Hillary a liar? When? Where? How? Inform us.

There are actually several statements that Hillary made repeatedly (publicly or under oath) that the FBI found to be false. You reference only the e-mails that were marked classified, which in fact she should have caught. Additionally, she was found (1) to have lied about the number of devices she used for communications, (2) she lied about the fact that there were many un-marked classified e-mails on her system, (3) she lied about returning all work related e-mails on her system, (4) she lied about have State Department permission for her setup, and (5) she lied about her lawyers reading every one of her e-mails on her system. There are probably others I missed, but whatever. Can you at least be honest about the depth of her deceptions??

As far as reasons, I give an "either" (lying or incompetence) for the sake of argument, but it seems pretty clear. A Yale educated lawyer who served in the Senate and is surrounded by an inner circle of really smart people doesn't get away with claiming ignorance. It's not possible in a sane universe.

And can you stop babbling about "government servers not working"? She never had a government account, and she never claimed she set up her own server for reliability -- it was supposedly for convenience. If you're going to continue to beat this horse, provide a linky.

 

Email is not in its infancy. Clinton and their staffs are not infants either - or are they?

 

Maybe! But I did catch those who tried to lie about her lying about it. And that was my point.

Really? We'll, that would depend upon what she meant by that? She could have been be referring to emails unmarked that should have been marked classified but were not. Where is the lie in that? Has anyone ever thought of that? Of course they have. Lol! I just did.

And? How do you not know those were all she was aware of? After all, she did turn in 55,000 emails if you will recall?

No, I can't even come close, because what you are accusing her of, can easily be traced back to Right wing manufactured lies designed to trip Clinton up on technicalities. The lies you are accusing her of can either easily be explained rationally, or they turned out to be outright lies concocted by the Right.

Remember, Kevin McCarthy admitted they were trying to set up Clinton. The Right lost all credibility after that. Try not to forget that.

Now you are revealing weakness here. That is a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor excuse.

Lol! That's why there wasn't a government server.

 

This had nothing to do with the 'right'. This investigation came as a recommendation to the FBI from the inspector general.

 

bwk, I don't know what else I have to do to keep you focused and on the same page in attempting to have a discussion. This isn't about what "I" am accusing her of, or any delusional right wing conspiracy theories. Everything I brought up were either rebukes from the State Department IG, or from FBI Director Comey after a 1+ year investigation involving 100+ agents. It's easy reading, so I'll link the conversation between Comey and Gowdy in testimony to Congress:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james...07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216

As you read, continue to remind yourself that Hillary's untrue statements are being verified by the FBI -- not by me or right wind operatives trying to take Hillary down. Hillary was dishonest in too many areas to write it all off as understandable ignorance. It stretches the bounds of believability to the point of absurdity.

One other point. Hillary should have recognized the 3 e-mails with classified markings. The fact that they were found to be incorrectly marked after the fact is irrelevant. The point is that they were marked, and Hillary had a responsibility to recognize the markings and report that they had found their way on her unsure private server. She signed an NDA agreement saying she understood the rules related to handling classified information (both marked and un-marked), and therefore forfeited any claims of ignorance in handling such information. If you have any questions about the NDA she signed, look it up. You might find it illuminating.

 

I think that was Comeys point

 

Hows politifact ?

There are 25 lies listed here

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/?page=2

[video=youtube;-dY77j6uBHI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI[/video]

 

As usual, you conveniently never pay attention, which gives you the chance to change the narrative. What I was talking about was Kevin McCarthy and Trey Gowdy. They are Right-wing politicians, are they not? And if your answer is yes, both of them got caught trying to frame Clinton. That is what I am talking about.

 

Clinton framed herself by lying under oath to congress.

 

Do you have any idea how ridiculous some of these examples are that you cite? For example, Clinton; "let me say that I don't think (Bernie Sanders) had a single negative ad run against him". Where is the lie in that statement? Are you going to use the part where she said "I don't think"? Lol! If anyone with an ounce of an intelligence cannot logically deduct from that statement that there is "no" fabrication within the context of that statement, needs to have their head examined. She said " I don't think". How is that a lie? That's right, it isn't.

The mortgage statement, same thing. That was a statement of opinion, used as a broad brush to get a point across. Again, anyone with an ounce of a brain sees that.

And let me say one more thing that pertains to your disingenuous link. What was used was a false meter. Meaning, her statements you cite were inaccurate, not fabrications.

This is really the ultimate fail on your part, because that Politifact link focuses on whether she was right or wrong. Not whether she was lying. And even some of those statements by her prove she was not lying, because she said she didn't know on one or two. Lol! Guess who's the real fabricator in all this?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, sorry! And you can't even address my post. How sad is that?

 

That Clinton and her staff are innocent infants? Yes, that seems to have been Comey's point.

“For that reason, the investigation could undermine Clinton’s case that her judgment makes her better suited to be president. Comey explicitly said that though there was not “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” The accusation of carelessness may undercut Clinton’s case that she, unlike Trump, is an experienced and steady hand, capable of keeping the nation safe. The charge also threatens to feed suspicions harbored by her opponents that the Democratic candidate doesn’t think the rules apply to her. That, in turn, could further erode public confidence in Clinton.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...nghazi/490052/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-hillary-clinton-cant-escape-215327919.html

 

Did you read their findings ?

Your claiming shes so dumb she never knew of any of these.

I suppose thats your excuse for all her lies, like being under sniper fire. She sure seems to be mistake prone.

 

Most were outright lies. A few you could say might not technically be lies, but to make that defense you'd have to concede that she is just grossly inept at her job and doesn't know basic stuff that she should be expected to know.

There's some chess name for this, where if you deny she lied then you basically admit she is a bumbling idiot,and if you deny that she is an idiot then you admit she's a liar. Anyone know what the name of that move is?

 

No where in the Senate committee on Benghazi findings did it say that a video could have been a cause
Of the attack.

I've read the findings of this committee, have you. Or, are you just relying on media matters?

 

I read everyone. Boss, are you not aware of what you posted? Those were mostly opinions by her. They weren't making those points as a reference to a fabrication. You can't grade someone as telling the truth or a lie based on an opinion such as "I don't know". Lol! That would be crazy. Those false meters were responding to opinions she had.

The other one you cite that was more of a test of honesty was the email server statement. "Says she never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state.
False
— PolitiFact National on Wednesday, July 6th, 2016 " This one they viewed as false because they are right. But what they do not tell us from the Politifact link is, she is telling the truth, because Clinton at the time didn't know it was classified because it was marked unclassified. So, is Politifact right? Yes! Is Hillary right? Yes! She didn't lie, it's just that she didn't know. The same thing happened with the Comey testimony this week when he brought up the two emails in question. Turned out, after the testimony those two emails had the wrong labels on them because of human error. And guess who didn't catch that mistake? That's right, Comey and the FBI. People call that human error, which is all this has ever been.

The Right tried and they lost trying to frame this woman. You can continue to beat this dead horse just like Benghazi, IRS, Fast &Furious, Solyndra, and all the other manufactured scandals, and you'll lose every time, just like this one.

Yea, just like the FBI right?

 

The House Intelligence Committee even acknowledges the possibility by witnesses from the attack; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...investigation-debunks-many-benghazi-theories/ And it's not Media matters.

If you think I'm going to go wade through hundreds of pages to find what I've already read from the Senate report, you must be out of your mind. It took me a long time after reading it to find it. It's there, and I don't do homework for others. You want the truth, you look for it. Stay ignorant of the truth if that's your thing. I could care less.

 

Such as?

 

So, you're pretty much running your mouth about something you don't know then, right?

There were 14 findings in the the Senate Bengahzi committee that you repeatedly mention, saying the a video could have caused the attacks on Sep, 11-12, 2012. Which is funny, none of these findings once mention a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing video.

So, are you being dishonest,nor just talking out of ignorance?
Which is it?

 

Like I said boss, I could care less. I know what I read, and I'm not wading through multiple pages for your convenience. I know what the truth is. I read it, and that's good enough for me.

I noticed you didn't put up a challenge to the House report either? Too much to read huh?

 

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...ence-committee-report-on-benghazi-attack/748/ Try page 49. It's obvious you're too lazy to do it for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/w...anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html

 

Ya, there's nothing at all about a video on page 49, you want to try again?

 

Probably more important is that Hillary knew almost immediately that the attack had nothing to do with the video. Here is the official transcript of the phone conversation she had with the Egyption PM:

"We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack -- not a protest".

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/Tab 79.pdf

Notice that Hillary didn't say we think it was a planned attack. It was that we know it was a planned attack. Yet the Administration perpetuated the video myth for the next several weeks. And Hillary proceeded to lie to the families of the Behghazi dead to assist in the coverup.

It still makes my skin crawl to recall what she did.

 

Sure there is. It is talking about the New York Times protest in Cairo and how that might have triggered the attack in Benghazi. That's what the report is referencing to. That's why I posted the NY times link top prove it.

Look, it's not that hard. Pretending to be all of a sudden (*)(*)(*)(*) won't help you.

 

Um ya you're lying.

 

The video myth is no myth. It still stands today by means of the report I linked and the NY Times link from post # 245. It's anybody's guess what you are talking about? You folks just can't get your fabrications straight tonight can you?