- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Wikipedia ignores Hillary Clinton's role in Watergate
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:17 am
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:17 am
Just did a wikipedia search for watergate on her webpage, and this is all it says.
No mention of writing fraudulent legal briefs, and confiscating documents to hide evidence of her wrongdoing, nor any mention of her being fired over the matter.
quote:
During her postgraduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts,[50] and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.[51] In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[52] Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum,[35] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[52] The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.
No mention of writing fraudulent legal briefs, and confiscating documents to hide evidence of her wrongdoing, nor any mention of her being fired over the matter.
This post was edited on 2/4/14 at 11:19 am
7
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:21 am to BugAC
well...it's wikipedia which means anyone can edit it. So go change it.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:21 am to Doldil
quote:
well...it's wikipedia which means anyone can edit it. So go change it.
Not if it's a locked page.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:22 am to BugAC
didn't know there were such things, which seems to defeat the point of wikipedia.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:24 am to Doldil
quote:
didn't know there were such things, which seems to defeat the point of wikipedia.
Apparently, they lock pages if they are subject to popular searches, according to the website.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:26 am to BugAC
...and Vitter fricked prostitutes and may have had a hand in the killing of one (strange suicide) and yet he is the "family values" choice for Governor.
See mud slinging goes both ways.
See mud slinging goes both ways.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:28 am to Napoleon
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:29 am to Napoleon
quote:
...and Vitter fricked prostitutes and may have had a hand in the killing of one (strange suicide) and yet he is the "family values" choice for Governor.
what? Please explain your bullshite.
quote:
See mud slinging goes both ways.
Mud slinging? You do know that it is fact that Hillary was fired due to concealing documents in regards to watergate, correct? It's not mud slinging if it's the truth.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 9:39 am to BugAC
This should be added:
quote:LINK
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “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.”
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:05 am to BugAC
It's not "locked". It's semi-protected. Meaning only registered users can change the page.
This is because random apparently kept trolling the page.
It can still be edited by anybody as long as you are a registered user.
I'm a registered user. If you really want to change it, post here what you'd like me to change and I'll go do it.
This is because random apparently kept trolling the page.
It can still be edited by anybody as long as you are a registered user.
I'm a registered user. If you really want to change it, post here what you'd like me to change and I'll go do it.
This post was edited on 2/4/14 at 11:06 am
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:10 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
I'm a registered user. If you really want to change it, post here what you'd like me to change and I'll go do it.
Not a registered user, so i'd have to go that route. I'll have to gather the information and type it out intelligibly. May take me awhile.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:11 am to BugAC
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:11 am to BugAC
By the way... go to the "talk" page up at the top of the article. It's where users talk about what edits should be made to the article. Here is a discussion about the Watergate thing:
"I'm seeing a batch of 'Net blogs and comments about Hilary Rodham Clinton being fired from the Watergate Commission for being "a dishonest lawyer". If true, I doubt that it would have taken this long for people to start posting about it. I find nothing about her involvement with the WC in this article. Real situation or a canard? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I'm a dumb, sleepy bunny. I was using Firefox search and did not capitalize Watergate, so it didn't find it. Here's what's in the article:
"Marriage and family, law career and First Lady of Arkansas: From the East Coast to Arkansas
. . .In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[52]''"
No mention of a "Watergate Commission" either in this article or on Wikipedia at all. Thanks again for your time, Wordreader (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
She was not fired by anyone. I have not seen any reliable, mainstream sources that say that Jerry Zeifman, who supposedly fired her, was even her supervisor on the House committee. The Bernstein biography says that Bernard Nussbaum was her immediate supervisor (pp 96-97). The apparent origin for this circulating e-rumor has been a 2008 column by Dan Calabrese, a conservative op-ed writer who started his own news service which then folded. It was then republished by WorldNetDaily and by some site linked to Herman Cain of 2012 Republican primaries "9-9-9" fame ... all of which are about as far from reliable sources as you can get but got it some additional traffic. Were there differences of opinion on the committee about historical precedents and how those should influence the course in the Watergate case? No doubt. Did they amount to some grand conspiracy to do in Nixon while protecting the Kennedys, as Zeifman seems to think? There are no mainstream sources that support this that I have seen. Neither the Bernsein biography nor the Gerth/Van Natta biography say anything about this. They say mostly that Hillary, like others on the committee staff, worked long, sometimes tedious hours, and that she and the few other women on the staff had to post a sign telling the male staffers that they were not there to make them coffee. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A user has tried three times to add this to the article. It has been deleted three times by two different people, and I warned the editor not to add it again. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)"
"I'm seeing a batch of 'Net blogs and comments about Hilary Rodham Clinton being fired from the Watergate Commission for being "a dishonest lawyer". If true, I doubt that it would have taken this long for people to start posting about it. I find nothing about her involvement with the WC in this article. Real situation or a canard? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I'm a dumb, sleepy bunny. I was using Firefox search and did not capitalize Watergate, so it didn't find it. Here's what's in the article:
"Marriage and family, law career and First Lady of Arkansas: From the East Coast to Arkansas
. . .In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[52]''"
No mention of a "Watergate Commission" either in this article or on Wikipedia at all. Thanks again for your time, Wordreader (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
She was not fired by anyone. I have not seen any reliable, mainstream sources that say that Jerry Zeifman, who supposedly fired her, was even her supervisor on the House committee. The Bernstein biography says that Bernard Nussbaum was her immediate supervisor (pp 96-97). The apparent origin for this circulating e-rumor has been a 2008 column by Dan Calabrese, a conservative op-ed writer who started his own news service which then folded. It was then republished by WorldNetDaily and by some site linked to Herman Cain of 2012 Republican primaries "9-9-9" fame ... all of which are about as far from reliable sources as you can get but got it some additional traffic. Were there differences of opinion on the committee about historical precedents and how those should influence the course in the Watergate case? No doubt. Did they amount to some grand conspiracy to do in Nixon while protecting the Kennedys, as Zeifman seems to think? There are no mainstream sources that support this that I have seen. Neither the Bernsein biography nor the Gerth/Van Natta biography say anything about this. They say mostly that Hillary, like others on the committee staff, worked long, sometimes tedious hours, and that she and the few other women on the staff had to post a sign telling the male staffers that they were not there to make them coffee. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A user has tried three times to add this to the article. It has been deleted three times by two different people, and I warned the editor not to add it again. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)"
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:18 am to BugAC
quote:If you do, make sure you have legitimate sources or it will just get deleted.
Not a registered user, so i'd have to go that route. I'll have to gather the information and type it out intelligibly. May take me awhile.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:20 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
If you do, make sure you have legitimate sources or it will just get deleted.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:29 am to PrimeTime Money
According to Dan Calabrese: The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.
“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files.
So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,”Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding ... as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.LINK /
The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.
“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files.
So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,”Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding ... as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.LINK /
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:32 am to Rawdawgs
quote:
Rawdawgs
Well done.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:42 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
If you do, make sure you have legitimate sources or it will just get deleted.
You have to be an ESTABLISHED registered user.
I am just a registered user and cannot update HRC's wiki page.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 12:03 pm to PrimeTime Money
I was very much interested in the Watergate scandal as it was unfolding.
I never heard of Hillary Rodham at that time. Even after the Clinton's became the number one target of conservative politics, I never heard of this supposed 'firing' from the Watergate Committee.
I call bullshite on this allegation, as much as I would like for it to be true.
I never heard of Hillary Rodham at that time. Even after the Clinton's became the number one target of conservative politics, I never heard of this supposed 'firing' from the Watergate Committee.
I call bullshite on this allegation, as much as I would like for it to be true.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 12:57 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
ChineseBandit58
It's fairly well publicized.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News