Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
30 years of GOP witch hunts and smears. Not a single charge. Not a single conviction.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.
[]
Let me give YOU a clue, Grump! This is the classic Clinton response to getting caught doing something bad. First of all they declare their complete innocence and blame others for a partisan "witch hunt". Step two is to hamstring any investigation by destroying or withholding any evidence of wrong doing. Step three is to stonewall for as long as possible hoping that something else will come along to attract attention away from what they have done. Step four is to declare that what took place happened long ago and is thus "old news" not worth even looking into. Then for good measure they'll throw in a deep concern about how much the investigations (which they stonewalled) have cost the American people!
You trust the Clinton's? I don't think you trust them at all, Doc! I think you know as well as Jillian does that they both lie habitually and do it without batting an eye. You're just willing to hold your nose to vote for her because it's your only choice after the Clinton's and Debbie Wasserman Schultz subverted the democratic process in the Democratic primaries.
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you say stuff like this? We know for a fact that Hitlery Clinton broke the law with her private e-mail server (and then she wiped the server to destroy evidence). I could go on with dozens of other examples just like this. She doesn't get "charged" or "convicted" because hubby is the former president of the united states with unlimited power, she's a former senator with significant power, and she's a former secretary of state with significant power. All of that means that in the eyes of libtards and Dumbocrats - she is above the law.30 years of GOP witch hunts and smears. Not a single charge. Not a single conviction. Trump on the other hand.
Trump golf resort ordered to pay $300,000 in attorney fees
Trump Accused of Routinely Stiffing His Own Employees
Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee
I think Republicans like be stiffed by Donald Trump. It feels so good going in, not so good coming out.
Hillary lied."Hillary - One of the Most Honest Politictians in Washington Today"
...was just awarded 1 x 'FALSE', 1 x 'PANTS ON FIRE', & 4 x 'PINOCCHIOS' for REPEATEDLY lying about her LIES.
That's like saying Obama has run the most transparent administration ever ALTHOUGH he has illegally failed to comply with 70% of ALL FOIA requests!
you know, i wouldn't call her one of the most honest. but she's certainly no worse than average in truth telling by politicians.
now dumb donald?
HE is a compulsive liar.
and apparently mentally unhinged.
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.
In hindsight, Flopper, how does it feel knowing you posted one of the most embarrassing threads ever in USMB (that I've seen personally)? What were you thinking?
[]
Let me give YOU a clue, Grump! This is the classic Clinton response to getting caught doing something bad. First of all they declare their complete innocence and blame others for a partisan "witch hunt". Step two is to hamstring any investigation by destroying or withholding any evidence of wrong doing. Step three is to stonewall for as long as possible hoping that something else will come along to attract attention away from what they have done. Step four is to declare that what took place happened long ago and is thus "old news" not worth even looking into. Then for good measure they'll throw in a deep concern about how much the investigations (which they stonewalled) have cost the American people!
You trust the Clinton's? I don't think you trust them at all, Doc! I think you know as well as Jillian does that they both lie habitually and do it without batting an eye. You're just willing to hold your nose to vote for her because it's your only choice after the Clinton's and Debbie Wasserman Schultz subverted the democratic process in the Democratic primaries.
Er no. He asked for an investigation. Nada.
The rest is laughable. The Clintons have been investigated from sunrise to sunset for the past 25 years. Nada. Either they have a few thousand people involved in cover ups (do you know how hard it would be to even keep half a dozen people on song, let alone thousands), or else you right wing loons are full of shit. I know which way my nose is sniffing...
CNN is more reliable than faux news. I dont really go into H. Post except only when I read yahoo or Miami, San Diego news then once in a while the source is H post........ There are some interesting topic like Hugh Hefner mansion for sale bought by neighbor................ But I don't really go in and read H. Post.
Actually...CNN is more reliably liberal than Fox News.
Here's a hint for ya', Charwin...if the news source you're reading uses The Huffington Post as a source...then they're a pretty shitty news organization! Know what I'm saying?
Do you read yahoo news? ....... Let me repeat it for you...... I don't really read H. Post as a source for my political views or other subject....... Here is a sample of yahoo news this afternoon.
See under Clinton... Business Insider as source...... H. Post once in a while comes up but that depends on the subject if I want to read like Hugh Hefner.
You're one of those "high information" liberal voters...right, Charwin? All the things going on in the world...but YOU want to read about Hugh Hefner? Dude, I hate to break this to you but Hef hasn't been in the mix in about ten years! Just saying...
Dude I have lots of lots of interest.....
And who are you again to dictate what I want to read?
I also read these......
Dude, I'm not the one that told you to read about Hugh Hefner...that was YOUR choice! Dictate what you read? Hardly. I will however, LAUGH at you choices!
It would seem that informed people vehemently disagree with you Flop. Her own damn party - which knows the real Hitlery best - can't even bring themselves to choke on the words that they "trust" Hitlery.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.
Which is why the head of FBI said she was extremely careless. That is certainly not something I want in the White House.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.She admitted she was incompetent? Where did she do that?Changing your statement can always be because you discovered what you said was incorrect and want to correct it.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.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."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.
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.
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.
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.
Lack of harm has never been criteria that excuses negligence when it comes to national security. ONLY when Hillary is extremely careless is it okay.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.She admitted she was incompetent? Where did she do that?Changing your statement can always be because you discovered what you said was incorrect and want to correct it.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
It is disgusting watching people literally excusing extreme carelessness when it comes to national security.Spin, spin, spin.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.She admitted she was incompetent? Where did she do that?Changing your statement can always be because you discovered what you said was incorrect and want to correct it.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
