Hillary - One of the Most Honest Politictians in Washington Today

[Wyatt earp]

A lie is not saying something that later proves to be false. What makes it a lie is the deliberate intent to deceive. If Clinton did not believe the email was marked classified, what she said was not a lie. So it is your opinion she lied certainly not a fact.

Will you immature Democrats just grow up already? Do you realize that you mindless lap dogs have defended every illegal, unethical, and immoral action ever done by a Democrat? When Bill Clinton committed adultery, you animals attempted to create the narrative that there was nothing wrong with cheating on a spouse. When he committed perjury over the incident, you animals attempted to defend it in a thousand absurd ways. You people even defend Harvey Milk who was a pedophile. When are you people going to grow up and simply admit when a liberal or a Democrat did something wrong? God Almighty....

Must I remind you Bill Clinton is not running for president and his sex life 10 years ago is not an issue in this campaign.

Must I remind you that Hitlery Clinton viciously attacked and worked to destroy the reputation of the women who were his victims of sexual assault?

I think I missed 60 minutes........... Do you have link that support your claim?

Patriot..... I asked you a question post #589....... Did Hillary really destroyed these women reputation? Is this one of your attempt to smear Hillary reputation? Or you just do not have clue of what you are talking about?

Why do I think of Herman Munster when I read your posts?

 

[charwin95]

25 doesn't divide by two either sparky. Would you like to keep trying?

You guys are really tickling me..... Maybe you have not heard a 12.5% asians or 12.5% whites or 12.5% black.
Either both of you are ignorant or just plain dumb.

Methead and Patriot..... Any more question on 95%?
The only reason we cannot say 100% whites because of the Mongolian Spot...... There is an Asian or Mayan blood somewhere but we cannot trace it. So we just come up with 95%...... My entire clan do not have black hair, dark, brown or yellow skin, short neck, curly hair, shortest of the clan is my older sister 5'7".

Still waiting for you to make history with your 95% claim. I don't know if you could hit that percentage if you went back to when your ancestors came down from the trees, although I suspect in your case it might not have been that long ago.

2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096,8192...

But then I'm guessing you don't do math.

Did you read my post or you just look at it....... we came up with 95% because of the Mongolian spot. We came up with 95% not you........... If you don't understand read it several times.... ether that or you are just plain ignorant or retarded.

So, the Mongolian spot covers 5% of your body?

Are you a moron?

Yes.... Ignorant fuck..... That is how we came up with 95%. Mongolian spot cover 5% of our new born baby but mostly at the back..... then disappear no more than 3 months.
That's is what *WE* like to call it not YOU or your math.

 

[Bush92]

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.

You stick your tounge on a frozen flagpole in wintertime when challenged by friends don't you?

 

[charwin95]

Will you immature Democrats just grow up already? Do you realize that you mindless lap dogs have defended every illegal, unethical, and immoral action ever done by a Democrat? When Bill Clinton committed adultery, you animals attempted to create the narrative that there was nothing wrong with cheating on a spouse. When he committed perjury over the incident, you animals attempted to defend it in a thousand absurd ways. You people even defend Harvey Milk who was a pedophile. When are you people going to grow up and simply admit when a liberal or a Democrat did something wrong? God Almighty....

Must I remind you Bill Clinton is not running for president and his sex life 10 years ago is not an issue in this campaign.

Must I remind you that Hitlery Clinton viciously attacked and worked to destroy the reputation of the women who were his victims of sexual assault?

I think I missed 60 minutes........... Do you have link that support your claim?

Patriot..... I asked you a question post #589....... Did Hillary really destroyed these women reputation? Is this one of your attempt to smear Hillary reputation? Or you just do not have clue of what you are talking about?

Why do I think of Herman Munster when I read your posts?

Would you care to answer my question?

 

[Oldstyle]

What font of impartiality do you get YOUR news from Charwin?

I read a lot of news except faux news, msnbc, never national enquirer or Breitfart.

I didn't ask you what you DIDN'T read, Charwin...I asked a very simple question! What are your sources for news?

 

[charwin95]

What font of impartiality do you get YOUR news from Charwin?

I read a lot of news except faux news, msnbc, never national enquirer or Breitfart.

I didn't ask you what you DIDN'T read, Charwin...I asked a very simple question! What are your sources for news?

Read my post #629.

Mostly CNN, Yahoo news, USA today, WS journal, Miami herald, San Diego tribune and sometimes NY Times ...... Occasionally huffington post.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What font of impartiality do you get YOUR news from Charwin?

I read a lot of news except faux news, msnbc, never national enquirer or Breitfart.

I didn't ask you what you DIDN'T read, Charwin...I asked a very simple question! What are your sources for news?

What Herman Munster you don't think hillary had a smear campaign going against Paula Jones and all the rest of Bill's conquest?

Who the heck do you think hillary is Jacky Kennedy?

 

[charwin95]

What font of impartiality do you get YOUR news from Charwin?

I read a lot of news except faux news, msnbc, never national enquirer or Breitfart.

I didn't ask you what you DIDN'T read, Charwin...I asked a very simple question! What are your sources for news?

What Herman Munster you don't think hillary had a smear campaign going against Paula Jones and all the rest of Bill's conquest?

Who the heck do you think hillary is Jacky Kennedy?

You keep blabbing non sense........ Would you care to answer my question post #644?

 

[EriktheRed]

"I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material"

After that was proven false,

"I can only repeat what happens to be the case-- that I did not send nor receive information that was marked classified at the time that it was sent or received".

This is a perfect illustration of the Clinton SOP. Note the change between the two statements. The first statement is a lie that was quickly proven to be so. Instead of admitting that it is a lie, we get the second, and as we are finding out, it is not so truthful either. In addition, whether the information was marked classified is irrelevant, because Hillary was trained and responsible to mark information classified and handle it properly. She did not do so.

A lie is not saying something that later proves to be false. What makes it a lie is the deliberate intent to deceive. If Clinton did not believe the email was marked classified, what she said was not a lie. So it is your opinion she lied certainly not a fact.

Incorrect. The fact that she changed her story means she knows the first iteration is provably false. Plus, it is irrelevant because as Sec State, she was TRAINED and RESPONSIBLE to mark information classified if she saw it and handled it. That she did not do. By trying to give her this excuse, you are essentially admitting she was incompetent.

Changing your statement can always be because you discovered what you said was incorrect and want to correct it.

If you had paid a little attention, you would know that she has already admitted that she was mistaken. She's apologized and has taken full responsibly. Hillary knows that if you make a mistake, you can admit it and voters are likely to accept it knowing that everyone makes mistakes, except of course Donald Trump.

She admitted she was incompetent? Where did she do that?

If she admitted she made mistakes, why are her defenders still using the "it wasn't marked classified" excuse? If she admitted it was wrong to not mark the information classified, why are people still trying to claim she did nothing wrong? In all seriousness, there was some really highly classified stuff on her server, enough that claiming she didn't know it was supposed to be classified is really damning.

She certainly did not say she was incompetent. She said it was a mistake in reference to setting up a private uncertified server. All the problems sprang from not having a certified server.

Due to the way email systems work, all received mail along with attachments are stored on a persons email server. The user generally has no control of this. These emails can contain classified information and the user may never know it unless they read all emails and attachments they are sent. In order for Clinton to insure that no document on her server contain classified information she would have to read all emails and attachments she received , identifying classified information and deleting it. This is not a practical solution considering the amount of email she received. This is why she never should have had a private uncertified server.

I receive upward of 30 emails a day addressed to me, most are part of a chain of emails, some with attachments. I forward a few, replying to most, and not even reading some. I rarely read all emails in the chain and certainly not every attachment. So if you ask me if I sent any classified information, I would say no because the emails I created would not contain classified information. However, when forwarding, I would be forwarding the entire chain with attachments, so it would certainly be possible that the chain contained classified information. I would be sending classified information and never know it. This is a problem in not having a certified server.

But what you need to understand is that Sec. Clinton is "Satan". Therefore her apology for her mistake is not enough and it doesn't matter if no harm was ever found to have resulted from it.

An emotionally immature and unstable ignoramus in the Oval Office is really what this country needs.

 

[Meathead]

You guys are really tickling me..... Maybe you have not heard a 12.5% asians or 12.5% whites or 12.5% black.
Either both of you are ignorant or just plain dumb.

Methead and Patriot..... Any more question on 95%?
The only reason we cannot say 100% whites because of the Mongolian Spot...... There is an Asian or Mayan blood somewhere but we cannot trace it. So we just come up with 95%...... My entire clan do not have black hair, dark, brown or yellow skin, short neck, curly hair, shortest of the clan is my older sister 5'7".

Still waiting for you to make history with your 95% claim. I don't know if you could hit that percentage if you went back to when your ancestors came down from the trees, although I suspect in your case it might not have been that long ago.

2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096,8192...

But then I'm guessing you don't do math.

Did you read my post or you just look at it....... we came up with 95% because of the Mongolian spot. We came up with 95% not you........... If you don't understand read it several times.... ether that or you are just plain ignorant or retarded.

So, the Mongolian spot covers 5% of your body?

Are you a moron?

Yes.... Ignorant fuck..... That is how we came up with 95%. Mongolian spot cover 5% of our new born baby but mostly at the back..... then disappear no more than 3 months.
That's is what *WE* like to call it not YOU or your math.

You shouldn't listen to your old wives tales and take a simple math course that even blacks can pass.

Damn the country has dumbed down! You were probably looking for hair on your knuckles till you were 30.

 

[Oldstyle]

What font of impartiality do you get YOUR news from Charwin?

I read a lot of news except faux news, msnbc, never national enquirer or Breitfart.

I didn't ask you what you DIDN'T read, Charwin...I asked a very simple question! What are your sources for news?

Read my post #629.

Mostly CNN, Yahoo news, USA today, WS journal, Miami herald, San Diego tribune and sometimes NY Times ...... Occasionally huffington post.

So you probably read the Wall Street Journal to check on your investments...and get your news from liberal sources? If CNN is your "go to" TV then it's obvious which way you lean politically, Charwin! Huffington Post? Really?

 

[Oldstyle]

A lie is not saying something that later proves to be false. What makes it a lie is the deliberate intent to deceive. If Clinton did not believe the email was marked classified, what she said was not a lie. So it is your opinion she lied certainly not a fact.

Incorrect. The fact that she changed her story means she knows the first iteration is provably false. Plus, it is irrelevant because as Sec State, she was TRAINED and RESPONSIBLE to mark information classified if she saw it and handled it. That she did not do. By trying to give her this excuse, you are essentially admitting she was incompetent.

Changing your statement can always be because you discovered what you said was incorrect and want to correct it.

If you had paid a little attention, you would know that she has already admitted that she was mistaken. She's apologized and has taken full responsibly. Hillary knows that if you make a mistake, you can admit it and voters are likely to accept it knowing that everyone makes mistakes, except of course Donald Trump.

She admitted she was incompetent? Where did she do that?

If she admitted she made mistakes, why are her defenders still using the "it wasn't marked classified" excuse? If she admitted it was wrong to not mark the information classified, why are people still trying to claim she did nothing wrong? In all seriousness, there was some really highly classified stuff on her server, enough that claiming she didn't know it was supposed to be classified is really damning.

She certainly did not say she was incompetent. She said it was a mistake in reference to setting up a private uncertified server. All the problems sprang from not having a certified server.

Due to the way email systems work, all received mail along with attachments are stored on a persons email server. The user generally has no control of this. These emails can contain classified information and the user may never know it unless they read all emails and attachments they are sent. In order for Clinton to insure that no document on her server contain classified information she would have to read all emails and attachments she received , identifying classified information and deleting it. This is not a practical solution considering the amount of email she received. This is why she never should have had a private uncertified server.

I receive upward of 30 emails a day addressed to me, most are part of a chain of emails, some with attachments. I forward a few, replying to most, and not even reading some. I rarely read all emails in the chain and certainly not every attachment. So if you ask me if I sent any classified information, I would say no because the emails I created would not contain classified information. However, when forwarding, I would be forwarding the entire chain with attachments, so it would certainly be possible that the chain contained classified information. I would be sending classified information and never know it. This is a problem in not having a certified server.

But what you need to understand is that Sec. Clinton is "Satan". Therefore her apology for her mistake is not enough and it doesn't matter if no harm was ever found to have resulted from it.



An emotionally immature and unstable ignoramus in the Oval Office is really what this country needs.

Clinton isn't "Satan"...she's a career politician who uses political power to enrich herself and her family while apparently operating under the belief that there are two sets of laws here in the United States...one for average people and another for the politically connected!

 

[EriktheRed]

Incorrect. The fact that she changed her story means she knows the first iteration is provably false. Plus, it is irrelevant because as Sec State, she was TRAINED and RESPONSIBLE to mark information classified if she saw it and handled it. That she did not do. By trying to give her this excuse, you are essentially admitting she was incompetent.

Changing your statement can always be because you discovered what you said was incorrect and want to correct it.

If you had paid a little attention, you would know that she has already admitted that she was mistaken. She's apologized and has taken full responsibly. Hillary knows that if you make a mistake, you can admit it and voters are likely to accept it knowing that everyone makes mistakes, except of course Donald Trump.

She admitted she was incompetent? Where did she do that?

If she admitted she made mistakes, why are her defenders still using the "it wasn't marked classified" excuse? If she admitted it was wrong to not mark the information classified, why are people still trying to claim she did nothing wrong? In all seriousness, there was some really highly classified stuff on her server, enough that claiming she didn't know it was supposed to be classified is really damning.

She certainly did not say she was incompetent. She said it was a mistake in reference to setting up a private uncertified server. All the problems sprang from not having a certified server.

Due to the way email systems work, all received mail along with attachments are stored on a persons email server. The user generally has no control of this. These emails can contain classified information and the user may never know it unless they read all emails and attachments they are sent. In order for Clinton to insure that no document on her server contain classified information she would have to read all emails and attachments she received , identifying classified information and deleting it. This is not a practical solution considering the amount of email she received. This is why she never should have had a private uncertified server.

I receive upward of 30 emails a day addressed to me, most are part of a chain of emails, some with attachments. I forward a few, replying to most, and not even reading some. I rarely read all emails in the chain and certainly not every attachment. So if you ask me if I sent any classified information, I would say no because the emails I created would not contain classified information. However, when forwarding, I would be forwarding the entire chain with attachments, so it would certainly be possible that the chain contained classified information. I would be sending classified information and never know it. This is a problem in not having a certified server.

But what you need to understand is that Sec. Clinton is "Satan". Therefore her apology for her mistake is not enough and it doesn't matter if no harm was ever found to have resulted from it.



An emotionally immature and unstable ignoramus in the Oval Office is really what this country needs.

Clinton isn't "Satan"...she's a career politician who uses political power to enrich herself and her family while apparently operating under the belief that there are two sets of laws here in the United States...one for average people and another for the politically connected!

You're right, she isn't "Satan", my bad. She's "the Devil".

Donald Trump Calls Hillary Clinton 'the Devil'

 

[charwin95]

What font of impartiality do you get YOUR news from Charwin?

I read a lot of news except faux news, msnbc, never national enquirer or Breitfart.

I didn't ask you what you DIDN'T read, Charwin...I asked a very simple question! What are your sources for news?

Read my post #629.

Mostly CNN, Yahoo news, USA today, WS journal, Miami herald, San Diego tribune and sometimes NY Times ...... Occasionally huffington post.

So you probably read the Wall Street Journal to check on your investments...and get your news from liberal sources? If CNN is your "go to" TV then it's obvious which way you lean politically, Charwin! Huffington Post? Really?

Liberal source? CNN is far better than Faux news...... Occasionally h post meaning no more than 3x a month and I don't rely on it.

 

[charwin95]

Methead and Patriot..... Any more question on 95%?
The only reason we cannot say 100% whites because of the Mongolian Spot...... There is an Asian or Mayan blood somewhere but we cannot trace it. So we just come up with 95%...... My entire clan do not have black hair, dark, brown or yellow skin, short neck, curly hair, shortest of the clan is my older sister 5'7".

Still waiting for you to make history with your 95% claim. I don't know if you could hit that percentage if you went back to when your ancestors came down from the trees, although I suspect in your case it might not have been that long ago.

2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096,8192...

But then I'm guessing you don't do math.

Did you read my post or you just look at it....... we came up with 95% because of the Mongolian spot. We came up with 95% not you........... If you don't understand read it several times.... ether that or you are just plain ignorant or retarded.

So, the Mongolian spot covers 5% of your body?

Are you a moron?

Yes.... Ignorant fuck..... That is how we came up with 95%. Mongolian spot cover 5% of our new born baby but mostly at the back..... then disappear no more than 3 months.
That's is what *WE* like to call it not YOU or your math.

You shouldn't listen to your old wives tales and take a simple math course that even blacks can pass.

Damn the country has dumbed down! You were probably looking for hair on your knuckles till you were 30.

Let me repeat it again.... WE as a clan came with that 5% because the rest of the clan is mysteriously have almost the same pattern and the estimate is always 5%...... Again not YOU or anybody. We understand the math....... Let me repeat we understand the math........... But that is how WE like to call it.......... Stick that to your head.

 

[FA_Q2]

"I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material"

After that was proven false,

"I can only repeat what happens to be the case-- that I did not send nor receive information that was marked classified at the time that it was sent or received".

This is a perfect illustration of the Clinton SOP. Note the change between the two statements. The first statement is a lie that was quickly proven to be so. Instead of admitting that it is a lie, we get the second, and as we are finding out, it is not so truthful either. In addition, whether the information was marked classified is irrelevant, because Hillary was trained and responsible to mark information classified and handle it properly. She did not do so.

A lie is not saying something that later proves to be false. What makes it a lie is the deliberate intent to deceive. If Clinton did not believe the email was marked classified, what she said was not a lie. So it is your opinion she lied certainly not a fact.

Incorrect. The fact that she changed her story means she knows the first iteration is provably false. Plus, it is irrelevant because as Sec State, she was TRAINED and RESPONSIBLE to mark information classified if she saw it and handled it. That she did not do. By trying to give her this excuse, you are essentially admitting she was incompetent.

Changing your statement can always be because you discovered what you said was incorrect and want to correct it.

If you had paid a little attention, you would know that she has already admitted that she was mistaken. She's apologized and has taken full responsibly. Hillary knows that if you make a mistake, you can admit it and voters are likely to accept it knowing that everyone makes mistakes, except of course Donald Trump.

She admitted she was incompetent? Where did she do that?

If she admitted she made mistakes, why are her defenders still using the "it wasn't marked classified" excuse? If she admitted it was wrong to not mark the information classified, why are people still trying to claim she did nothing wrong? In all seriousness, there was some really highly classified stuff on her server, enough that claiming she didn't know it was supposed to be classified is really damning.

She certainly did not say she was incompetent. She said it was a mistake in reference to setting up a private uncertified server. All the problems sprang from not having a certified server.

Due to the way email systems work, all received mail along with attachments are stored on a persons email server. The user generally has no control of this. These emails can contain classified information and the user may never know it unless they read all emails and attachments they are sent. In order for Clinton to insure that no document on her server contain classified information she would have to read all emails and attachments she received , identifying classified information and deleting it. This is not a practical solution considering the amount of email she received. This is why she never should have had a private uncertified server.

I receive upward of 30 emails a day addressed to me, most are part of a chain of emails, some with attachments. I forward a few, replying to most, and not even reading some. I rarely read all emails in the chain and certainly not every attachment. So if you ask me if I sent any classified information, I would say no because the emails I created would not contain classified information. However, when forwarding, I would be forwarding the entire chain with attachments, so it would certainly be possible that the chain contained classified information. I would be sending classified information and never know it. This is a problem in not having a certified server.

Spin, spin, spin.

Now where have you seen Hillary claim that there was classified information on her server and she did not know it because she had not read it? Where did the FBI state that they thought Clinton may not have seen such classified information?

What you presented here is noting more than partisan spin trying to make a bald faced lie into something that it is not. It is crystal clear the Hillary lied through her teeth to the people and there was clearly classified information on her emails and in email chains (IOW, emails she responded to). You are throwing out pointless and unfounded conjecture by claiming that she was being 'truthful' because she may have never seen the emails.

The facts are rather clear in this specific instance - Clinton lied about the information on her server, lied that there was no information marked as classified and lied that classified information was never sent - end of story.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is pathetic how Liberals continue to shout 'The GOP found NOTHING' when time and again it is a bald-faced LIE, completely void of the TRUTH, FACTS, and EVIDENCE, as proven in the above - the testimony of FBI Director Comey, under oath.

Because in fact, the GOP found nothing actionable, they found no evidence of anything actionable, and nobody found anything worth charging her for. What part of that do you not understand?????

The part where she clearly lied, continued to lie and then doubled down on lying by clearly making statements that were 180 degrees from what Comey actually stated.

 

[FA_Q2]

Again, you can claim whatever you want but it doesn't stack up against the facts. Mr. MOST TRANSPARENT EVER is ANYTHING BUT!

Since when does a Constitutional Scholar violate 70% of ALL FOIA requests? Maybe he was sick and out of class that day when they covered this / adherance to the law...

Obama's knowledge of the constitution has nothing to do with this problem.

First off, FOIA don't go to the president they go directly to various agencies. The fact that agencies now accept electronic submissions of requested have created a mountain of requests. Obama acknowledged that while battles continue over what should and shouldn't be released, federal agencies are struggling to keep up with the requests that are streaming in.

In June Obama signed a new law to improve the sluggest response of the goverment to requests.
Obama signs FOIA reform bill

Aside from the requests for FF information that have been stonewalled (and there is no reasonable reason as to why such a thing would be stonewalled except political cover) Obama has an abysmal record in front of the SCOTUS. It is clear that no matter what constitutional 'study' or 'instruction' he may have had he has a poor understanding of the constitution.

 

[Oldstyle]

What font of impartiality do you get YOUR news from Charwin?

I read a lot of news except faux news, msnbc, never national enquirer or Breitfart.

I didn't ask you what you DIDN'T read, Charwin...I asked a very simple question! What are your sources for news?

Read my post #629.

Mostly CNN, Yahoo news, USA today, WS journal, Miami herald, San Diego tribune and sometimes NY Times ...... Occasionally huffington post.

So you probably read the Wall Street Journal to check on your investments...and get your news from liberal sources? If CNN is your "go to" TV then it's obvious which way you lean politically, Charwin! Huffington Post? Really?

Liberal source? CNN is far better than Faux news...... Occasionally h post meaning no more than 3x a month and I don't rely on it.

You don't think CNN is a liberal source? That's amusing...
Why would you use The Huffington Post once a month? For that matter why would you use it once a year? It's liberal propaganda...the flip side of Breitbart.

 

[Dragonlady]

Again, you can claim whatever you want but it doesn't stack up against the facts. Mr. MOST TRANSPARENT EVER is ANYTHING BUT!

Since when does a Constitutional Scholar violate 70% of ALL FOIA requests? Maybe he was sick and out of class that day when they covered this / adherance to the law...

Obama's knowledge of the constitution has nothing to do with this problem.

First off, FOIA don't go to the president they go directly to various agencies. The fact that agencies now accept electronic submissions of requested have created a mountain of requests. Obama acknowledged that while battles continue over what should and shouldn't be released, federal agencies are struggling to keep up with the requests that are streaming in.

In June Obama signed a new law to improve the sluggest response of the goverment to requests.
Obama signs FOIA reform bill

Aside from the requests for FF information that have been stonewalled (and there is no reasonable reason as to why such a thing would be stonewalled except political cover) Obama has an abysmal record in front of the SCOTUS. It is clear that no matter what constitutional 'study' or 'instruction' he may have had he has a poor understanding of the constitution.

Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago for 12 years. I think he has a pretty clear grasp of Constitutional Law. In fact, it has been suggested that Obama would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice because of his background and understanding of the Constitution.