FactCheck: Hillary Comes Up Short On Debate 'E-Mail' Claims

[easyt65]

1. HILLARY:
Federal Law did not prevent me from using a personal e-mail server in 2009.

FACT CHECK:
- Yes, BUT...Her own department warned its employees against the use of private email to conduct government business because it could compromise classified materials and be subject to hacking.

- Yes, BUT...Clinton herself signed a cable in 2011 sent to diplomatic and consular posts advising that State Department employees should “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.

Looks like 'Do As I SAY, Not As I DO' may come back to bite her in the ass.


2. HILLARY:
I didn’t need permission to use private email because former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did so.

FACT CHECK:
- Yes, BUT...Neither Powell nor Rice conducted all government business on personal email, and neither set up a separate, personal server for that purpose...like Hillary did.


3. HILLARY:
Nothing I sent or received was marked classified at the time.

FACT CHECK:
- Yes, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER...'the 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) she signed in her early days as secretary of state confirmed that markings don’t matter.'

- Yes, BUT...'The NDA says classified information is marked and unmarked and includes verbal communications – leaving the responsibility to her to recognize classified information and report when it is outside secure channels.'

- Yes BUT...'sworn declarations from the CIA to the intelligence community inspector general say information included in the emails from the CIA was classified when it hit the Clinton server'.

Fact Check: Clinton stretches truth with debate email claims | Fox News
-------------------

Considering now that Bryan Pagliano, the aide hired to run her server was granted immunity and is reportedly squealing louder than a stuck pig, someone should be measuring Hillary for an Orange Jump-Suit...or Obama had better make sure that pen of his is filled with ink and ready to sign that PARDON!

 

[Rocko]

I dont know, Easy, it's pretty self evident she broke the law, but will Lorreta Lynch prosecute??

I'm still not sure about this. I was confident she would, but then I heard Lynch say she's looking in to whether the government can prosecute people for being global warming deniers. Made me lose a lot of confidence in her doing the right thing.

 

[kiwiman127]

1. HILLARY:
Federal Law did not prevent me from using a personal e-mail server in 2009.

FACT CHECK:
- Yes, BUT...Her own department warned its employees against the use of private email to conduct government business because it could compromise classified materials and be subject to hacking.

- Yes, BUT...Clinton herself signed a cable in 2011 sent to diplomatic and consular posts advising that State Department employees should “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.

Looks like 'Do As I SAY, Not As I DO' may come back to bite her in the ass.


2. HILLARY:
I didn’t need permission to use private email because former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did so.

FACT CHECK:
- Yes, BUT...Neither Powell nor Rice conducted all government business on personal email, and neither set up a separate, personal server for that purpose...like Hillary did.


3. HILLARY:
Nothing I sent or received was marked classified at the time.

FACT CHECK:
- Yes, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER...'the 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) she signed in her early days as secretary of state confirmed that markings don’t matter.'

- Yes, BUT...'The NDA says classified information is marked and unmarked and includes verbal communications – leaving the responsibility to her to recognize classified information and report when it is outside secure channels.'

- Yes BUT...'sworn declarations from the CIA to the intelligence community inspector general say information included in the emails from the CIA was classified when it hit the Clinton server'.

Fact Check: Clinton stretches truth with debate email claims | Fox News
-------------------

Considering now that Bryan Pagliano, the aide hired to run her server was granted immunity and is reportedly squealing louder than a stuck pig, someone should be measuring Hillary for an Orange Jump-Suit...or Obama had better make sure that pen of his is filled with ink and ready to sign that PARDON!

Well, that doesn't surprise me one bit. Hillary and truth?
Hey, easyt, have you ever done fact checks on Trump? Obviously, truth mattes a lot to you.
I dare you and when you are done, please post the results. I know it might be hard as Trump's answer very, very rarely lack any real substance, but go at it buddy.

 

[rdean]

1. HILLARY:
Federal Law did not prevent me from using a personal e-mail server in 2009.

FACT CHECK:
- Yes, BUT...Her own department warned its employees against the use of private email to conduct government business because it could compromise classified materials and be subject to hacking.

- Yes, BUT...Clinton herself signed a cable in 2011 sent to diplomatic and consular posts advising that State Department employees should “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.

Looks like 'Do As I SAY, Not As I DO' may come back to bite her in the ass.


2. HILLARY:
I didn’t need permission to use private email because former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did so.

FACT CHECK:
- Yes, BUT...Neither Powell nor Rice conducted all government business on personal email, and neither set up a separate, personal server for that purpose...like Hillary did.


3. HILLARY:
Nothing I sent or received was marked classified at the time.

FACT CHECK:
- Yes, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER...'the 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) she signed in her early days as secretary of state confirmed that markings don’t matter.'

- Yes, BUT...'The NDA says classified information is marked and unmarked and includes verbal communications – leaving the responsibility to her to recognize classified information and report when it is outside secure channels.'

- Yes BUT...'sworn declarations from the CIA to the intelligence community inspector general say information included in the emails from the CIA was classified when it hit the Clinton server'.

Fact Check: Clinton stretches truth with debate email claims | Fox News
-------------------

Considering now that Bryan Pagliano, the aide hired to run her server was granted immunity and is reportedly squealing louder than a stuck pig, someone should be measuring Hillary for an Orange Jump-Suit...or Obama had better make sure that pen of his is filled with ink and ready to sign that PARDON!

So many buts. Buts only count if you are a buthead.

 

[easyt65]

Hey, easyt, have you ever done fact checks on Trump? Obviously, truth mattes a lot to you.
I dare you and when you are done, please post the results. I know it might be hard as Trump's answer very, very rarely lack any real substance, but go at it buddy.

Kiwiman, I agree with you - hard to fact check a lack of substance. I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to him because you can only hear 'Make America Great Again' and 'Build that Wall' so many times, but I will see what I can do.

 

[easyt65]

So many buts. Buts only count if you are a buthead.

...or if each one of those 'but's is 1 count of you getting BUSTED for NOT being completely honest / truthful...which is why the majority of the nation believes Hillary is the LEAST honest candidate in this whole race.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do dogs bark? Yes, BUT so do some species of wold

Is water wet? Yes BUT so is sweat which is not technically water.


This is fun stuff...trying to turn truth into lies by changing the subject

 

[hadit]

Hillary will not see the inside of a jail cell, that is a foregone conclusion, so the most justice we can get out of this is seeing her political career terminated.

 

[hadit]

Do dogs bark? Yes, BUT so do some species of wold

Is water wet? Yes BUT so is sweat which is not technically water.


This is fun stuff...trying to turn truth into lies by changing the subject

The Clintons are both grand masters at manipulating the truth and using verbal gymnastics to make a lie sound plausible. What you have to watch for is when their narratives change in response to being shown as false. The rubes of course just nod along and act like the story never changes.

 

[easyt65]

Do dogs bark? Yes, BUT so do some species of wold...Is water wet? Yes BUT so is sweat which is not technically water.This is fun stuff...trying to turn truth into lies by changing the subject

Nice try, 'Saul Alynski Jr', but FactCheck clearly points out all the claims Hillary has and continues to make mean NOTHING, do NOT show she did nothing wrong, and is filled with half-truths and deceit...much like Bill Clinton's testimony during his Sexual Harassment law suit which resulted in him being found in Contempt of Court and being DISBARRED...and Impeached!

 

[JoeMoma]

Do dogs bark? Yes, BUT so do some species of wold

Is water wet? Yes BUT so is sweat which is not technically water.


This is fun stuff...trying to turn truth into lies by changing the subject

The Clintons are both grand masters at manipulating the truth and using verbal gymnastics to make a lie sound plausible. What you have to watch for is when their narratives change in response to being shown as false. The rubes of course just nod along and act like the story never changes.

Yes. "Marked" classified opposed to simply classified is one of the latest examples.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do dogs bark? Yes, BUT so do some species of wold

Is water wet? Yes BUT so is sweat which is not technically water.


This is fun stuff...trying to turn truth into lies by changing the subject

The Clintons are both grand masters at manipulating the truth and using verbal gymnastics to make a lie sound plausible. What you have to watch for is when their narratives change in response to being shown as false. The rubes of course just nod along and act like the story never changes.

So when the OP changed narratives after being shown the truth what do you call that? And do you blame the Clintons for that also?

 

[Siete]

I dont know, Easy, it's pretty self evident she broke the law, but will Lorreta Lynch prosecute??

I'm still not sure about this. I was confident she would, but then I heard Lynch say she's looking in to whether the government can prosecute people for being global warming deniers. Made me lose a lot of confidence in her doing the right thing.

laws regarding electronic documents were NOT passed until 2014, Clinton was no longer SoS. Nothing to prosecute.

pay attention ...

Nov. 14, 2014: President Obama signs an update of the 1950 Presidential and Federal Records Act. The law expanded the definition of “federal records” to specifically include electronic communications. The law also clarified the responsibilities of federal government officials when they use nongovernment email systems, which includes copying an official record or forwarding a complete copy of the e-mail within 20 days of transmission.

December 2014: In response to a request from the State Department, Clinton provides 50,000 pages of printed e-mails. The Department provides 900 pages related to Benghazi to the House committee in February.

March 4, 2015: Clinton tweets: “I want the public to see my email. I have asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

 

[rdean]

So many buts. Buts only count if you are a buthead.

...or if each one of those 'but's is 1 count of you getting BUSTED for NOT being completely honest / truthful...which is why the majority of the nation believes Hillary is the LEAST honest candidate in this whole race.

I'm sure being continuously attacked by the Republicans since the 70's had nothing to do with it.

 

[hadit]

Do dogs bark? Yes, BUT so do some species of wold

Is water wet? Yes BUT so is sweat which is not technically water.


This is fun stuff...trying to turn truth into lies by changing the subject

The Clintons are both grand masters at manipulating the truth and using verbal gymnastics to make a lie sound plausible. What you have to watch for is when their narratives change in response to being shown as false. The rubes of course just nod along and act like the story never changes.

So when the OP changed narratives after being shown the truth what do you call that? And do you blame the Clintons for that also?

I am not the OP, nor is the OP running for president. Hillary, OTOH, is, and I am noting her and her husband's proclivity for dishonesty.

 

[hadit]

So many buts. Buts only count if you are a buthead.

...or if each one of those 'but's is 1 count of you getting BUSTED for NOT being completely honest / truthful...which is why the majority of the nation believes Hillary is the LEAST honest candidate in this whole race.

I'm sure being continuously attacked by the Republicans since the 70's had nothing to do with it.

Not a whole lot, no. Things like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", and "I had no classified information on my server", OTOH, do.