Cohen hearing

[jj22]

(02-27-2019, 05:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: What I want to know is how we can trust these men from the GOP when they are all liars.  Apparently being caught lying is supposed to keep you from being a truthful source of information ever again.  

Between this hearing and the Kav hearing, it's clear you can't trust Republicans to put country over politics. These public hearings don't do them any justice outside of their base who of course cheers them calling out Cohen for lying even if it means (they haven't put two and two together yet) the accusations against Trump were true and Cohen was caught lying to cover for him.

[jj22]

Yes. During law school. Hillary was very active in politics during college.

One of the attacks on her character is she has been (or was) running for president since college (which is why they say she married Bill and put up with his infidelities) in college.

The Hillary Clinton (and Bill) politics story is really quite interesting. But Hillary's specifically, as Republicans have tried with all their effort to take her out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clintons-breakout-moment-at-wellesley-college/2016/08/14/18039d3c-5bfe-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9db69f2f4f12

This kind of generational hate doesn't come over night, it's a half century in the making passed down from grandparents to parents to kids.

[GMDino]

(02-27-2019, 06:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: During law school?  I think you've been given some bad numbers.

I will say that Republicans have gone back to Watergate to try and say Hillary Clinton did "something".

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/oct/22/blog-posting/no-hillary-clinton-wasnt-fired-during-watergate-in/

Quote:Clinton was featured in an old photo that was first posted to Facebook on Oct. 9, 2016 and is still gathering comments, shares and reactions.


"In Case Y’all Forgot!!!!" the caption to the photo began, "As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman."


The words surrounded a printed picture of Clinton from back in 1974, when impeachment charges were brought against then-President Richard Nixon.


The post continued: "When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, ‘Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality.’"


The person who posted the picture wrote on her Facebook page that it was a news clipping she saved 20 years ago. This particular post dates back to October 2016, when Clinton was the Democratic presidential nominee, but as of this week, it’s been shared more than 253,000 times with people continuing to comment today. This story was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)


Though the person who posted the image didn’t respond to a message seeking more information, they’re not alone in circulating the allegation. Clinton was one of dozens of attorneys hired by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in 1972 to work on the Watergate impeachment inquiry. Zeifman, who was Democratic general counsel to the committee during the Watergate scandal, died in 2010, so we can’t ask him if he fired her because she was a liar.


But other people have. In 1999, Lance Gay reported for the Scripps Howard News Service that Zeifman didn’t have "flattering memories" of Clinton’s work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," Gay quotes Zeifman as saying. Gay also interviewed Jay Woods, an Oakland attorney who supervised the lawyers, for the story. Gay, who described Woods as Clinton’s "ex-boss," reported that he described her as capable and cheerful.


Less than a decade later, Zeifman changed his story, according to the Washington Post. In a 2008 interview on "The Neal Boortz Show," fact-checker Glenn Kessler reports, Zeifman was asked directly if he fired her. "Well, let me put it this way," he said. "I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — we no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not recommend her for further positions."


That year, an article by Dan Calabrese, founder of North Star Writers Group, claimed Zeifman was Clinton’s supervisor and had fired her. Clinton, who was making her first run for president that year, denied the allegation. Calabrese also quotes Zeifman as making the same statement that appears in the Facebook post.


But Zeifman’s credibility has been questioned over the years. In a 1996 review of his book, "Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot and the Impeachment of President Nixon," Washington Post reviewer Matthew Dallek notes that Zeifman’s 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 intrigue."


Snopes points out that Zeifman didn’t claim he fired Clinton in that book; it wasn’t until later that his recollection changed. 
Perhaps the best proof of whether Clinton was fired or not is in her pay records. Judiciary Committee pay records that were unearthed in 2016 by Washington Post researcher Alice Crites show that Clinton was paid through Sept. 4, 1974—after Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974, and after the committee published its final impeachment report on Aug. 20, 1974.



We rate the claim that Hillary Clinton was fired from her job as a staff attorney during the during the Watergate investigation False.

That's the kind of story that starts "somewhere" and makes its way around the right wing noise machine until everyone who doesn't like Clinton "knows" it is true.

So that's a 47 year old story that some probably still believe.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: Yes. During law school. Hillary was very active in politics during college.

One of the attacks on her character is she has been (or was) running for president since college (which is why they say she married Bill and put up with his infidelities) in college.

Can you link me to the Republican investigations into her while she was in law school?

[jj22]

Sure Michael but this isn't new news. Just google. Or watch a Clinton documentary.

Instead of questioning me, say something about a group of people who have attacked someone for 50 years and investigated her over 1500 times to find nothing. NOTHING! And so they enlisted the help of Russia a foreign adversary of America to take her out.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: I will say that Republicans have gone back to Watergate to try and say Hillary Clinton did "something".

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/oct/22/blog-posting/no-hillary-clinton-wasnt-fired-during-watergate-in/



That's the kind of story that starts "somewhere" and makes its way around the right wing noise machine until everyone who doesn't like Clinton "knows" it is true.

So that's a 47 year old story that some probably still believe.

But they weren't investigating it 47 years ago.   And it certainly wasn't a Republican investigation. We heard about a time when Mit cut some kid's hair when he was 19. I wouldn't now say Democrats have been investigating Mit Romney for forty years.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:17 PM)jj22 Wrote: Sure Michael but this isn't new news. Just google. Or watch a Hillary Documentary.

I did google it.  I can't find anything. I haven't even asked about where the 1500 came from.

[jj22]

I'm not sure who you are trying to convince. But history is history, and Hillary's political history is well documented for those who really cared, and aren't just looking to cover up for investigations that turned nothing up.

[GMDino]

(02-27-2019, 06:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But they weren't investigating it 47 years ago.   And it certainly wasn't a Republican investigation.  We heard about a time when Mit cut some kid's hair when he was 19.  I wouldn't now say Democrats have been investigating Mit Romney for forty years.

jj22 is correct that she was a "known" person even while in college.  Not sure that any investigations go back that far.

I heard a very interesting bio on her while driving back from Oklahoma while she was running for President.

If I can find it I'll share.

Nonetheless there is no comparison between her and Trump.  Clinton has been investigated over political things and never charged.  Trump has been investigated for business things and lost.  NOW he is being investigated for political things and we have to wait and see.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:23 PM)jj22 Wrote: I'm not sure who you are trying to convince. But history is history, and Hillary's political history is well documented for those who really cared, and aren't just looking to cover up for investigations that turned nothing up.

This is really odd.  You keep saying 50 years and all I ask for is a link and all of a sudden I'm covering up for Republicans.  I'm not sure why you can't just give me a link. 

[jj22]

Because I'm not going through all that research to educate you guys. All you'll do is find some reason to attack Hillary. It's not like it's going to change opinions on her. Just look at the investigations that proved her innocents. I can point to those and someone will come up with some excuse. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

I already know how this Hillary Clinton thing goes. You guys don't want (or care about any) proof. Folks want Hillary's head on a platter. And nothing I can say or link will change that. It'll just be some new conspiracy attack etc.

What difference does 50 versus the 27 you are willing to concede make? It doesn't make much, but it's something you want to point to to I guess prove she hasn't been investigated long enough?

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:29 PM)jj22 Wrote: Because I'm not going through all that research to educate you guys. All you'll do is find some reason to attack Hillary. It's not like it's going to change opinions on her. Just look at the investigations that proved her innocents. I can point to those and someone will come up with some excuse. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

All that research?  

Quote: But history is history, and Hillary's political history is well documented

Quote:Sure Michael but this isn't new news. Just google.

How hard is it to find where Republicans investigated Hillary 50 years ago?  

[jj22]

What is the point of the argument?

The Whitewater situation began in mid 1970's. So 45 years.

Now google Whitewater, and quit acting like people don't know their politics.

For those who don't know and aren't just desperate to prove 27 years wasn't long enough to find something on her.

In the mid 1970's Bill and Hillary Clinton were associates of Jim and Susan McDougal in the Whitewater Development Corp., an Arkansas real estate investment firm that went under when McDougal's Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan was closed by federal regulators for illegal accounting. Taxpayers lost $73 million due to Guaranty. The Clintons lost an estimated $67,000 on their investment, but McDougal helped pay off Bill Clinton's campaign debts, and Hillary Clinton's law firm received an unknown sum in fees for representing a Guaranty project that also failed.

And thus it began.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:37 PM)jj22 Wrote: What is the point of the argument?

The Whitewater situation happened in mid 1970's. So 45 years.

Now google Whitewater, and quit acting like people don't know their politics.

For those who don't know and aren't just desperate to prove 27 years wasn't long enough to find something on her.

In the mid 1970's Bill and Hillary Clinton were associates of Jim and Susan McDougal in the Whitewater Development Corp., an Arkansas real estate investment firm that went under when McDougal's Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan was closed by federal regulators for illegal accounting. Taxpayers lost $73 million due to Guaranty. The Clintons lost an estimated $67,000 on their investment, but McDougal helped pay off Bill Clinton's campaign debts, and Hillary Clinton's law firm received an unknown sum in fees for representing a Guaranty project that also failed.

And thus it began.

When was the Whitewater investigation? I don't know why you got all weird about this. I simply stated that they haven't been investigating them for 50 years.

[jj22]

Officially 1978. But there had been whispers of scandal throughout that decade.

But then again you either new that, or are just trolling at this point because we have access to the same information.

That's all I'm going to give you. You can do your own work from here on out.

[Vas Deferens]

hey. Right Wing psycho's - AOC is up. take your pants off and freak out!

[jj22]

(02-27-2019, 06:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: When was the Whitewater investigation?  I don't know why you got all weird about this.  I simply stated that they haven't been investigating them for 50 years.

Ok Ok. I concede.

45.

That's what I get for going off of memory.

We cool?

[Vas Deferens]

Damn this AOC chick can actually speak.

That's gotta sting when you consider how some of the other half wits presented themselves as currently having a stroke.

[CJD]

(02-27-2019, 05:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: This isn't to determine some sort of criminal activity for a court of law. It's for impeachment purposes.  There is no level of proof needed for impeachment, but there is a level of legitimacy they'd like to establish.

The only thing that will make impeachment possible is the 2020 election. They need more Senate seats before they have any chance at impeachment.

However, if we win enough seats to impeach Trump while simultaneously re-electing Trump...that would just be downright bizarre.

I just don't think impeachment is even on the table. The Republicans will not budge on that because they know the second they attempt to impeach Trump, his entire base will turn on them, just in time for the 2020 election, which would basically condemn them to being replaced by Democrats.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:46 PM)jj22 Wrote: Ok Ok. I concede.

45.

That's what I get for going off of memory.

No not 45.  The Whitewater investigation began in'93 or '94.  so she's been investigated different times over a 25 year period..  They investigated something that happened less than 10 years prior.  You know how a lot of people around Trump have gotten in trouble with the law?  10 or 15 people were indicted in that thing so...