Breaking.....State Dept will not confirm Hillary Clintons lies under testamony

[jon_berzerk]

CLINTON: “I did not email during the day and — except on rare occasions when I was able to.”

THE FACTS: Clinton’s use of her private email address and server during working hours was anything but “rare.”

Clinton sent about one-third of her emails during working hours — on weekdays between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. — according to an AP analysis of 2,754 emails she wrote from April 2009 through September 2010, based on time stamps on the messages.

That breaks down to about 10 emails a day.

At my work? I send that many in 20 minutes.

With 55,000 posts on here I don't know how you find time

--LOL

true

 

[CrusaderFrank]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

So? Not being able to verify for now is not the same as saying it isn't true.

^ Fluffers gotta Fluff

Progs are mindless zombies

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mikegriffith1]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

 

[Care4all]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

You would think, our gvt System, would be capable of simply doing a query on Mrs Clinton's email address in the sent or received fields and pull them up....?

You have to wonder where our taxes go for the gvt computer systems to be so antiquated....

Even on the Lerner emails and trying to recover them, the whole system was in the dark ages.

 

[Care4all]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

I think she was just incompetent and in way over her head. She had never run anything before she was handed such a hugely important executive position as Secretary of State. She was simply unqualified for the job in the first place and never should have even been nominated, much less confirmed.

But now she wants to be President after bungling the job of Secretary of State and after getting people killed because of her incompetence.

 

[Auld Phart]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

 

[jon_berzerk]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

more then 600 times btw

which sounds pretty serious

 

[Care4all]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied, if the decision to not make it a consulate was made, then the security agents would not be supplied.....

Hind sight is 20/20.... I'm certain they all wished they had it.

We can learn from our mistakes though.

 

[Auld Phart]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied, if the decision to not make it a consulate was made, then the security agents would not be supplied.....

Hind sight is 20/20.... I'm certain they all wished they had it.

We can learn from our mistakes though.

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate

That's nice.

But I was referring to ambassadors, not embassies or consulates.

 

[jon_berzerk]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied, if the decision to not make it a consulate was made, then the security agents would not be supplied.....

Hind sight is 20/20.... I'm certain they all wished they had it.

We can learn from our mistakes though.

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied,

doesnt that sound just a bit callus -hard nosed and not caring for those she is in charge of

not to mention ridiculous in lite of the dangerous situation at hand

 

[jon_berzerk]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied, if the decision to not make it a consulate was made, then the security agents would not be supplied.....

Hind sight is 20/20.... I'm certain they all wished they had it.

We can learn from our mistakes though.

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate

That's nice.

But I was referring to ambassadors, not embassies or consulates.

pretty convenient and good enough for the sheeple

 

[BlueGin]

State Can’t Verify Clinton Email Claim Made At Benghazi Hearing Neither will the FBI, in that you can trust.

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied, if the decision to not make it a consulate was made, then the security agents would not be supplied.....

Hind sight is 20/20.... I'm certain they all wished they had it.

We can learn from our mistakes though.

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied,

doesnt that sound just a bit callus -hard nosed and not caring for those she is in charge of

not to mention ridiculous in lite of the dangerous situation at hand

It sounds intellectually dishonest to me. But we are talking about libs and their disregard for life here so...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Oh, she made a large number of false claims that will prove increasingly problematic. Even though the left, predictably, has ignored the obvious lies and exaggerations and has focused on the DNC talking points, her testimony is on video and in print for all to see, and she provided a load of ammo to Republicans with her many lies and distortions.

Perhaps her most egregious lie is that Stevens never discussed his security requests with her. That strains credulity and defies common sense, not to mention the picture painted by the documentary record.

The record certainly makes clear that she he heard about Stevens' security concerns from others (including her senior aide Huma Abedin). This begs the question: Why didn't she at least pick up the phone and call Stevens to discuss his security concerns? Even just a halfway competent chief executive would have thought to do that much.

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied, if the decision to not make it a consulate was made, then the security agents would not be supplied.....

Hind sight is 20/20.... I'm certain they all wished they had it.

We can learn from our mistakes though.

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied,

doesnt that sound just a bit callus -hard nosed and not caring for those she is in charge of

not to mention ridiculous in lite of the dangerous situation at hand

It sounds intellectually dishonest to me. But we are talking about libs and their disregard for life here so...

what do you expect

when it comes from a group that is not sure of the meaning of "is" is

as well as the many other things they hide in the fine print

 

[BlueGin]

I'm certain it was because she was twiddling her thumbs, after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things....

after all she only had 200 and something embassies and consulates to over see, among other things

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied, if the decision to not make it a consulate was made, then the security agents would not be supplied.....

Hind sight is 20/20.... I'm certain they all wished they had it.

We can learn from our mistakes though.

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied,

doesnt that sound just a bit callus -hard nosed and not caring for those she is in charge of

not to mention ridiculous in lite of the dangerous situation at hand

It sounds intellectually dishonest to me. But we are talking about libs and their disregard for life here so...

what do you expect

when it comes from a group that is not sure of the meaning of "is" is

as well as the many other things they hide in the fine print

People with nothing to hide don't have to twist words in such a dishonest attempt to cover their ass.

But it's expected from the libs on this board and in general.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Which do you believe required more attention?

the ambassador in England, France, China, any numerous other safe areas around the world,

OR

ambassadors in highly volatile areas, that had been asking for increases and updates in security?

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied, if the decision to not make it a consulate was made, then the security agents would not be supplied.....

Hind sight is 20/20.... I'm certain they all wished they had it.

We can learn from our mistakes though.

Benghazi was not an embassy or a consulate, it was being considered as a consulate.... if the decision was made to make Benghazi a consulate, then the security requested for it, would have been supplied,

doesnt that sound just a bit callus -hard nosed and not caring for those she is in charge of

not to mention ridiculous in lite of the dangerous situation at hand

It sounds intellectually dishonest to me. But we are talking about libs and their disregard for life here so...

what do you expect

when it comes from a group that is not sure of the meaning of "is" is

as well as the many other things they hide in the fine print

People with nothing to hide don't have to twist words in such a dishonest attempt to cover their ass.

But it's expected from the libs on this board and in general.

we have heard it many times

this is what the bill really said

well this is what we really meant

blah blah the peoples have grown cold to it