information from a credible source, not bunch of cock sucking asshats for the White House..", posted by Rustic.,

BTW, the Usenet newsgroup mentioned above should be alt.folklore.urban. Sorry

 

[eagle1462010]

And so it begins. The War on Women and Hillary has a Vagina Campaign...........

 

[paperview]

Too bad you're so gullible, just like media matters and move on. Org are in the tank for progressive whack jobs. Are agendas are only corruption... SNOPES.com Exposed: Left Wing Website Not Quite the Impartial Arbiter of Truth

I'm afraid you're the one that's gullible. The article cites another that says:

"...for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding." Snopes exposed

That post was from 2010. Since the early 90s when I started on the net, they were regular and well-known contributors to the Usenet newsgroup alt.legend.urban. To say that someone had to "get to the bottom of it" that late in the game smacks of propaganda to feed the noobs that don't know any better. I'm afraid your cite isn't proof; it's a hit piece.

Thought I'd check out that damning Wiki page sand see what they actually said:

David Mikkelson has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias, but insists that the same debunking standards are applied to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. "You'd be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson told them.

Snopes.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it appears that the case against snopes is just another right wing hatchet job. Their M.O. is that most people don't check sources and those that do are shouted down. For example: "Snopes is an absolute left wing site, that performs fellatio to Barry... Daily Get your information from a credible source, not bunch of cock sucking asshats for the White House..", posted by Rustic.,

BTW, the Usenet newsgroup mentioned above should be alt.folklore.urban. Sorry

There's this too:

Snopes.com - FactCheck.org

That puts it further to rest about that stupid FWD: FWD FWD: email the idiots like to pass around...

FULL ANSWER

"This widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They’re accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent and discrediting an anti-Obama State Farm agent out of partisanship."