Quote:
Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I'd like to discuss again the incongruency here:
The original poster said said:
A reply showed, which the poster did not deny, that she worked on the Watergate case. Certainly, any rational person would admit that Watergate was a famous legal case in USA history.
The original poster replies with:
When faced with an answer to his own question, the poster chose to reframe his question rather than admit that he made a mistake. In fact, a little googling shows that the Watergate trial DID launch the career of Hillary Rodham, and that Watergate actually predated her marriage to Bill Clinton.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20030619.shtml
So, we can see here that the entire original poster's claim, that "<i>She was hired in a law firm after her husband became govenor</i>" is actually factually incorrect.
It is this sort of evasion and denial which I think helps lower the standards of discussion on this forum. If a poster makes a factual error, they should be mature and intelligent enough to admit it.
|
I worked on a case when I was in a lawfirm that defined the copyrights of human DNA. I was on a team of over 100 lawyers, paralegals and research assistance.
So Can I run for office and say I was on this landmark case?
When i read about Watergate, and I have, for ten years. I have not heard HIlary's name mentioned, that is untill the above post.
Methinks had she been important to the case, her name would have popped up before. I suspect this is overinflating her worth after she has become famous. WHy is here name not mentioned in any books about Watergate? Any movies? Was she a gloried research asistanct? What did she do on the case? I think its a bit overblown.