Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes it is astounding and disheartening that millions of Americans likely believe this foolishness.Damn Flopper were you trying to be funny with this post, or are you just stupid?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.
I am still astounded....
Yes it is astounding and disheartening that millions of Americans likely believe this foolishness.Damn Flopper were you trying to be funny with this post, or are you just stupid?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.
I am still astounded....
Is it any wonder our nation is descending into a hellish socialist PC mess?
Big government LOVES the ignorant and easily duped.
40 smiley face thread
You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.Damn Flopper were you trying to be funny with this post, or are you just stupid?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.
I am still astounded....
You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.Damn Flopper were you trying to be funny with this post, or are you just stupid?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.
I am still astounded....
Let's see how many times I have to post this before I kill this bullshit?
The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.Damn Flopper were you trying to be funny with this post, or are you just stupid?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.
I am still astounded....
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.Damn Flopper were you trying to be funny with this post, or are you just stupid?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.
I am still astounded....
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
Question: "DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE? TO THE FBI?"
Comey: "WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI."
Question: "DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: "THAT'S A QUESTION, I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER."
Comey was ask two more times about Clinton lying. Comey replied, "I HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SHE WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH US."
FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org
You pulled quotes out of context and you paraphrased quotes to illustrate your point. When you look at the complete quotes in context, they tell a very different story. And this is exactly what is happening with almost all the shocking Clinton lies.The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.Damn Flopper were you trying to be funny with this post, or are you just stupid?
I am still astounded....
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
Question: "DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE? TO THE FBI?"
Comey: "WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI."
Question: "DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: "THAT'S A QUESTION, I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER."
Comey was ask two more times about Clinton lying. Comey replied, "I HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SHE WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH US."
FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org
Then there is this testimony to Congress by Director Comey.
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered,
“She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
She lied!
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State,
Comey said that was not true.
She lied!
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."
She lied!
“Is it your statement, then, before this committee that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she did?” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) asked as the hearing extended to its third hour.
“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that's the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”
Read more: 15 most revealing moments from Comey's testimony on Clinton emails
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
X 42 funny a new board record ??The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.Damn Flopper were you trying to be funny with this post, or are you just stupid?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.
I am still astounded....
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
Question: "DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE? TO THE FBI?"
Comey: "WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI."
Question: "DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: "THAT'S A QUESTION, I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER."
Comey was ask two more times about Clinton lying. Comey replied, "I HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SHE WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH US."
FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org
Maybe the reply was meant for someone else, if so I'm sorry.The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.Damn Flopper were you trying to be funny with this post, or are you just stupid?
I am still astounded....
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
Question: "DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE? TO THE FBI?"
Comey: "WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI."
Question: "DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: "THAT'S A QUESTION, I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER."
Comey was ask two more times about Clinton lying. Comey replied, "I HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SHE WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH US."
FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org
I don't ever recall bringing this up. Are you making stuff up to argue against.
Her server was a bad call. Did she lie...don't know. Did she take responsibility...not at all...until later and then only maybe.
You pulled quotes out of context and you paraphrased quotes to illustrate your point. When you look at the complete quotes in context, they tell a very different story. And this is exactly what is happening with almost all the shocking Clinton lies.The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.I am still astounded....
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
Question: "DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE? TO THE FBI?"
Comey: "WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI."
Question: "DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: "THAT'S A QUESTION, I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER."
Comey was ask two more times about Clinton lying. Comey replied, "I HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SHE WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH US."
FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org
Then there is this testimony to Congress by Director Comey.
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered,
“She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
She lied!
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State,
Comey said that was not true.
She lied!
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."
She lied!
“Is it your statement, then, before this committee that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she did?” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) asked as the hearing extended to its third hour.
“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that's the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”
Read more: 15 most revealing moments from Comey's testimony on Clinton emails
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device."
So, did Clinton lie about using only one device? No.
- Gowdy stated that “Secretary Clinton used one device.” In fact, Clinton never claimed to have used only one device during her tenure. The “one device” claim derives from Clinton’s explanation that she wanted to use a personal account so that she would be able to carry only one device at a time for both personal and work emails -- not from a claim that she only ever used one device.
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State,
Did Clinton lie in stating her understanding that all relevant emails had been delivered? No.
- Gowdy notes that Secretary Clinton stated that all work related emails were turned over to the State Department. Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi Committee explained that she had instructed her lawyers to turn over “anything that could possibly be construed as work related.” She explained to Gowdy that “there was an exhaustive search done under the supervision of my attorneys.” She explained to Congressman Jordan that her attorneys had used search terms and data parameters, but that she “did not look over their shoulders, because I thought that it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.” As Director Comey noted in his statement on July 5, “we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."
So did Clinton lie? No, it was Gowdy who lied.
- Gowdy claimed that “Secretary Clinton said that her lawyers read every one of the emails”. It was Gowdy who lied, not Clinton. Near the end of the marathon 11 hour Benghazi Committee hearing, Congressman Jordan pressed Clinton for details about the nature of the search performed by her attorneys. Jordan wanted Clinton to “answer today, what were the search terms?” Secretary Clinton’s responded, “the search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.” When Jordan continued to press for details about search terms and date parameters, Clinton responded, “Well, Congressman, I asked my attorneys to oversee the process. I did not look over their shoulder. I did not dictate how they would do it. I did not ask what they were doing and how they made their determinations.” It is clear from this context that Secretary Clinton did not oversee the examination of emails by her attorneys, and her statement that “they went through every single e-mail” was not a claim that they had “read every one of the emails”, because she made it clear that she was not in a position to know that. Rather, it meant that she understood that they were thorough in their review. After all, if they had read the entire text of all emails, why would there have been a need to use search terms?
The fact is all of your claims are false.
Daily Kos: Personal Hot List for Eyesbright
Maybe the reply was meant for someone else, if so I'm sorry.The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.I am still astounded....
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
Question: "DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE? TO THE FBI?"
Comey: "WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI."
Question: "DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: "THAT'S A QUESTION, I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER."
Comey was ask two more times about Clinton lying. Comey replied, "I HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SHE WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH US."
FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org
I don't ever recall bringing this up. Are you making stuff up to argue against.
Her server was a bad call. Did she lie...don't know. Did she take responsibility...not at all...until later and then only maybe.
Yes, her server was a bad call and she said it was a mistake and she did take full responsibility.
Since I started this thread and actually started researching the claims of Clinton "lies", I've been amazed at how many of these claims are false.
Clinton has a lot of people that hate her guts and take everything she says apart, paraphrasing, pulling quotes out of context, and misquoting in order to discredit her.
You pulled quotes out of context and you paraphrased quotes to illustrate your point. When you look at the complete quotes in context, they tell a very different story. And this is exactly what is happening with almost all the shocking Clinton lies.The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
Question: "DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE? TO THE FBI?"
Comey: "WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI."
Question: "DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: "THAT'S A QUESTION, I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER."
Comey was ask two more times about Clinton lying. Comey replied, "I HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SHE WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH US."
FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org
Then there is this testimony to Congress by Director Comey.
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered,
“She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
She lied!
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State,
Comey said that was not true.
She lied!
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."
She lied!
“Is it your statement, then, before this committee that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she did?” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) asked as the hearing extended to its third hour.
“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that's the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”
Read more: 15 most revealing moments from Comey's testimony on Clinton emails
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device."
So, did Clinton lie about using only one device? No.
- Gowdy stated that “Secretary Clinton used one device.” In fact, Clinton never claimed to have used only one device during her tenure. The “one device” claim derives from Clinton’s explanation that she wanted to use a personal account so that she would be able to carry only one device at a time for both personal and work emails -- not from a claim that she only ever used one device.
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State,
Did Clinton lie in stating her understanding that all relevant emails had been delivered? No.
- Gowdy notes that Secretary Clinton stated that all work related emails were turned over to the State Department. Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi Committee explained that she had instructed her lawyers to turn over “anything that could possibly be construed as work related.” She explained to Gowdy that “there was an exhaustive search done under the supervision of my attorneys.” She explained to Congressman Jordan that her attorneys had used search terms and data parameters, but that she “did not look over their shoulders, because I thought that it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.” As Director Comey noted in his statement on July 5, “we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."
So did Clinton lie? No, it was Gowdy who lied.
- Gowdy claimed that “Secretary Clinton said that her lawyers read every one of the emails”. It was Gowdy who lied, not Clinton. Near the end of the marathon 11 hour Benghazi Committee hearing, Congressman Jordan pressed Clinton for details about the nature of the search performed by her attorneys. Jordan wanted Clinton to “answer today, what were the search terms?” Secretary Clinton’s responded, “the search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.” When Jordan continued to press for details about search terms and date parameters, Clinton responded, “Well, Congressman, I asked my attorneys to oversee the process. I did not look over their shoulder. I did not dictate how they would do it. I did not ask what they were doing and how they made their determinations.” It is clear from this context that Secretary Clinton did not oversee the examination of emails by her attorneys, and her statement that “they went through every single e-mail” was not a claim that they had “read every one of the emails”, because she made it clear that she was not in a position to know that. Rather, it meant that she understood that they were thorough in their review. After all, if they had read the entire text of all emails, why would there have been a need to use search terms?
The fact is all of your claims are false.
Daily Kos: Personal Hot List for Eyesbright
Hillary has never been a model of transparency.
That is really all it boils down to.
The claim she is honest can't be verified because it is quite clear she manages what she calls the truth.
You pulled quotes out of context and you paraphrased quotes to illustrate your point. When you look at the complete quotes in context, they tell a very different story. And this is exactly what is happening with almost all the shocking Clinton lies.The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.You should only be astonished if you accept propaganda without question. I suppose like many people, if you hear a lie told often enough you accept it. In this thread and elsewhere you will read that the FBI Director said Clinton lied repeated. That simply is not true. You will not find a word of testimony by Comey saying Clinton lied. In fact in his testimony before congress, he repeated himself 3 times saying there was reason to believe she lied. Yet the opposition continues repeating the same lie over and over.I am still astounded....
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
Question: "DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE? TO THE FBI?"
Comey: "WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI."
Question: "DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: "THAT'S A QUESTION, I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER."
Comey was ask two more times about Clinton lying. Comey replied, "I HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SHE WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH US."
FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org
Then there is this testimony to Congress by Director Comey.
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered,
“She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
She lied!
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State,
Comey said that was not true.
She lied!
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."
She lied!
“Is it your statement, then, before this committee that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she did?” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) asked as the hearing extended to its third hour.
“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that's the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”
Read more: 15 most revealing moments from Comey's testimony on Clinton emails
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device."
So, did Clinton lie about using only one device? No.
- Gowdy stated that “Secretary Clinton used one device.” In fact, Clinton never claimed to have used only one device during her tenure. The “one device” claim derives from Clinton’s explanation that she wanted to use a personal account so that she would be able to carry only one device at a time for both personal and work emails -- not from a claim that she only ever used one device.
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State,
Did Clinton lie in stating her understanding that all relevant emails had been delivered? No.
- Gowdy notes that Secretary Clinton stated that all work related emails were turned over to the State Department. Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi Committee explained that she had instructed her lawyers to turn over “anything that could possibly be construed as work related.” She explained to Gowdy that “there was an exhaustive search done under the supervision of my attorneys.” She explained to Congressman Jordan that her attorneys had used search terms and data parameters, but that she “did not look over their shoulders, because I thought that it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.” As Director Comey noted in his statement on July 5, “we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."
So did Clinton lie? No, it was Gowdy who lied.
- Gowdy claimed that “Secretary Clinton said that her lawyers read every one of the emails”. It was Gowdy who lied, not Clinton. Near the end of the marathon 11 hour Benghazi Committee hearing, Congressman Jordan pressed Clinton for details about the nature of the search performed by her attorneys. Jordan wanted Clinton to “answer today, what were the search terms?” Secretary Clinton’s responded, “the search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.” When Jordan continued to press for details about search terms and date parameters, Clinton responded, “Well, Congressman, I asked my attorneys to oversee the process. I did not look over their shoulder. I did not dictate how they would do it. I did not ask what they were doing and how they made their determinations.” It is clear from this context that Secretary Clinton did not oversee the examination of emails by her attorneys, and her statement that “they went through every single e-mail” was not a claim that they had “read every one of the emails”, because she made it clear that she was not in a position to know that. Rather, it meant that she understood that they were thorough in their review. After all, if they had read the entire text of all emails, why would there have been a need to use search terms?
The fact is all of your claims are false.
Daily Kos: Personal Hot List for Eyesbright
You pulled quotes out of context and you paraphrased quotes to illustrate your point. When you look at the complete quotes in context, they tell a very different story. And this is exactly what is happening with almost all the shocking Clinton lies.The accusation was that she lied to the FBI, which is not supported by evidence.I have no idea what you are talking about.
I've watched her for decades.
Starting with her "vast right wing conspiracy" crap & walking off with WH property.
Being elected a senator from the state of New York...what a joke.
Question: "DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE? TO THE FBI?"
Comey: "WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI."
Question: "DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: "THAT'S A QUESTION, I'M QUALIFIED TO ANSWER."
Comey was ask two more times about Clinton lying. Comey replied, "I HAVE NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT SHE WAS UNTRUTHFUL WITH US."
FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org
Then there is this testimony to Congress by Director Comey.
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered,
“She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
She lied!
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State,
Comey said that was not true.
She lied!
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."
She lied!
“Is it your statement, then, before this committee that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified material and yet she did?” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) asked as the hearing extended to its third hour.
“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that's the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”
Read more: 15 most revealing moments from Comey's testimony on Clinton emails
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device."
So, did Clinton lie about using only one device? No.
- Gowdy stated that “Secretary Clinton used one device.” In fact, Clinton never claimed to have used only one device during her tenure. The “one device” claim derives from Clinton’s explanation that she wanted to use a personal account so that she would be able to carry only one device at a time for both personal and work emails -- not from a claim that she only ever used one device.
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State,
Did Clinton lie in stating her understanding that all relevant emails had been delivered? No.
- Gowdy notes that Secretary Clinton stated that all work related emails were turned over to the State Department. Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi Committee explained that she had instructed her lawyers to turn over “anything that could possibly be construed as work related.” She explained to Gowdy that “there was an exhaustive search done under the supervision of my attorneys.” She explained to Congressman Jordan that her attorneys had used search terms and data parameters, but that she “did not look over their shoulders, because I thought that it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.” As Director Comey noted in his statement on July 5, “we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.”
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."
So did Clinton lie? No, it was Gowdy who lied.
- Gowdy claimed that “Secretary Clinton said that her lawyers read every one of the emails”. It was Gowdy who lied, not Clinton. Near the end of the marathon 11 hour Benghazi Committee hearing, Congressman Jordan pressed Clinton for details about the nature of the search performed by her attorneys. Jordan wanted Clinton to “answer today, what were the search terms?” Secretary Clinton’s responded, “the search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.” When Jordan continued to press for details about search terms and date parameters, Clinton responded, “Well, Congressman, I asked my attorneys to oversee the process. I did not look over their shoulder. I did not dictate how they would do it. I did not ask what they were doing and how they made their determinations.” It is clear from this context that Secretary Clinton did not oversee the examination of emails by her attorneys, and her statement that “they went through every single e-mail” was not a claim that they had “read every one of the emails”, because she made it clear that she was not in a position to know that. Rather, it meant that she understood that they were thorough in their review. After all, if they had read the entire text of all emails, why would there have been a need to use search terms?
The fact is all of your claims are false.
Daily Kos: Personal Hot List for Eyesbright
Hillary has never been a model of transparency.
That is really all it boils down to.
The claim she is honest can't be verified because it is quite clear she manages what she calls the truth.
Hillary income tax returns are well posted .................... That's transparency.......
On the other hand Trump. Will not release any of his tax returns........... Give us a fucking break.
