“I always watched her career and admired her as a young woman who’s career-minded,” said Kelly Crown, 25, a healthcare business analyst who voted for Clinton in Echo Park. Crown said she was a big fan of Clinton’s book “Living History.” “Yes, she’s made mistakes,” Crown said. “She’s gone through a lot of stuff in her life, and I have a lot of respect for her.”

A pair of articles published during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008, one by Northstar Writers Group founder Dan Calabrese and one by Jerry Zeifman himself, asserted that Zeifman was Hillary's supervisor during the Watergate investigation and that he eventually fired her from the investigation for "unethical, dishonest" conduct. However, whatever Zeifman may have thought of Hillary and her work during the investigation, he was not her supervisor, neither he nor anyone else fired her from her position on the Impeachment Inquiry staff (Zeifman in fact didn't have the power to fire her, even had he wanted to do so), his description of her conduct as "unethical" and "dishonest" is his personal, highly subjective characterization, and the "facts" on which he bases that characterization are ones that he has contradicted himself about on multiple occasions.

The corrupt hag certainly started off in a manner that would have predicted her future behavior:

Snopes (which IMHO is biased liberal) says

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

It writes off Zeifman's comments as "his personal, highly subjective characterization" not without justification for saying so, but again, the whole Snopes page seems to work overly hard to support Hilary Clinton.

Snopes is run by a very liberal couple and has slanted hard left on their "fact finding" for years. 

Most clear heads reject anyone using Snopes as "Evidence" of accuracy out of hand for using a source with as much neutrality as "Media Matters", a know Clintoon surrogate.  They may have their moments, but on anything political, are corrupt.

I think people say that about snopes when they don't like the facts. I see it time and time again. Whenever a newsperson, a website, a TV show says something that they don't like or don't want to be true they claim bias. It is so much easier to claim bias than to have to face the fact that sometimes the facts don't agree with you.

The husband and wife team that own snopes have a pretty neutral record. The wife is Canadian not eligible to vote. The husband is an independent who was a registered republican.

It is so much easier to claim bias than to have to face the fact that sometimes the facts don't agree with you.

I think people say that about snopes when they don't like the facts. I see it time and time again. Whenever a newsperson, a website, a TV show says something that they don't like or don't want to be true they claim bias. It is so much easier to claim bias than to have to face the fact that sometimes the facts don't agree with you.

The husband and wife team that own snopes have a pretty neutral record. The wife is Canadian not eligible to vote. The husband is an independent who was a registered republican.

They may appear independent and not involved in U.S. politics in either direction. But you cannot deny in any way that they have a very subtle liberal bias for certain politically charged issues. There are many documented snopes pages where they have to admit something conservative or religious is correct but then spend pages trying to defend the liberal side. If you spent some time on Google you will find this to be true. But they do not do the same for for liberal issues. They never spend page after page             defending the conservative viewpoint when a liberal biased issue is concerned. And yes, that does mean they have a liberal bent. They do spend a lot of time and effort trying to bend the truth to the way they see it in some political issues.

Snopes does not do this for all political issues so it seems to be more of a personal thing. They pick and choose their issues so it cannot be said for every issue. Like I said, it is very subtle but something you have no argument for. I think Snopes has its place in non political issues. But once again you need to have an open mind to see the truth. Obviously, you don't see it that way. So I'm not sure what your deal is defending something as not true that is absolutely true. Just because the couple appears to not have any political leanings doesn't mean they don't. Google is your friend.

Certainly they are humans and therefore are not completely immune from bias. I have no doubt they have political opinions at some level. And since they are human they are certainly susceptible to making mistakes so an anecdotal case of a faulty claim is not good proof of an severe overall bias. I don't consider slopes to be infallible either. We have to weigh everything to try and find the truth hidden in the smoke. I step in to defend Snopes because I have found them to be generally more reliable than most other media. There have been times I haven't agreed with their conclusions but in my experience, the claim that they are horribly left slanted and dishonest just doesn't pan out.

In regards to this particular issue, we have a meme with no real proof vs a snopes article that has a lot more information and posts some sources. Which one sounds more credible to you? Is it possible Snopes is wrong, either through mistake or by intent? Sure, but what do we do with that possibility? Do we examine the claims that are made in the Snopes piece to find the truth or do we simply claim bias so we can keep on believing a meme we like? Look at this very thread and ask yourself which case we see. I see more effort being put into discrediting Snopes than actually finding out whether the meme is true or not! This begs the question of whether anyone here really cares about the real truth.

What irritates me and what I see very often is when people claim bias when prevented with facts they don't like. I see this on both sides of political issues so I am not saying only one side is guilty of this. I have been in discussions where I had no stake in the topic but been claimed to be biased when I pointed out facts that weren't friendly to one side. On this very forum I have remained neutral on some issues and been claimed to be some liberal in hiding even though I am a conservative. You will find that I will defend my opponent from an inaccurate or dishonest argument/attack.

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2235277/data-center/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers--snopes-com-gets-an--a-.html

I used to be a liberal, most of my life as a young person.

I scoffed at anyone who told me that "If you are not a liberal when young, you have no heart. But if you are older and not a conservative, you have no brain."

I had to wake up by (re)educating myself and REASSESSING EVERYTHING I HAVE READ AND WATCHED and THEN I could clearly see the difference between LEFT and RIGHT, meaning I successfully brought myself to the center.

The odds are HEAVILY STACKED against any person on this planet, with VERY BIASED LEFTIST views and opinion on the vast amount of content extant, especially in America.

But generally in Europe they are very leftist also.

AND THEY DO NOT REALIZE IT.

Most liberals do not agree that the mainstream media is heavily liberal biased. If you feel that way, it is a sign you are brainwashed, and you need to reassess everything.

You stated that the couple has a "...pretty neutral record." And when I pointed out that this just is not true, you back peddle. This is exactly what Snopes does when they have to admit a conservative issue is true. Then they back peddle and start making excuses for their behavior as being "human" just as you are doing here. And you further your back peddling by saying they made a mistake. They made no mistakes. If they did they would remove any mistakes from their website. Proof they are biased no matter how you want to look at it. Even Mac said you are calling the kettle black. Just stop, you have no dog in the fight. It is obvious to all of us you are not open minded enough to see for yourself you put your foot in your mouth when you tried to defend something that is not defendable.

As far as the meme is concerned I believe it is somewhat incorrect. But that is not what I stepped in to discuss with you. I believe Snopes is somewhat correct about the meme. There are better and much more accurate fact check sites than Snopes though I find Snopes to be quite accurate outside the political arena. The one thing I noticed while reading that long winded description on Snopes regarding this meme as with all the detail they went into, they never once admitted nor discussed (unless I missed it) the fact that she was fired and the reason she was fired. Let's face it, this meme purports that she was fired and the person who fired her and the reason why. Any well written fact check would also state that she was fired and the reason why. So unless I missed it, and I could have, I see another liberal bias in this Snopes report as well.

I disagree with your premise. Admitting to being an imperfect human is not backpedaling. Additionally, just because you show some anecdotal instance of a flaw in their myth busting does not prove they don't have a "pretty neutral record." If you want to say that snopes is not infallible then go ahead, I would agree with you. Do they have a bias that creeps out from time to time? It certainly wouldn't surprise me.  But all things equal here, there is a lot more reason to believe Snopes' conclusion than the meme. Do you find the meme to be more credible than Snopes' article?

I think you missed my point in all of this. I am not putting Snopes up on a pedestal. My issue is that lack of objectivity among the readers here. They would rather believe the meme that has no evidence than Snopes which at least presents sources supporting it's conclusion. Rather than follow up on the sources people spend more time trying to discredit Snopes as a whole than to prove Snopes got this issue wrong. Apparently they reason that if they can prove Snopes has a bias then there is no reason to entertain Snopes' conclusion and they can go on believing the meme. Real objectivity doesn't care whether Snopes is biased, it only cares about the facts. Did anyone on here argue that Snopes is wrong because of this source and that source?

I see time and time again liberals who avoid conservative points and facts by saying that Fox news is biased and it becomes very irritating. Not because I believe Fox to be unbiased or super accurate but because they won't even consider the possibility that, Fox news might have gotten the story right. They don't want to hear facts that don't support their positions and it is easier for them to ignore the facts through claims of bias than it is to confront the facts.

People justify putting on blinders so they can keep on believing what they want to believe. I don't accept this from my opponents side or my own side.