[Servant of the Cross]

Okay, let's accept that she wasn't technically fired. However, Zeifman did not give her a letter of recommendation, called her a liar and 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.’ He went on to say ... ‘My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.’”

That she wasn't technically "fired" is a very thin reed that you are hanging on to there. Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[Michael.SF.]

Yeah, I do have a thing for being accurate, I wish more people did.

[Michael.SF.]

very thin reed that you are hanging on to there.

Here is why I think it is important:

If we state that "Hillary Clinton was fired..." our opposition can state with accuracy that we are "lying", as she was not fired. This then forces us (Anti Hillary people) into a defensive posture. I do not like to be put into that position.

However, if we state that "Hillary's lack of ethics were so bad that she was considered for disbarment", that then is a true statement, which forces Hillary supporters to defend her lack of ethics. Thus we are then taking a position of strength and are on the side of ethics.

I did not mean to be short in the previous answer, but was not in a position to elaborate. Take care.