Hillary says grieving mother is wrong!

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

I suppose so. But in this case Hillary flat out lied. There are many citations on this. So what's your point? She fucking lied to these people. Pure and simple.

Could you link me to the investigation that concluded that she lied? The 7 or so that have been spear-headed mainly by republicans all concluded that there was no cover up, but did conclude that there was a failure of leadership and that further steps should be taken to avoid such a tragic and unfortunate event in the future.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Could you link me to the investigation that concluded that she lied? The 7 or so that have been spear-headed mainly by republicans all concluded that there was no cover up, but did conclude that there was a failure of leadership and that further steps should be taken to avoid such a tragic and unfortunate event in the future.

Numnuts, I'm referring what she said to the families when the bodies came off the plane. Quit playing stupid. It's obvious that's what the thread is about and how she handled the question at the debate.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Could you link me to the investigation that concluded that she lied? The 7 or so that have been spear-headed mainly by republicans all concluded that there was no cover up, but did conclude that there was a failure of leadership and that further steps should be taken to avoid such a tragic and unfortunate event in the future.

you need a life raft, an inner tube, a life jacket and floaties do not drown in all that kool aid you are swimming in

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

Numnuts, I'm referring what she said to the families when the bodies came off the plane. Quit playing stupid. It's obvious that's what the thread is about and how she handled the question at the debate.

This was included in some of the investigations. So I ask, again, can you show me which investigation concluded that she intentionally misled anyone.

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you need a life raft, an inner tube, a life jacket and floaties do not drown in all that kool aid you are swimming in

Whose "kool aid" am I drinking? The republicans spearheaded numerous investigations, they all concluded pretty much the same thing: no wrong doing, but there were failures that need to be addressed. I'm just reiterating the conclusion of their investigations.

[nevergaveitathought]

the thread is about Hillary repeatedly lying

and not just lying, accusing others of the same

you are obfuscating at every turn

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the thread is about Hillary repeatedly lying

From the bambino's own mouth "[This thread is] Just another illustration of what a lying, despicable swine Hillary is."

So based on the original post, and this response, it seems that this was all about lying in that specific situation. If you don't want to address what appears to be the point of this thread, then that's your prerogative. If you don't want to support the case that she is lying here, so be it, but I won't bother responding to further attempts to derail the thread.

and not just lying, accusing others of the same

No, she didn't accuse her of lying, she said she was wrong. That's it. Lying requires an intentional act, sometimes people, especially those grieving, don't always remember things correctly. Being wrong and lying are not one in the same thing.

[nevergaveitathought]

huh?

[nevergaveitathought]

while your last post was more than puzzling

if you don't think Hillary has lied and lied repeatedly with but the lamest of diversionary tactics, theres no hope for you

and for you to talk about the incomplete and stonewalled congressional inquiry into Benghazi that has been, so far, thwarted at every turn, instead of acknowledging her, once more, recent lie, which is, by you, some sort of, I don't know, idiot's hopeful non-sequitur of a smoke screen, shows how deep you are into cups of her kool aid

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

while your last post was more than puzzling

if you don't think Hillary has lied and lied repeatedly with but the lamest of diversionary tactics, theres no hope for you

Sorry, but I'm not going to get distracted by a million different claims. We are talking about something very specific here, that was covered by at least one investigation, done by republicans, that, AFAIK, concluded that there was no evidence of her intentionally misleading anyone.

and for you to talk about the incomplete and stonewalled congressional inquiry into Benghazi that has been, so far, thwarted at every turn, instead of acknowledging her, once more, recent lie, which are (your posts) some sort of, I don't know, idiot's hopeful non-sequitur of a smoke screen, shows how deep you are into the kool aid

So, what you are saying is that the investigators don't have enough evidence to claim that she lied, but you do?

[lustylad]

Hillary Has a Benghazi Mom Problem

by Jonathan S. Tobin / Mar. 10, 2016

We all know that there is only one thing that can prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee. Of course, that one thing isn’t the surge of support for Bernie Sanders among young Democrats. Given the crooked way the Democrats choose their presidential candidate with superdelegates holding the balance of power, Clinton has an edge that will stand up to Sanders’s ability to win key primaries like the one he took this week in Michigan. No, the only thing that stands between Hillary and an acceptance speech in Philadelphia this summer is the FBI investigation into her mishandling of classified material while she was secretary of state. But given that President Obama is not likely to let the Justice Department indict her, Clinton probably has nothing to worry about heading into the other than the stain of scandal should disappointed FBI agents ever leak the contents of their probe.

But Clinton has another big problem that could hurt her in November and that has nothing to do with a homebrew server. It’s a woman named Patricia Smith and her unwillingness to let the former First Lady get away with a lie.

Smith is the mother of Sam Smith, the mother of one of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi terror attack on September 11, 2012. The mere mention of Benghazi causes Democratic eyes to roll since they associate it with what they consider to be pointless investigations by Republicans intended to hurt Clinton’s reputation. But while they are right that GOP members of Congress failed to do anything more than annoy Clinton during their course of their probes, Patricia Smith may be a lot harder to dismiss as her claims get prominent mention in the months leading up to November.

Democrats may have agreed with Clinton in 2013 when she responded in exasperation to a question about the reasons she gave for the Benghazi attack from Senator Ron Johnson. Clinton’s “what difference at this point does it make” made for a bad sound byte but she escaped that hearing and a later one held by the House more or less unscathed. But as much as the left poured scorn on the House special committee on Benghazi for wasting everyone’s time, there was one piece of information that they uncovered from the trove of Clinton emails that were not deleted. It revealed that Clinton had written her daughter to say that Benghazi was a terrorist attack on the day after the atrocity. But at the ceremony when the bodies of the fallen were returned to the U.S., Clinton told Smith and the other parents that a YouTube video was the reason for the attack. That was a false argument the administration promoted in the days after the event in order to dispel the notion that there was a revival of Islamist terror since that undermined the Obama re-election campaign’s emphasis on the death of Osama bin Laden. That Clinton would recycle that lie even when speaking to grieving parents was particularly vile. The fact that we know for sure that she already knew it was false makes it even worse.

Smith has been particularly vocal about her bitterness about Clinton lying to her about the cause for her son’s death but rather than apologize for a politically inspired falsehood, Clinton has doubled-down on the lie.

She did so again last night in the CNN presidential debate when she asserted that Mrs. Smith was “absolutely wrong” about what she was told on the day her son’s coffin came home. But ever the clever lawyer, Clinton not only denies that she lied to Smith but also talked about “the fog of war” and of opinions changing about the source of the attack. But the email to her daughter gives the lie to this argument.

Does it matter? Perhaps not in the grand scheme of things especially when you consider that Clinton’s mendacity about the emails and the conflicts of interest created by the donations solicited by her family foundation. But the difference here is that in a general election campaign, Mrs. Smith’s accusations will continue to be aired.

It’s one thing to deny lying about classified emails or to stonewall the Clinton cash scandals by claiming it’s just another plot by the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that is still out to get Bill and Hillary. But it is quite another to basically accuse a gold star mother of an American hero of lying, as Hillary did of Mrs. Smith last night. If she thinks that will sit well with voters who already doubt her honesty, then she has badly miscalculated. As bad as her Bernie Sanders and FBI worries may be, her Benghazi mom problem may prove even more harmful.


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/p...i-mom-problem/

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

We are talking about something very specific here, that was covered by at least one investigation, done by republicans, that, AFAIK, concluded that there was no evidence of her intentionally misleading anyone.

So, what you are saying is that the investigators don't have enough evidence to claim that she lied, but you do?

AFAIK = As Far As I Know?

You evidently don't know very much, fido. I try not to wade into debates where I don't know much, but that's just me. I defy you to produce the exact language or quotes from the investigations showing they "concluded there was no evidence of her intentionally misleading anyone."

Hillary's emails and State Dept. records provide ample evidence that she knowingly lied, fido. There are two smoking guns. One is the email she sent to her daughter Chelsea on the day after the attack (see post above). The second is the State Dept. transcription of her telephone conversation with the Egyptian Foreign Minister on the same date, wherein she flatly stated that she knew Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack. To quote from the State Department's own notes, this is what she told the Egyptian prime minister on September 12, 2012:

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.”

There's your evidence, fido. Do your homework. Hillary lied to the public. She lied to the families of the victims. And now she lies about her lies.

And you are lying to yourself as well as to everyone else on this forum when you pretend otherwise.
.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Sorry, but I'm not going to get distracted by a million different claims. We are talking about something very specific here, that was covered by at least one investigation, done by republicans, that, AFAIK, concluded that there was no evidence of her intentionally misleading anyone.


So, what you are saying is that the investigators don't have enough evidence to claim that she lied, but you do?

You're in a permanent state of distraction. Hillary lied to the families. To add insult to injury, she claimed that they are wrong when stating what Hillary said was the cause for the massacre. In essence, Hillary accused them of lying. It's just a Clinton way of being slippery. Like what the definition of IS is.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Sorry, but I'm not going to get distracted by a million different claims. We are talking about something very specific here, that was covered by at least one investigation, done by republicans, that, AFAIK, concluded that there was no evidence of her intentionally misleading anyone.


So, what you are saying is that the investigators don't have enough evidence to claim that she lied, but you do?

as I said there's no hope for you

you have purposefully suspended rationality for the sake of ideology and have twisted lack of legal indictment into no evidence

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hillary's emails and State Dept. records provide ample evidence that she knowingly lied, fido. There are two smoking guns. One is the email she sent to her daughter Chelsea on the day after the attack (see post above). The second is the State Dept. transcription of her telephone conversation with the Egyptian Foreign Minister on the same date, wherein she flatly stated that she knew Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack. To quote from the State Department's own notes, this is what she told the Egyptian prime minister on September 12, 2012:

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.”

There's your evidence, fido. Do your homework. Hillary lied to the public. She lied to the families of the victims. And now she lies about her lies.

Some of the investigations covered this exact claim. Again, none, AFAIK (yes, you have the meaning right), concluded that she is lied or intentionally misled anyone. If you have one that says otherwise, I would love to read it. Do you? It's a simple question, it shouldn't be hard to answer.

If you believe they are BSing in the conclusions of the investigations, why? Why would the republicans, who spent plenty of tax payer money trying to get Clinton on this (obvious by the rhetoric), consistently produce reports that say she didn't mislead people intentionally?

Originally Posted by bambino

Hillary lied to the families.

Again, covered by the investigations, they concluded otherwise. Do you have any investigation that concluded that she did lie to them?

In essence, Hillary accused them of lying.

Disagreeing with someone's recollection of a events is not "in essence" accusing them of lying.

On that note, some of the families say they didn't hear her mention the videos during that meeting. Are you, in essence, accusing them of lying?

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

as I said there's no hope for you

you have purposefully suspended rationality for the sake of ideology and have twisted lack of legal indictment into no evidence

You claim to know more than the investigators into these incidents, such that you can come to a different conclusion then they did. I'm just reiterating the opinions of republican led committees that have all repeatedly concluded that she did not mislead people. How does this make me suspending rationality? Why is it irrational to believe the conclusions of a group that would actually *benefit* from coming to a different conclusion than they did?

[Yssup Rider]