Hillary Camp Ridiculously Attacking Trump On Dishonesty Through Media Surrogates

[mudwhistle]

Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt and dishonest politician in history,

Hillary Clinton- 1/10 as corrupt and dishonest as Donald Trump.

Faint praise indeed- but yeah- Trump is 10 times as much of a liar as Clinton.

Trump lies as easily as he breathes.

But Trump is not a politician so he gets a free pass.

I've discovered that the media is dishonest,.

I've discovered that mudwhistle is dishonest.

I am pretty sure we have all discovered that mudwhistle is dishonest.

And you are repetious.

 

[mudwhistle]

He is the most dishonest person that has ever walked on the face of this Earth in our time..... but I don't know if he puts out a lie a minute as an act or part of his SHOWmanship, or he is just a plain flat out chronic liar and the man of perdition?

Yeah. He's a big fat fibber.....only cuz hILLARY treats the truth like a Vampire treats the Sun.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If she herself is a lying sack of bones, SOB for short, what makes her think that she will score more votes should the world find out that Trump lies too?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Nobody for president!

 

[Camp]

If she herself is a lying sack of bones, SOB for short, what makes her think that she will score more votes should the world find out that Trump lies too?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Nobody for president!

The world already knows Trump is the most dishonest person to ever be a Presidential candidate. They know he is a pathological liar already.

 

[2aguy]

Trump is a serial liar. That much is known and largely admitted to by his enablers. Except they call it "hyperbole".

hilary's lies got people killed.....

 

[2aguy]

If she herself is a lying sack of bones, SOB for short, what makes her think that she will score more votes should the world find out that Trump lies too?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Nobody for president!

The world already knows Trump is the most dishonest person to ever be a Presidential candidate. They know he is a pathological liar already.

Sorry....you can't say that when hilary is also running for President......she is an Olympic class liar, it is simply part of her DNA......

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

About what?

 

[alang1216]

I've discovered that the media is dishonest, and that they often twist his words and dream up contortions in context to cast aspersions on Trump's statements, even when they aren't his statements in the first place.

Is that just the liberal media or do conservatives do the same to Hillary? So how do you discover the truth?

 

[alang1216]

Me: some Trump quotes you can verity:

When Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?" Trump responded, "I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today. He's probably very interested in what you and I am saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form." -- interview, November, 2013

Stephanopoulos: "Let's talk about Russia. You made a lot of headlines with Russia this week. What exactly is your relationship with Vladimir Putin?"
Trump: "I have no relationship to -- with him. I have no relationship with him." -- from the Trump-Stephanopoulos interview, which aired on ABC’s This Week on July 31.

One of those statements must be a lie.

One quote involved a Clinton staffer and the other is from a democrat propaganda institution so I'm sure there was sufficient context.

So if Hillary is criticized by Fox News or some right-wing radio host I'd you'd advise me to ignore it because we are not on the same political side?

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

About what?

You stated "One quote involved a Clinton staffer and the other is from a democrat propaganda institution so I'm sure there was sufficient context". Did you just pull this statement out of your butt or did you "vet the substance"? In other words, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Me: some Trump quotes you can verity:

When Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?" Trump responded, "I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today. He's probably very interested in what you and I am saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form." -- interview, November, 2013

Stephanopoulos: "Let's talk about Russia. You made a lot of headlines with Russia this week. What exactly is your relationship with Vladimir Putin?"
Trump: "I have no relationship to -- with him. I have no relationship with him." -- from the Trump-Stephanopoulos interview, which aired on ABC’s This Week on July 31.

One of those statements must be a lie.

One quote involved a Clinton staffer and the other is from a democrat propaganda institution so I'm sure there was sufficient context.

So if Hillary is criticized by Fox News or some right-wing radio host I'd you'd advise me to ignore it because we are not on the same political side?

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

About what?

You stated "One quote involved a Clinton staffer and the other is from a democrat propaganda institution so I'm sure there was sufficient context". Did you just pull this statement out of your butt or did you "vet the substance"? In other words, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

A Clinton staffer and a democrat propaganda organization deserve no further vetting. Do you really believe Mike Savage is a centered, objective journalist or do you think that would need to be vetted?

 

[alang1216]

Me: some Trump quotes you can verity:

When Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?" Trump responded, "I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today. He's probably very interested in what you and I am saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form." -- interview, November, 2013

Stephanopoulos: "Let's talk about Russia. You made a lot of headlines with Russia this week. What exactly is your relationship with Vladimir Putin?"
Trump: "I have no relationship to -- with him. I have no relationship with him." -- from the Trump-Stephanopoulos interview, which aired on ABC’s This Week on July 31.

One of those statements must be a lie.

One quote involved a Clinton staffer and the other is from a democrat propaganda institution so I'm sure there was sufficient context.

So if Hillary is criticized by Fox News or some right-wing radio host I'd you'd advise me to ignore it because we are not on the same political side?

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

About what?

You stated "One quote involved a Clinton staffer and the other is from a democrat propaganda institution so I'm sure there was sufficient context". Did you just pull this statement out of your butt or did you "vet the substance"? In other words, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

A Clinton staffer and a democrat propaganda organization deserve no further vetting. Do you really believe Mike Savage is a centered, objective journalist or do you think that would need to be vetted?

Savage doesn't claim to be a journalist so you believe NOTHING he says is true?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Me: some Trump quotes you can verity:

When Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?" Trump responded, "I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today. He's probably very interested in what you and I am saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form." -- interview, November, 2013

Stephanopoulos: "Let's talk about Russia. You made a lot of headlines with Russia this week. What exactly is your relationship with Vladimir Putin?"
Trump: "I have no relationship to -- with him. I have no relationship with him." -- from the Trump-Stephanopoulos interview, which aired on ABC’s This Week on July 31.

One of those statements must be a lie.

One quote involved a Clinton staffer and the other is from a democrat propaganda institution so I'm sure there was sufficient context.

So if Hillary is criticized by Fox News or some right-wing radio host I'd you'd advise me to ignore it because we are not on the same political side?

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

About what?

You stated "One quote involved a Clinton staffer and the other is from a democrat propaganda institution so I'm sure there was sufficient context". Did you just pull this statement out of your butt or did you "vet the substance"? In other words, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

A Clinton staffer and a democrat propaganda organization deserve no further vetting. Do you really believe Mike Savage is a centered, objective journalist or do you think that would need to be vetted?

Savage doesn't claim to be a journalist so you believe NOTHING he says is true?

Credit to Savage for his admission.
But the others DO claim to be journalists.

 

[alang1216]

Me: some Trump quotes you can verity:

When Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?" Trump responded, "I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today. He's probably very interested in what you and I am saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form." -- interview, November, 2013

Stephanopoulos: "Let's talk about Russia. You made a lot of headlines with Russia this week. What exactly is your relationship with Vladimir Putin?"
Trump: "I have no relationship to -- with him. I have no relationship with him." -- from the Trump-Stephanopoulos interview, which aired on ABC’s This Week on July 31.

One of those statements must be a lie.

So if Hillary is criticized by Fox News or some right-wing radio host I'd you'd advise me to ignore it because we are not on the same political side?

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

I would suggest that you vet the substance.

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

Good advice so I assume that is what you did. What did you find?

About what?

You stated "One quote involved a Clinton staffer and the other is from a democrat propaganda institution so I'm sure there was sufficient context". Did you just pull this statement out of your butt or did you "vet the substance"? In other words, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

A Clinton staffer and a democrat propaganda organization deserve no further vetting. Do you really believe Mike Savage is a centered, objective journalist or do you think that would need to be vetted?

Savage doesn't claim to be a journalist so you believe NOTHING he says is true?

Credit to Savage for his admission.
But the others DO claim to be journalists.

So both are guilty by association. Is there anyone you would consider to be a journalist?