And I like to read Snopes. They spin the fucking hell out of everything, but it is the nature of their particular beast that they have to put the fact out there. And when they are forced to unambiguously support viewpoint they don’t like, they just delete the story, like they did with the story about Obama’s mother being featured naked in Frank Marshall Davis’s porno mags. They had a rebuttal. I read it myself. Then pictures were published with the stars on the tits removed, and it became impossible to argue the case. So I understand. I’ve seen a lot of tits in my time, and they come in all shapes and sizes, some very distinctive.
But here is their treatment of Hillary’s time on the Watergate Commission: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
What she unquestionably did was take part in a coverup. Specifically, they were trying to deny Nixon the right to legal counsel, but there was a precedent, in the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, that counsel was allowed.
What did they do? They stole the files from the main library concerning this Justice, his last name was Douglas, and hid them where no one else could access them. THEN they wrote a legal brief saying no precedent existed. They lied, in other words, knowingly, intentionally. Here is their supposedly exculpatory clarification:
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 — with Chairman Rodino’sassent — took possession of those files, writing that “Doar got Rodino’s permission to place all of our Douglas impeachment files in his exclusive custody.”
So Hillary engaged in a coverup, but one directed by her boss. Can we just call this learning on the job, and being perfectly OK with being part of a corrupt system?
Some things never change.