Hillary - One of the Most Honest Politictians in Washington Today

[hadit]

Give me an example. You say they're all wrong, it should be easy to find a bundle where I was wrong and didn't acknowledge it.

Every time you try a fact, it's wrong. Went back and looked...fact free bs. Normally you just parrot total bs lol. You've got plenty of company. About 70% of the GOP. Ignorant brainwashed loudmouths...

So, IOW, no examples.

You said Hillary was paid by the Foundation . Wrong.

Perhaps you missed the part where I acknowledged my error?

Give me an example. You say they're all wrong, it should be easy to find a bundle where I was wrong and didn't acknowledge it.

Every time you try a fact, it's wrong. Went back and looked...fact free bs. Normally you just parrot total bs lol. You've got plenty of company. About 70% of the GOP. Ignorant brainwashed loudmouths...

So, IOW, no examples.

Nope. Went back sixty posts, nothing but bs from you. All based on crap "facts" you don't relate. Don't blame you, dupe.

So, IOW, no examples. You're basically at this point reduced to something along the lines of, "Well, you're always wrong. I can't find where, but I said it and now I have to keep repeating it because I can't admit I was wrong, and just, well, STUFF!!!"

The only fact you presented in 60 posts was wrong. Brainwashed GOPers are all like that. They love truthiness. Shove your stupid assignment.

Okay, so the final tally is this. You have no examples to show that, as you say, "Every time you try a fact, it's wrong". I think we've wasted enough bandwidth on that.

 

[Flopper]

How bout some evidence for all your bs? BTW, the foundation is a great charity which does it's good works ITSELF, with no evidence of corruption, dupe.

Appearance of conflict of interest. That's all you need in politics. The Foundation pays Hillary a salary while taking big donations from foreign heads of state while she was Sec State.

According to the Clinton tax returns, her only salary for the last 15 years have come only from the federal goverment for her work as a US Senator and Secretary of State.
Tax History Project -- Presidential Tax Returns

Then how did she become a hundred millionaire?

The family net worth is about 110 million in 2016.

How was the net worth achieved? Lots of ways. First, the president receives a retirement equal to that of a current cabinet member which is approximately $200,000/yr plus a stipend of 96,000 for office expenses, staff, etc. Hillary Clinton's salary was $165,000 as Senator and $186,000 as Secretary of State. So it is safe to say that Clinton income from retirement and salaries over years are about $400,000 to to $500,000 a year. To this you can add about $100,000/yr in book royalties. However, the biggest contribution to their wealth has been speaking engagements which run about $200,000 each. A dozen or so speaking engagements a year during the time they weren't employees by the government is about normal. There are also consulting fees which are less than speaking fees but have added millions over the years.

If you are really interest in their real income, then all you have to do is look at their tax returns. They are all joint returns. Hillary has released their joint returns from 2000 to 2014. Bill has released their joint returns from 1992 to 1999. In total you have all the tax returns for the Clinton for last 23 years available online.

Hillary Clinton as well as being one of the most recognized women in the world, is also one of the most documented. There are literally hundreds of legal documents containing information about the Clintons available on line. In addition there are thousands of non-partisan articles and books available. Thus, you have a huge store of information about the Clinton which will give a good picture of their lives, accomplishments and failings. It also gives those that wish to vilify or glamorize the Clintons plenty of factual information to twist into the fiction of their choice.

Tax History Project -- Presidential Tax Returns

I like how you're snarky about me calling them a hundred millionaire when your own stat was they have a hundred million ...

The only thing you listed that remotely gets them there are speaking engagements. You make it sound like those were for turtles or information. They were for ... government ... Slick and Hillary were selling influence. No one pays a quarter of a million to hear your view on turtles.

The Clintons had virtually no private experience and Slick had none. It was all paid for by taxpayers one way or another. If they were Republicans, you'd suddenly get that

I suggest you look at their tax forms, unlike Trump, you will see 23 years of tax returns online. If you look close enough, I'm sure you will find data to support more accusations. You will find evidence of mistakes she has made as well as successes because her life is an open book, unlike her opponent. What you will not find is any real evidence that supports the accusations of the opposition.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What are your favorite honest statements of Hillary's?

My personal favorite is the sniper fire story! The Benghazi video is a close second.

Praise that honesty brother, praise it!

 

[Oldstyle]

The two biggest "dupes" on this board are R-Derp and Franco! Neither one of them is intelligent enough to grab their own asses if you gave them a one handed head start!

Pub Dupe is not an intellectual argument. It's a lemming talking to himself!

 

[Oldstyle]

What are your favorite honest statements of Hillary's?

My personal favorite is the sniper fire story! The Benghazi video is a close second.

Praise that honesty brother, praise it!

I love her story about how she decided to invest in cattle futures because of an article she read in the New York Times about futures trading!

 

[Oldstyle]

Or her story about how her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If you have never met anyone who has the kind of resume.....let me explain some thing to you. They did little to nothing to get most of those titles.

They are egomaniacs and she is a perfect example.

I can't believe the OP is serious. Really ???? ROTFLMAO.

Obviously you have never met anyone with an impressive resume as this. I can't believe you think you do little or nothing to graduate with distinction from the Yale law school, serve on the editorial board of the Yale Law Review, become a partner in one the most prestigious law firms in the state, twice recognized by the National Law Review as one the 100 most powerful lawyers in the country, ten times recognized by Time Magazine as one of 100 most influential people in world, twice elected to the US Senate, and appointed Secretary of State. In addition, she has received more the 70 major awards and honors.

I've worked with plenty of people who have resume's that are just as impressive.

They are in love with themselves and they pursue these honors for one reason....so SAPS like you will somehow think it means something.

She's good at PR...that's for sure.

If you somehow are using the argument that she is smart......let's put her handling of several crisis on the table......

You don't do things like work off private servers (illegal or not...everyone knows you don't do it) and then stupidly conduct the kind of scorched earth campaign she is trying (and failing at) to avoid it.

It looks like her private server maybe the only one around Washington the Russians having hacked.

A deflection, and you know it.

She isn't as smart as you make her out to be.

Well, she has been smart enough to keep Republican attack dogs chasing their tail and accomplishing nothing for over two decades.

Sorrrrrryyyyy.....

She was a big help in the GOP sweep of the House and Senate in 1994.

Real smart.

 

[kaz]

Appearance of conflict of interest. That's all you need in politics. The Foundation pays Hillary a salary while taking big donations from foreign heads of state while she was Sec State.

According to the Clinton tax returns, her only salary for the last 15 years have come only from the federal goverment for her work as a US Senator and Secretary of State.
Tax History Project -- Presidential Tax Returns

Then how did she become a hundred millionaire?

The family net worth is about 110 million in 2016.

How was the net worth achieved? Lots of ways. First, the president receives a retirement equal to that of a current cabinet member which is approximately $200,000/yr plus a stipend of 96,000 for office expenses, staff, etc. Hillary Clinton's salary was $165,000 as Senator and $186,000 as Secretary of State. So it is safe to say that Clinton income from retirement and salaries over years are about $400,000 to to $500,000 a year. To this you can add about $100,000/yr in book royalties. However, the biggest contribution to their wealth has been speaking engagements which run about $200,000 each. A dozen or so speaking engagements a year during the time they weren't employees by the government is about normal. There are also consulting fees which are less than speaking fees but have added millions over the years.

If you are really interest in their real income, then all you have to do is look at their tax returns. They are all joint returns. Hillary has released their joint returns from 2000 to 2014. Bill has released their joint returns from 1992 to 1999. In total you have all the tax returns for the Clinton for last 23 years available online.

Hillary Clinton as well as being one of the most recognized women in the world, is also one of the most documented. There are literally hundreds of legal documents containing information about the Clintons available on line. In addition there are thousands of non-partisan articles and books available. Thus, you have a huge store of information about the Clinton which will give a good picture of their lives, accomplishments and failings. It also gives those that wish to vilify or glamorize the Clintons plenty of factual information to twist into the fiction of their choice.

Tax History Project -- Presidential Tax Returns

I like how you're snarky about me calling them a hundred millionaire when your own stat was they have a hundred million ...

The only thing you listed that remotely gets them there are speaking engagements. You make it sound like those were for turtles or information. They were for ... government ... Slick and Hillary were selling influence. No one pays a quarter of a million to hear your view on turtles.

The Clintons had virtually no private experience and Slick had none. It was all paid for by taxpayers one way or another. If they were Republicans, you'd suddenly get that

I suggest you look at their tax forms, unlike Trump, you will see 23 years of tax returns online. If you look close enough, I'm sure you will find data to support more accusations. You will find evidence of mistakes she has made as well as successes because her life is an open book, unlike her opponent. What you will not find is any real evidence that supports the accusations of the opposition.

Can you skip the DNC commercial and get back to the point?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season. Indeed, for a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate, the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.

In terms of honesty, Hillary is a politician, and like all politicians she is no stranger to “massaging” and exaggerating the truth. And yes on occasion she will let loose a whopper. But is she worse than other politicians? The evidence suggests that she is no worse, and actually better, than most other politicians. Internet videos like the “13 minutes of Hillary lying” appear to be mostly examples of Hillary changing her position over several decades, combined with annoying but typical political behavior. But similar videos of Donald Trump exist showing him doing an even more extreme version of the same thing. Why is he not being accused of this type of mendacity? In fact, there is very little dispute that Trump has been SIGNIFICANTLY less honest on the campaign trail than Hillary. According to Politifact he is in fact the least honest candidate they’ve ever analyzed! So if the issue of honesty is really that important, why are so many people holding Hillary to such an obviously different standard than Trump?

The latest attack on Hillary's honesty concerns the email investigation. Although the Director of FBI testified to the fact that he found no evidence of Hillary lying, her opposition has maintains otherwise claiming Hillary lied to FBI and lied to congress. I think anyone with an once of intelligence would realize that if there were any evidence of Hillary lying under oath, she would be facing charges of contempt of this Republican Congress or arrested for making false statements to the FBI.

they did a job on you....

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh yeah...that Hitlery sure is some woman of deep integrity. From lying about the cause of Benghazi ("it was a YouTube vide") to stealing from the White House, to proclaiming "we landed under sniper fire". You would be hard pressed to find anything that she's ever said that was actually true.

“The DNC has overstepped. They are so politically correct and so in league with the very far left and so corrupt that America will see them for who they are this week. And I believe Donald Trump very well may win because Hillary is everything we’ve said she is: corrupt and the worst candidate, now compounded by the worst party in American history,” Glenn said.

Marxist Progressives Have Overplayed Their Hand

Breaking: EVERYONE with a brain knows the video probably TRIGGERED the attack, like all the others that day. IDIOT DUPE. They took no more from the WH than anyone else, but gave it back in the face of ANOTHER mountain of RW BS propaganda. Fall back on the Tuzla thing, she did exaggerate that, totally irrelevant as THAT is. Meanwhile, your heroes lie factually nonstop and rob and wreck the middle class and the country and the world. TOTAL brainwashed functional MORON.

Anyone with a brain knows that an attack on the anniversary of 9/11 was probably planned well in advance to take place on that day! The video did not "trigger" that attack anymore then it triggered the initial attack!

 

[francoHFW]

Oh yeah...that Hitlery sure is some woman of deep integrity. From lying about the cause of Benghazi ("it was a YouTube vide") to stealing from the White House, to proclaiming "we landed under sniper fire". You would be hard pressed to find anything that she's ever said that was actually true.

“The DNC has overstepped. They are so politically correct and so in league with the very far left and so corrupt that America will see them for who they are this week. And I believe Donald Trump very well may win because Hillary is everything we’ve said she is: corrupt and the worst candidate, now compounded by the worst party in American history,” Glenn said.

Marxist Progressives Have Overplayed Their Hand

Breaking: EVERYONE with a brain knows the video probably TRIGGERED the attack, like all the others that day. IDIOT DUPE. They took no more from the WH than anyone else, but gave it back in the face of ANOTHER mountain of RW BS propaganda. Fall back on the Tuzla thing, she did exaggerate that, totally irrelevant as THAT is. Meanwhile, your heroes lie factually nonstop and rob and wreck the middle class and the country and the world. TOTAL brainwashed functional MORON.

Anyone with a brain knows that an attack on the anniversary of 9/11 was probably planned well in advance to take place on that day! The video did not "trigger" that attack anymore then it triggered the initial attack!

Yup, bought off HS grad ex-coke head DJs and dupes know better than the rest of the world lol...So all those protests and attacks against embassies that day had nothing to do with the video? Brainwashed functional MORON.

 

[francoHFW]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season. Indeed, for a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate, the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.

In terms of honesty, Hillary is a politician, and like all politicians she is no stranger to “massaging” and exaggerating the truth. And yes on occasion she will let loose a whopper. But is she worse than other politicians? The evidence suggests that she is no worse, and actually better, than most other politicians. Internet videos like the “13 minutes of Hillary lying” appear to be mostly examples of Hillary changing her position over several decades, combined with annoying but typical political behavior. But similar videos of Donald Trump exist showing him doing an even more extreme version of the same thing. Why is he not being accused of this type of mendacity? In fact, there is very little dispute that Trump has been SIGNIFICANTLY less honest on the campaign trail than Hillary. According to Politifact he is in fact the least honest candidate they’ve ever analyzed! So if the issue of honesty is really that important, why are so many people holding Hillary to such an obviously different standard than Trump?

The latest attack on Hillary's honesty concerns the email investigation. Although the Director of FBI testified to the fact that he found no evidence of Hillary lying, her opposition has maintains otherwise claiming Hillary lied to FBI and lied to congress. I think anyone with an once of intelligence would realize that if there were any evidence of Hillary lying under oath, she would be facing charges of contempt of this Republican Congress or arrested for making false statements to the FBI.

they did a job on you....

They? Get out the tin foil...and back to Tuzla...lol

 

[Harry Dresden]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season. Indeed, for a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate, the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.

In terms of honesty, Hillary is a politician, and like all politicians she is no stranger to “massaging” and exaggerating the truth. And yes on occasion she will let loose a whopper. But is she worse than other politicians? The evidence suggests that she is no worse, and actually better, than most other politicians. Internet videos like the “13 minutes of Hillary lying” appear to be mostly examples of Hillary changing her position over several decades, combined with annoying but typical political behavior. But similar videos of Donald Trump exist showing him doing an even more extreme version of the same thing. Why is he not being accused of this type of mendacity? In fact, there is very little dispute that Trump has been SIGNIFICANTLY less honest on the campaign trail than Hillary. According to Politifact he is in fact the least honest candidate they’ve ever analyzed! So if the issue of honesty is really that important, why are so many people holding Hillary to such an obviously different standard than Trump?

The latest attack on Hillary's honesty concerns the email investigation. Although the Director of FBI testified to the fact that he found no evidence of Hillary lying, her opposition has maintains otherwise claiming Hillary lied to FBI and lied to congress. I think anyone with an once of intelligence would realize that if there were any evidence of Hillary lying under oath, she would be facing charges of contempt of this Republican Congress or arrested for making false statements to the FBI.

they did a job on you....

They? Get out the tin foil...and back to Tuzla...lol

no need too Frankie....they are the same people who got to you....lol.....how is W.NY holding up?....

 

[francoHFW]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season. Indeed, for a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate, the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.

In terms of honesty, Hillary is a politician, and like all politicians she is no stranger to “massaging” and exaggerating the truth. And yes on occasion she will let loose a whopper. But is she worse than other politicians? The evidence suggests that she is no worse, and actually better, than most other politicians. Internet videos like the “13 minutes of Hillary lying” appear to be mostly examples of Hillary changing her position over several decades, combined with annoying but typical political behavior. But similar videos of Donald Trump exist showing him doing an even more extreme version of the same thing. Why is he not being accused of this type of mendacity? In fact, there is very little dispute that Trump has been SIGNIFICANTLY less honest on the campaign trail than Hillary. According to Politifact he is in fact the least honest candidate they’ve ever analyzed! So if the issue of honesty is really that important, why are so many people holding Hillary to such an obviously different standard than Trump?

The latest attack on Hillary's honesty concerns the email investigation. Although the Director of FBI testified to the fact that he found no evidence of Hillary lying, her opposition has maintains otherwise claiming Hillary lied to FBI and lied to congress. I think anyone with an once of intelligence would realize that if there were any evidence of Hillary lying under oath, she would be facing charges of contempt of this Republican Congress or arrested for making false statements to the FBI.

they did a job on you....

They? Get out the tin foil...and back to Tuzla...lol

no need too Frankie....they are the same people who got to you....lol.....how is W.NY holding up?....

Too dam hot. You mean journalists and public servants? If you think the FBI was too easy on Hillary under a GOP loudmouth, think again. Dragged it out and made incorrect and thus unfair statements.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season.

This is not a "claim" that happened to "come out this election season." This is a sound assessment that has been well known. Leftists loved to excuse it as "conspiracy theories." You should have did some real self-evaluation, and now you wouldn't be stuck with a pathological liar. But the party elites and their lemmings have no need to dissent. As such, that makes this upcoming election loss for Hillary even more sweeter.

 

[francoHFW]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season.

This is not a "claim" that happened to "come out this election season." This is a sound assessment that has been well known. Leftists loved to excuse it as "conspiracy theories." You should have did some real self-evaluation, and now you wouldn't be stuck with a pathological liar. But the party elites and their lemmings have no need to dissent. As such, that makes this upcoming election loss for Hillary even more sweeter.

They're all crap GOP bs, but you can always go with that Tuzla story that's totally irrelevant...reminds me of some of my late mother's stories...sound assessment my butt. Every GOP pol and pundit lies more in an hour than she ever has, including the big orange idiot.. See sig. Poor silly dupes. Poor country.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season.

This is not a "claim" that happened to "come out this election season." This is a sound assessment that has been well known. Leftists loved to excuse it as "conspiracy theories." You should have did some real self-evaluation, and now you wouldn't be stuck with a pathological liar. But the party elites and their lemmings have no need to dissent. As such, that makes this upcoming election loss for Hillary even more sweeter.

They're all crap GOP bs, but you can always go with that Tuzla story that's totally irrelevant...reminds me of some of my late mother's stories...sound assessment my butt. Every GOP pol and pundit lies more in an hour than she ever has, including the big orange idiot.. See sig. Poor silly dupes. Poor country.

I give you credit. You must've gotten on some medicines. Your posts are cogent unlike back in the day. I mean, ultimately it's still very low level posting. But at least you don't sound like a hobo ranting like you did.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season. Indeed, for a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate, the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.

In terms of honesty, Hillary is a politician, and like all politicians she is no stranger to “massaging” and exaggerating the truth. And yes on occasion she will let loose a whopper. But is she worse than other politicians? The evidence suggests that she is no worse, and actually better, than most other politicians. Internet videos like the “13 minutes of Hillary lying” appear to be mostly examples of Hillary changing her position over several decades, combined with annoying but typical political behavior. But similar videos of Donald Trump exist showing him doing an even more extreme version of the same thing. Why is he not being accused of this type of mendacity? In fact, there is very little dispute that Trump has been SIGNIFICANTLY less honest on the campaign trail than Hillary. According to Politifact he is in fact the least honest candidate they’ve ever analyzed! So if the issue of honesty is really that important, why are so many people holding Hillary to such an obviously different standard than Trump?

The latest attack on Hillary's honesty concerns the email investigation. Although the Director of FBI testified to the fact that he found no evidence of Hillary lying, her opposition has maintains otherwise claiming Hillary lied to FBI and lied to congress. I think anyone with an once of intelligence would realize that if there were any evidence of Hillary lying under oath, she would be facing charges of contempt of this Republican Congress or arrested for making false statements to the FBI.

they did a job on you....

They? Get out the tin foil...and back to Tuzla...lol

no need too Frankie....they are the same people who got to you....lol.....how is W.NY holding up?....

Too dam hot. You mean journalists and public servants? If you think the FBI was too easy on Hillary under a GOP loudmouth, think again. Dragged it out and made incorrect and thus unfair statements.

no i mean the Democrats.....Flooper has a flag sticking out of his ass with a circled D on it.....you better check yourself too Frankie...lol....its hot here too....

 

[francoHFW]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season.

This is not a "claim" that happened to "come out this election season." This is a sound assessment that has been well known. Leftists loved to excuse it as "conspiracy theories." You should have did some real self-evaluation, and now you wouldn't be stuck with a pathological liar. But the party elites and their lemmings have no need to dissent. As such, that makes this upcoming election loss for Hillary even more sweeter.

They're all crap GOP bs, but you can always go with that Tuzla story that's totally irrelevant...reminds me of some of my late mother's stories...sound assessment my butt. Every GOP pol and pundit lies more in an hour than she ever has, including the big orange idiot.. See sig. Poor silly dupes. Poor country.

I give you credit. You must've gotten on some medicines. Your posts are cogent unlike back in the day. I mean, ultimately it's still very low level posting. But at least you don't sound like a hobo ranting like you did.

I admire and respect your brainwashed "opinion", dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Claims that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and innately untrustworthy is one the most interesting claims to come out of this election season. Indeed, for a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate, the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.

In terms of honesty, Hillary is a politician, and like all politicians she is no stranger to “massaging” and exaggerating the truth. And yes on occasion she will let loose a whopper. But is she worse than other politicians? The evidence suggests that she is no worse, and actually better, than most other politicians. Internet videos like the “13 minutes of Hillary lying” appear to be mostly examples of Hillary changing her position over several decades, combined with annoying but typical political behavior. But similar videos of Donald Trump exist showing him doing an even more extreme version of the same thing. Why is he not being accused of this type of mendacity? In fact, there is very little dispute that Trump has been SIGNIFICANTLY less honest on the campaign trail than Hillary. According to Politifact he is in fact the least honest candidate they’ve ever analyzed! So if the issue of honesty is really that important, why are so many people holding Hillary to such an obviously different standard than Trump?

The latest attack on Hillary's honesty concerns the email investigation. Although the Director of FBI testified to the fact that he found no evidence of Hillary lying, her opposition has maintains otherwise claiming Hillary lied to FBI and lied to congress. I think anyone with an once of intelligence would realize that if there were any evidence of Hillary lying under oath, she would be facing charges of contempt of this Republican Congress or arrested for making false statements to the FBI.

they did a job on you....

They? Get out the tin foil...and back to Tuzla...lol

no need too Frankie....they are the same people who got to you....lol.....how is W.NY holding up?....

Too dam hot. You mean journalists and public servants? If you think the FBI was too easy on Hillary under a GOP loudmouth, think again. Dragged it out and made incorrect and thus unfair statements.

no i mean the Democrats.....Flooper has a flag sticking out of his ass with a circled D on it.....you better check yourself too Frankie...lol....its hot here too....

Intelligent, non-bought off, non brainwashed and careful people are like that. Have you noticed that the GOP is a nonstop lying catastrophe the last 30 years? LOL And Trump is on board?