While We're Speaking of Lies............

hm1996

Moderator
Staff member

There's only ONE liar in chief!

Quote:Clinton fact-checked on 'truthful' claim in email scandal

Published August 01, 2016
· FoxNews.com

Now Playing @ link below:
Clinton fact-checked on 'truthful' claim in email scandal

Hillary Clinton is getting hammered for saying on “Fox News Sunday” that FBI Director James Comey confirmed her statements on her email scandal were “truthful” – with one prominent fact-checker giving the claim four “Pinocchios.”








The former secretary of state cited Comey when asked to account for her repeated claims that she never sent or received material marked classified on her personal email account. When host Chris Wallace noted that Comey said those things were not true, Clinton disagreed.

“That's not what I heard Director Comey say … Director Comey said that my answers were truthful and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails,” she said.

The Washington Post Fact Checker picked apart that statement, ultimately giving it four “Pinocchios,” its worst rating for truthfulness.

“Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation,” the Post wrote, noting that she was relying on Comey’s statement to Congress: “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”


Comey was referring to Clinton's statements to the FBI when he said it did not appear that she "lied." (Associated Press)


However, the FBI director did not say the same about her statements to the American public. And during testimony before a House committee, Comey said it was “not true” that nothing Clinton sent or received was marked classified. To the contrary, he said, “there was classified material emailed.”

The Post concluded: “While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.

“And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.”

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., also called out Clinton on Twitter for the claims.

The campaign has stressed, with regard to the emails apparently marked classified, that Comey acknowledged during the hearing in question the markings themselves were not properly marked. The State Department also has suggested those markings shouldn’t have been there.

Comey, though, also challenged other statements by Clinton during his testimony. On her claim that she used one device, Comey said, “She used multiple devices.” And on her claim that she turned over all work-related emails, he said, “No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned."

Clinton, meanwhile, acknowledged again on “Fox News Sunday” that she made a “mistake,” while appearing to spread the blame around.

“I take classification seriously. I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked. And so, in retrospect, maybe some people are saying, ‘Well, … among those 300 people, they made the wrong call,’” Clinton said. “At the time, there was no reason, in my view, to doubt the professionalism and the determination by the people who work every single day on behalf of our country.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/...il-scandal.html

Regards,
hm
 
omg hillary lied? you dont say!



thats SUCH a stretch of the imagination.....
ohmy.gif



[edit] do you know the easy way to know if hillary is lying when she's not under oath? her lips are moving...
 
Last edited:
Quote:Clinton fact-checked on 'truthful' claim in email scandal



Hillary fact checked on truthful in 2 simple steps...


1.) Was she communicating... Mouth open and talking, texting, e-mailing, signing, or otherwise communicating.

2.) She was lying!


Simple test!!
 
Originally Posted By: Rocky1Quote:Clinton fact-checked on 'truthful' claim in email scandal



Hillary fact checked on truthful in 2 simple steps...


1.) Was she communicating... Mouth open and talking, texting, e-mailing, signing, or otherwise communicating.

2.) She was lying!


Simple test!!


Thank you, you've hit a nail on the head.

The reason wingers have such a hard time differentiating fact from rhetorical lines and facts is because in their belief system once a person has lied they lie about everything. Even Trump gets a fact straight every once in awhile. You figure everything that comes out is a lie, you are classifying true statements as lies which means that you are going to readily believe the lie the opposition tells. The concept and belief that everything any given person says is a lie is moronic, because that attitude means you are going to have a harder time believing facts because you have chosen not to believe that person.

Don't let your beliefs that everything Clinton says is a lie color your perception into believing the GOP.

Part of the decision not to prosecute over classified information has to do with what the nature of the classified stuff was. There are countless numbers of harmless information that is unnecessarily classified or classified for no reason as in misclassified, which has been what this was said to
be.

Had she mishandled any information vital to the security of this country she would have been prosecuted, period. Information that has crucial impact on security is not scanned and passed around by email, it has different hard copy protocols and it is illegal to scan or make copies of such. For your eyes only security you do not get emails.
 
They just mentioned it ""AGAIN"", some of those e-mails were "TOP SECRET"! There is a reason they are marked top secret and no way no how should be on a private server, I highly doubt those top secret ones were misclassified.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: woodguruHad she mishandled any information vital to the security of this country she would have been prosecuted, period.

welfare woody made a funny.
lol.gif
lol.gif
 
I think it has been so long since she spoke truth that she wouldn't know a truth if she fell over one. I think she is to the point that she can not tell what is real anymore.
If a person looks over their shoulder long enough they finally lose sight of reality.
I think the woman is sick.
 
Originally Posted By: woodguruOriginally Posted By: Rocky1Quote:Clinton fact-checked on 'truthful' claim in email scandal



Hillary fact checked on truthful in 2 simple steps...


1.) Was she communicating... Mouth open and talking, texting, e-mailing, signing, or otherwise communicating.

2.) She was lying!


Simple test!!


Thank you, you've hit a nail on the head.

The reason wingers have such a hard time differentiating fact from rhetorical lines and facts is because in their belief system once a person has lied they lie about everything. Even Trump gets a fact straight every once in awhile. You figure everything that comes out is a lie, you are classifying true statements as lies which means that you are going to readily believe the lie the opposition tells. The concept and belief that everything any given person says is a lie is moronic, because that attitude means you are going to have a harder time believing facts because you have chosen not to believe that person.

Don't let your beliefs that everything Clinton says is a lie color your perception into believing the GOP.

Part of the decision not to prosecute over classified information has to do with what the nature of the classified stuff was. There are countless numbers of harmless information that is unnecessarily classified or classified for no reason as in misclassified, which has been what this was said to
be.

Had she mishandled any information vital to the security of this country she would have been prosecuted, period. Information that has crucial impact on security is not scanned and passed around by email, it has different hard copy protocols and it is illegal to scan or make copies of such. For your eyes only security you do not get emails.


Obviously you do not know what you are talking about.It does but the computer and server have encryption protocols. And I'll tell you right now that if she were using a legit computer it would have had a legit classification sticker on it. The reason for the private server was obvious, anything typed could be swiped. Oh, and one other thing, classified is CLASSIFIED.
But the political azz hats don't seem to understand these. That the reason the DNC got hacked genius.
 
Last edited:
Woody I deal with my fair share of these materials and I can assure you of three things #1 documents do not become classified without reason and careful consideration. #2 if I were to be found to have mishandled even the lowest level of classified material in any way resembling what she has done HUNDREDS of times, I would not only lose my clearance and job, but I would be charged. And #3 you sound stupid when you say moronic things like this, please stop
 
Splinter head... go here - http://www.predatormastersforums.com/for...444#Post2981444 - and read what the NSA Whistleblower said about the documents Hillary had on her server. Some of them were of the highest level of classified information.

Comey indicated at least 110 of those documents found to be classified on Hillary's server, were classified at their inception. NO QUESTIONS ASKED, NO DOUBT ABOUT THOSE... THEY WERE CLASSIFIED FROM SQUARE ONE. That means a concerted effort had to be made in the Secretary of State's office, to send that classified information to her non-classified destination. Comey also indicated some of those documents were of the highest level of classification.

Comey indicated the reason they chose not to prosecute, was that there was no criminal intent. USC 18 makes no bones about intent, criminal or otherwise. It states that if classified information is removed from it's secure location, you are guilty. She removed it, she is guilty, she has repeatedly lied about it, she has repeatedly lied about Benghazi, she has repeatedly lied about Fast and Furious, she has repeatedly lied about campaign funding, she has repeatedly lied about the Clinton Foundation, she has repeatedly lied about her husband's sex life outside their home. This list could go on and on and on and on...

She wasn't prosecuted because the political elite put the fix in, to keep her out of jail, because they thought she was the ticket to win the Democrats the White House. And, she is one of the most prolific liars to have ever graced the face of this earth.



 
It was "classified" but it wasn't reeeeeeeeally "CLASSIFIED", so it was OK.....

Wow caitlin. Just.......wow.

Must have ahda koolaide brain freeze from that one..


I have no doubt you also still believe he didn't sleep with that woman and that it all depends on the definition of "is".

Wow.
 
Originally Posted By: AzDiamondHeatIt was "classified" but it wasn't reeeeeeeeally "CLASSIFIED", so it was OK.....

Wow caitlin. Just.......wow.



like kind of pregnant.
 
Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotOriginally Posted By: woodguruHad she mishandled any information vital to the security of this country she would have been prosecuted, period.

welfare woody made a funny.
lol.gif
lol.gif


You don't think that if the nature of the secret was such that it could be harmful to national security or the welfare of operatives, as was the case with Valerie Plame being outed in retaliation the nature of the secret would be used against her?

It is a fact that there are harmless documents of no value needlessly classified secret and top secret. This abuse hinges on both the what as well as the intent, and whine and snivel all you want, had she compromised national security or lives as Cheney did, it would be a big deal that she would not get away from.

I truly think it is unlikely that she will make a first term without having to resign, there is more than the email thing brewing. Something is going to stick.
 
Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotOriginally Posted By: woodguruHad she mishandled any information vital to the security of this country she would have been prosecuted, period.

welfare woody made a funny.
lol.gif
lol.gif


Yet security of American lives in Libbya are cheap
 
Originally Posted By: woodguruOriginally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotOriginally Posted By: woodguruHad she mishandled any information vital to the security of this country she would have been prosecuted, period.

welfare woody made a funny.
lol.gif
lol.gif


You don't think that if the nature of the secret was such that it could be harmful to national security or the welfare of operatives, as was the case with Valerie Plame being outed in retaliation the nature of the secret would be used against her?

It is a fact that there are harmless documents of no value needlessly classified secret and top secret. This abuse hinges on both the what as well as the intent, and whine and snivel all you want, had she compromised national security or lives as Cheney did, it would be a big deal that she would not get away from.

I truly think it is unlikely that she will make a first term without having to resign, there is more than the email thing brewing. Something is going to stick.


I guess the lives in Benghazi don't count. For an atheist, you sure like to play GOD. Or are you not an atheist today?


And then..... CHENEY DID IT!!!!

Now it is Cheney and not Bush?

Good grief caitlin, you are desperate. BUT....at least it is "new" material.
 
Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotOriginally Posted By: AzDiamondHeatIt was "classified" but it wasn't reeeeeeeeally "CLASSIFIED", so it was OK.....

Wow caitlin. Just.......wow.



like kind of pregnant.

That was a more ignorant observation than you usually make, showing your ignorance of how secrecy and classification works.

I had a top secret clearance in nuclear missile systems, and the array of just how top secret things that were designated as such was all over the map. Theoretically whole projects were classified, but certain elements of them were more sensitive than others. We had information that could be out on desks in open rooms but not left unattended, it had to be put away if walking away from the desk, other documents that was reviewed and discussed in closed rooms, same designation. the documents were handled according to their sensitivity. Part of this had to do with the fact that documents and information pertaining to a project would be downgraded and not as sensitive after a period of time. Lots of downgraded information gets handled knowing that it's no big deal. Documents being passed around through emails are no longer taken as seriously as that which is known to be critical security secrets that could be damaging to a program or lives if they get out.

Nobody copies, scans, or emails documents of the serious kind, downgraded is not the big deal. Do some research somewhere besides FOX news and try to learn abpout what the reality of these documents were, they were downgraded, and classified at the time matters not if they were passed along as part of a downgraded information package. The other function of prosecution hinges on intent, does the person breaching protocol knowingly intend to do something that causes harm to security.

In the Valerie Plame incident prosecution and convictions came down because it was adequately established that there was an intent to knowingly harm and do damage to secret operatives. Libby was the scapegoat, took one for Cheney and likely Bush, and Bush pardoned him even though he was correctly charged for knowing what he did.

Incorrect handling of a document definitely hinges on what the information was, and if that information was at the time not as sensitive as it started out it doesn't get the treason prosecution that selling sensitive and damaging information does. You won't see anyone getting life for mishandling meaningless information.

When a weapons system starts out it is kept under tight security, as trade journals start reporting on that new technology the originally sensitive information starts floating around in a much more cavalier manner. I have picked up information in a locked and chained briefcase, had super tight safe protocols that took two people any time we accessed what was in the safe. Lockheed would call us and tell us what documents we could work with, we would pull out the specified ones and change the designation to classified which had far looser security standards. Classified basically didn't matter as that is not a matter of national security, but we knew Lockheed didn't want anyone talking about what they were selling missile systems to Egypt for.

Technical differences in how and what was classified is everything, and I know you would like to see Hillary shot for treason, but the information was no big deal.

I'd rather see her answering to her staffers being offed for what they might have known, or any number of other things of more impact.
 
Back
Top