Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hillary Clinton MUST Apologize to Trump!
- Thread starter protectionist
- Start date
I'm not back peddling. He got rid of her. Eliminating her position is no different than firing her. It happens often, if you don't like somebody but are not able to fire them, you can achieve the same objective by making them "unnecessary". Some employers will combine two job duties into one so only one employee is needed. One of them has to go. But do continue with your hair splitting and parsing, it's fun to watch someone defend an unscrupulous liar such as Hillary.WTF?? Now you're calling yourself an idiot. Aren't these the links YOU posted earlier...???He didn't fire her, he just terminated her along with others who were "no longer needed". The point is Hillary is a liar and was acting unethically (big surprise, huh?) and Zeifman found a way to remove her. Same thing as firing her.
... why yes, yes they were. Now you're back pedaling as fast as you can.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
yeah, I know,Furthermore, there's no evidence her brief was either wrong or unethical. That was merely Zeifman's personal opinion. And keep in mind, he's been caught in multiple lies over the matter. He claims he fired her, when he did not. He now claims she confiscated records he then claimed were taken by John Doar.NO, no he didn't find a way to fire her or terminate her...He didn't fire her, he just terminated her along with others who were "no longer needed". The point is Hillary is a liar and was acting unethically (big surprise, huh?) and Zeifman found a way to remove her. Same thing as firing her.
IT WAS NOT his decision to make.... he was NOT her boss. Her boss, was also his boss, but they did not work on the same committee.
Everyone on her committee were finished with their job, once Nixon resigned.
And she did not do anything unethical....she wrote a brief that her BOSS asked her to write. Whether she agreed with her boss or not, on the brief he asked her to write... she HAD to write it...
It would have been insubordination for her to not follow his orders and do her own thing.
She had no power, she was a peon....
he's trying to make a buck, through his phony dementia!
Maybe his waning mental state isn't phony? It's even possible that he had begun to suffer the effects of dementia back in 1999 and it's only gotten worse since then? Whatever the case may be, there are non-human animals that I think are more credible sources of information than is Mr. Zeifman.
he didn't get rid of her position, he was not her boss.... how many times do we have to tell you that? HE'S LYING about that...you were the fool to believe him.I'm not back peddling. He got rid of her. Eliminating her position is no different than firing her. It happens often, if you don't like somebody but are not able to fire them, you can achieve the same objective by making them "unnecessary". Some employers will combine two job duties into one so only one employee is needed. One of them has to go. But do continue with your hair splitting and parsing, it's fun to watch someone defend an unscrupulous liar such as Hillary.WTF?? Now you're calling yourself an idiot. Aren't these the links YOU posted earlier...???He didn't fire her, he just terminated her along with others who were "no longer needed". The point is Hillary is a liar and was acting unethically (big surprise, huh?) and Zeifman found a way to remove her. Same thing as firing her.
... why yes, yes they were. Now you're back pedaling as fast as you can.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 123,597
- 78,695
- 2,635
Of course you're back pedaling. Who do you think you're fooling? You posted links to three separate articles about how he fired her. Now you're admitting he didn't fire her. That's back pedaling.I'm not back peddling. He got rid of her. Eliminating her position is no different than firing her. It happens often, if you don't like somebody but are not able to fire them, you can achieve the same objective by making them "unnecessary". Some employers will combine two job duties into one so only one employee is needed. One of them has to go. But do continue with your hair splitting and parsing, it's fun to watch someone defend an unscrupulous liar such as Hillary.WTF?? Now you're calling yourself an idiot. Aren't these the links YOU posted earlier...???He didn't fire her, he just terminated her along with others who were "no longer needed". The point is Hillary is a liar and was acting unethically (big surprise, huh?) and Zeifman found a way to remove her. Same thing as firing her.
... why yes, yes they were. Now you're back pedaling as fast as you can.
As to what you're claiming now ... no, he did not get rid of her. He couldn't have even had he wanted to. He said so himself before changing his story to its current naratuve. She did not report to him and the person to whom she did report shared her position.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
I'm not back peddling. He got rid of her. Eliminating her position is no different than firing her. It happens often, if you don't like somebody but are not able to fire them, you can achieve the same objective by making them "unnecessary". Some employers will combine two job duties into one so only one employee is needed. One of them has to go. But do continue with your hair splitting and parsing, it's fun to watch someone defend an unscrupulous liar such as Hillary.
A man must be big enough to admit his mistakes, smart enough to profit from them, and strong enough to correct them.
-- John C. Maxwell
-- John C. Maxwell
Zeifman didn't eliminate the position; Nixon did when he resigned. There is no need at all for a team of attorneys who are part of a special investigation/special prosecutor's team to examine the underpinnings of impeachment when the person who is being considered for impeachment opts to resign before being impeached. That is exactly what Mrs. Clinton's role was on the Watergate investigation team; she was one of several people tasked with looking into the history and legal precedents associated with impeachment.
Zeifman played no active or decisive role in Mrs. Clinton's no longer participating in the Watergate investigation. Taxpayers funded the investigation. The government's fiduciary responsibility required that the team of people doing what Mrs. Clinton was doing be dismissed. It'd have been a waste of taxpayer money to have continued to fund that portion of the investigation once Nixon resigned. You will recall that a whole day didn't go by between Nixon announcing his intent to resign and his resignation taking effect. On the evening of August 8, 1974, President Nixon said, "I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow."
So, what other creative/revisionist angles have you to present? I think you'd be better off overall, certainly you'd show more integrity, were you to just say you misunderstood the details of Mrs. Clinton's role in the Watergate investigation and be done. There's no great fault associated with misunderstanding something, but there is plenty associated with continually trying to find some oblique angle that will seem to make one's position appear justified.
Life is like a game of chess. To win you have to make a move. Knowing which move to make comes with insight and knowledge, and by learning the lessons that are accumulated along the way.
-- Allan Rufus, The Master's Sacred Knowledge
-- Allan Rufus, The Master's Sacred Knowledge
Last edited:
It doesn't matter if he's her boss or not. If he makes her position "no longer necessary", she is gone. Same damn thing. Point is, she's a liar who acted unethically and she was removed from the panel. It doesn't matter how it was done.he didn't get rid of her position, he was not her boss.... how many times do we have to tell you that? HE'S LYING about that...you were the fool to believe him.I'm not back peddling. He got rid of her. Eliminating her position is no different than firing her. It happens often, if you don't like somebody but are not able to fire them, you can achieve the same objective by making them "unnecessary". Some employers will combine two job duties into one so only one employee is needed. One of them has to go. But do continue with your hair splitting and parsing, it's fun to watch someone defend an unscrupulous liar such as Hillary.WTF?? Now you're calling yourself an idiot. Aren't these the links YOU posted earlier...???He didn't fire her, he just terminated her along with others who were "no longer needed". The point is Hillary is a liar and was acting unethically (big surprise, huh?) and Zeifman found a way to remove her. Same thing as firing her.
... why yes, yes they were. Now you're back pedaling as fast as you can.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
It doesn't matter if he's her boss or not. If he makes her position "no longer necessary", she is gone. Same damn thing. Point is, she's a liar who acted unethically and she was removed from the panel. It doesn't matter how it was done.he didn't get rid of her position, he was not her boss.... how many times do we have to tell you that? HE'S LYING about that...you were the fool to believe him.I'm not back peddling. He got rid of her. Eliminating her position is no different than firing her. It happens often, if you don't like somebody but are not able to fire them, you can achieve the same objective by making them "unnecessary". Some employers will combine two job duties into one so only one employee is needed. One of them has to go. But do continue with your hair splitting and parsing, it's fun to watch someone defend an unscrupulous liar such as Hillary.WTF?? Now you're calling yourself an idiot. Aren't these the links YOU posted earlier...???He didn't fire her, he just terminated her along with others who were "no longer needed". The point is Hillary is a liar and was acting unethically (big surprise, huh?) and Zeifman found a way to remove her. Same thing as firing her.
... why yes, yes they were. Now you're back pedaling as fast as you can.
That is the point, Richard M. Nixon is the person who made her position no longer necessary. Nobody else.
They weren't all let go.It doesn't matter if he's her boss or not. If he makes her position "no longer necessary", she is gone. Same damn thing. Point is, she's a liar who acted unethically and she was removed from the panel. It doesn't matter how it was done.he didn't get rid of her position, he was not her boss.... how many times do we have to tell you that? HE'S LYING about that...you were the fool to believe him.I'm not back peddling. He got rid of her. Eliminating her position is no different than firing her. It happens often, if you don't like somebody but are not able to fire them, you can achieve the same objective by making them "unnecessary". Some employers will combine two job duties into one so only one employee is needed. One of them has to go. But do continue with your hair splitting and parsing, it's fun to watch someone defend an unscrupulous liar such as Hillary.WTF?? Now you're calling yourself an idiot. Aren't these the links YOU posted earlier...???He didn't fire her, he just terminated her along with others who were "no longer needed". The point is Hillary is a liar and was acting unethically (big surprise, huh?) and Zeifman found a way to remove her. Same thing as firing her.
... why yes, yes they were. Now you're back pedaling as fast as you can.
That is the point, Richard M. Nixon is the person who made her position no longer necessary. Nobody else.
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 56,744
- 18,192
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #110
He FIRED her. And she deserved it. We could put all the gory details af all the things she did to DESERVE firing. Want to hear them ???WTF?? Now you're calling yourself an idiot. Aren't these the links YOU posted earlier...???
... why yes, yes they were. Now you're back pedaling as fast as you can.
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 56,744
- 18,192
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #111
This is a LIE. There's a ton of things she did wrong to deserve to be fired. If you want a rap sheet of it, just say the word. Rap sheet on request.Furthermore, there's no evidence her brief was either wrong or unethical. That was merely Zeifman's personal opinion. And keep in mind, he's been caught in multiple lies over the matter. He claims he fired her, when he did not. He now claims she confiscated records he then claimed were taken by John Doar.
NOPE, simply not true. YOU CHOSE to believe a man who's a liar by his own words.He FIRED her. And she deserved it. We could put all the gory details af all the things she did to DESERVE firing. Want to hear them ???WTF?? Now you're calling yourself an idiot. Aren't these the links YOU posted earlier...???
... why yes, yes they were. Now you're back pedaling as fast as you can.
She was NOT fired from Watergate committee.
protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 56,744
- 18,192
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #113
She was fired, and her bad behavior leading up to it, is the real story, not how she left the job.. Wanna hear the details ?NOPE, simply not true. YOU CHOSE to believe a man who's a liar by his own words.
She was NOT fired from Watergate committee.
And as I said before, this is a red herring. Hillary has a long, long rap sheet, and the Watergate firing is only one blemish on her, among dozens.
strollingbones
Diamond Member
didnt a recent fact check show trump lies 75% of the time....
Fact-Checking Site Finds Donald Trump Only Tells The Truth 7 Percent of the Time
Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact
http://www.redstate.com/2015/11/30/gotta-see-guy-trumps-lie-exposed/
Fact-Checking Site Finds Donald Trump Only Tells The Truth 7 Percent of the Time
Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact
http://www.redstate.com/2015/11/30/gotta-see-guy-trumps-lie-exposed/
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
didnt a recent fact check show trump lies 75% of the time....
Fact-Checking Site Finds Donald Trump Only Tells The Truth 7 Percent of the Time
Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact
"You Gotta See This Guy" - Trump's Lie Exposed | RedState
Yet you far left drones will vote for worse than Bush in 2016..
strollingbones
Diamond Member
simply point out that trump is a liar does not make one a far left drone....it simply makes one obvious to the facts
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
simply point out that trump is a liar does not make one a far left drone....it simply makes one obvious to the facts
You are a far left drone!
Please post links to all your posts against Obama and his illegal wars..
strollingbones
Diamond Member
Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
And the far left drone proves my comments!
320 Years of History
Gold Member
She was fired, and her bad behavior leading up to it, is the real story, not how she left the job.. Wanna hear the details ?
And as I said before, this is a red herring. Hillary has a long, long rap sheet, and the Watergate firing is only one blemish on her, among dozens.
In all honesty, yes.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 296
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 252
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 124
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 100
- Views
- 393
- Replies
- 55
- Views
- 165
- Replies
- 331
- Views
- 3K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8396
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-