That was originally put up on YouTube on January 29, 2016. It has nearly 7 million views. I learned about it today, reading a Kathleen Parker piece, "Hillary Clinton’s viral nightmare: A video of her ‘lying for 13 minutes,’" in WaPo:
Most of the highlights will be familiar to anyone who follows politics — her varying takes on Bosnia, health care, Wall Street, NAFTA — but the juxtaposition of these ever-shifting views is more jarring than one might expect....
On questions of honesty and trustworthiness, Clinton consistently polls low, including among Democrats, which partly explains Sanders’s support. His economic plan may be fantastical, but at least he’s honest!
Well, maybe. With Clinton, there’s no maybe, as the 13 minutes make clear. For whatever reason, she simply can’t seem to stick to the truth, which, at times, needs neither embellishment nor denial. Wasn’t it enough to have gone to Bosnia to conduct the nation’s all-important soft diplomacy?
Posts
80 comments:
To me, it says a lot about the democratic party and the party loyalists that they just don't care about her lying.
Not that the republicans do either. They have lost any sense of being *moral*.
I didn't make it past the same sex marriage clips.
Anyone with a memory longer than that of a gnat knows that Hillary and Obama and hosts of other leftist Democrat politicians used to espouse views on marriage that are now derided as bigoted and if held and stated publicly can and have get you fired from your job.
Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act.
I predict both Clinton and Trump will be behind bars come election day.
Disqualifying!
She will say anything. Will rent the Lincoln bedroom and steal the White House china. She will sell influence for hundreds of millions of dollars to Saudi and Chinese regimes that are not this country's friends. But now she owes them.
She will setup shell companies to collect the pay-to-play loot and setup a private email server to avoid FOIA scrutiny. Zero regard for the Law.
Everything people ever thought Richard Nixon did she has actually done. How is that not disqualifying? We can do so much better.
Re email, Why didn't the FBI talk to Hillary at the very beginning of the investigation given that she would have talked without immunity. You want to lock her in a story at the start. Now she can tailor her testimony to match the facts.
Thing is, I can legitimately believe in changing views --- provided one explains why.
If you now oppose NAFTA, why? I can understand the criticisms of it and can recognize that things have been bad for "less-skilled" American workers (though I'd argue laying sheet rock is far more valuable a skill than most ethnic studies professors can pull off) and if you said because of these issues, you don't like it, then that is OK. I can see that.
But she doesn't. She doesn't acknowledge WHY her views changed...just that they did. Why did she change on gay marriage outside of her entire policy doing a total shift on it one day?
If you think single payer is the way to go...why? There is remarkable amounts of evidence that it is a disaster (our single payer system is the VA, after all) so why do you think it is a good idea NOW? What has changed to make her think it is MORE effective?
Liar, liar.... Pantsuit on Fire!!!
Why is it so short?
Time constraints?
Ms. Clinton is a lawyer. She knows when she's not under oath.
Hillary lies as a reflex. She lies when she doesn't have to. She lies when it is easy to verify that she is lying. She lies when she knows her audience knows she's lying.
Yet she's apparently the best politician the Democrats have. Sad. Very sad.
Nobody on planet Earth more deserving of that old Nixon cliché, "You can tell she's lying, her lips move."
William Safire said about the Clintons that it was not just that they lied that disturbed him, but that they lied so easily.
I would have included her claim that she turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000 by reading the Wall Street Journal.
The two stacks of Benghazi emails was pretty effective.
Not surprising. I think in many cases it's not even that she intentionally decides to lie, but rather that she is simply incapable of being honest. Decades of BS and spin and coverups have gotten to the point where she can't even be honest about her lunch order.
The title is misleading though because much of the time is spent setting up the backstory before they get to her lying. And it seems like there was a lot they left out, so it would have been better if they'd done tighter editing and included more lies- otherwise it comes across like they had to pad it to increase the length of the video and were engaging in a bit of a lie too.
Clinton takes pride in the fact that she can lie with impunity. The more blatant the lie the better. Look at her face and body language whenever she is confronted. She oozes with a sense of entitlement.
I turned on Bill Clinton when he lied about Monica, not on the substance, but because I couldn't tell he was lying. He got past all my BS detectors. That scared me. Now I just go by the standard Clinton tell, moving lips.
I predict that Hillary will be the nominee because if it is denied her again she will blow up the Democrat party by revealing all the corruption and self-dealing.
As I said in another thread, there has to be some reason why the Democrat party establishment is so in the tank for such an unappealing candidate.
Volokh on NY's legally required lying: "So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie."
She is already revealing the corruption and self dealing of the Democrats.
Living through most of that, you can see why we constantly want political newcomers. We changed our collective minds on gay marriage, banking, the Iraq War and NAFTA and young people especially expect a candidate to have always held the prevailing view. Trump can say he holds the right views because a non-career politician's past views are harder to pin down. Bernie seems to not have modified his views since he was 18 years old, and his previously discredited take on things are back in fashion. Hillary makes the assumption people have short memories and expects the media to play along. Why wouldn't she? They always have.
damikesc said: ... laying sheet rock...
It's a nit, but you "hang sheet rock". You "lay tile" or "lay carpet".
(Excuse me. My plumber's crack is showing.)
Hillary is Garak: "never tell the truth when a lie will do." "It's all true - especially the lies."
13 minutes of Hillary? Ugh.
Only 13 minutes?
Some of the lies are half truths, or are subtler lies, but people don't understand it. (She's not going to help her questioners - she is waiting for the right time to unleash her defense)
For example, when she says that 90% of the e-mails were archived, what she is basing that on, is that 9% to 95% - it would have been all but some were sent to the White House and some were turned by a text search for words like Libya or Benghazi - of the e-mails she turned over could have also been archiived by the other party in that exchange. She mostly turned over only e-mails sent to or from state.gov e-mail addresses.
But the other person had a choice as to whether or not to consider that a government record and in most cases they didn't. So it wasn't the case that 90% of the e-mails were preserved. And this omits the most importantt hing - they weren't organized - to find e-mails from her you'd have to search everybody's e-mail. Usdually FOIA requests or Congressional subpoenas don't do that. This whole thing was discovered by the Benghazi committee or rather because of the Benghazi committee because they recoeved e-mails that included her in e-mail from other people but had never received a copy when her e-amils were subpeoned. The State Department settled this whole thing by getting e-mails from her - unsearchable paper copies - before telling the committee anything. They had to go back and forth a few times because they didn't get e-mails from her where they had another copy. That led to Hillary and here lawyer's decision to send over everything that went to or from a state.gov address.
Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to the FBI about something that wasn't illegal and yet here we are with the Clinton's. If Hillary was held to the same standard as Martha, she would be looking at doing twenty thousand years in Sing-Sing.
What I find amazing is the credulity of her supporters. They know she is a liar. Yet they believe she won't lie to them. What is the expression used in poker-if you don't know who the mark is, then its you.
Hillary makes the assumption people have short memories
Not just an assumption. She's publicly stated that at least once (about some scandal)
@cubanbob Hillary Clinton hasn't yet spoken to the FBI.
And most of her lies in testimony have defenses to perjury - I think she wasn't under oath either.
Not only is she a constant liar but she is especially bad at it. She is one of the least natural people I have ever seen and decades of practice have not helped her advance in naturalness. If anything she has regressed. She is the model of a lying politician.
I agree with Writ Small -- it's not quite fair to expect a Politician to the same views in 1990 and today; after all, they represent their constituents and presumably reflect their constituents' views. Hillary lies so often about s many things, though, that you could skip the policy items in that animation and still have plenty of material.
And of course, Hillary's Constituents are all Wall Street banks and Foreign Governments. How have their views evolved? Saudi Arabia's? Not so much.
I heard an interesting theory from John C Dvorak the other day www.noagendashow.com
He theorizes that the reason that Hilary will not release the transcripts is because there are no transcripts. Just checks. She never gave the speeches, they just sent the checks to her. Straight up bribe, Clinton Foundation donation, advertising, call it what you will.
There may be a few speeches but only a few. Not 26 or whatever she publicly claims.
JCD and Adam also theorize that Trump is holding back his taxes waiting for Hilary to start demanding them. He will then say "OK, I'll show you mine (taxes) if you show me yours (transcripts)"
John Henry
tim in vermont said...5/18/16, 9:57 AM
I turned on Bill Clinton when he lied about Monica, not on the substance, but because I couldn't tell he was lying. He got past all my BS detectors.
That's strange. You didn't hear anything back in 1992??
I agree with damikesc. I've never had a problem with a politician changing their minds provided they can offer a coherent, well-reasoned explanation for why they did. It's a little silly to assume that people's opinions can never change, especially with the benefit of new information and/or life experience. But it is a little distressing to see certain politicians "evolve" or whatever on a position when it's blatantly obvious it's just naked pandering. Of course, to people to whom a particular issue is important they generally don't care if they're being pandered to as long as they get the result they desire.
Surprisingly, I think this video finally helped me understand what was going on in Clinton's head when she said she was avoiding sniper fire in Bosnia.
Her plane probably DID do a corkscrew landing. That's to avoid Surface to Air missiles (not snipers).
This got confused in her head with sniper fire.
Kill me now. I couldn't get through it.
Not only is she a constant liar but she is especially bad at it.
Hilary wants to bad at it. Her lies are an expression of her privilege and power. The fact that she can blatantly lie without consequence elevates her from other elites.
@pdug, you're saying Hillary is easily confused? Seems reasonable.
"She doesn't acknowledge WHY her views changed...just that they did."
Actually, no, she denies having changed positions. Go back and count the number of times she uses the term "consistent" in that video.
Original Mike said...5/18/16, 9:44 AM
I would have included her claim that she turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000 by reading the Wall Street Journal.
That really came from Tyson Foods. (that's why it was cattle futures)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
Starting in October 1978, when Bill Clinton was Attorney General and on the verge of being elected Governor,[1] she was guided by James Blair, a friend, lawyer, outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas' largest employer, and, since 1977,[6] a futures trader who was doing so well he encouraged friends and family to enter the commodity markets as well.[4][5] Blair in turn traded through, and relied upon cattle markets expertise from, broker Robert L. "Red" Bone of Refco, a former Tyson executive and professional poker player who was a World Series of Poker semifinalist.[5][7]
Before that, Don Tyson was sending cash to the Governor. Janet Reno prevented this from being further explored - even into anything Tyson did on a corporate level.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/counsel/smaltz/henrickson.html
This interview is not clear, but this had to be in his first term 1979 and 1980. It is interesting there's no timeline here, and I think an attempt is made to mislead people into thinking this was later than when it was.
I think the cattle futures profits was maybe an attempt to avoid the necessity of making repeated small deliveries of cash to the Governor. Give him (or his wife) $100,000 in one fell swoop.
Later, they both got money for giving speeches, which is the simplest way of delivering money of all. The speeches were just to make it legal. But no speech, or appearance, is worth that kind of money. That also happened because it became important to the Clintons to have legal title to money, instead of having other people spend it on them as needed.
Original Mike said...5/18/16, 9:44 AM
The two stacks of Benghazi emails was pretty effective.
But it makes sense. She (and the Administration) was paying less attention to Libya after Qaddafi was ovewrthrown.
The Clinton's propensity for prevarication was amply laid out 20 years ago by Christopher Hitchens in his book "No One Left to Lie To".
The kids call this a "supercut." 13 minutes is too long, but cut them up by topic and put the individual videos out as part of a rapid-response effort (any time she makes an issue of something, for example) and you're in business.
The real question, of course, is "do independents and weak Dem supporters care at all?" the answer will break your heart...
Sammy Finkelman said...
@cubanbob Hillary Clinton hasn't yet spoken to the FBI.
And most of her lies in testimony have defenses to perjury - I think she wasn't under oath either.
5/18/16, 10:25 AM"
First she will speak to the FBI.If the FBI fails to question her then the next Congress should abolish the bureau as it would be hopelessly corrupt. Second lying to the FBI in of itself is a crime whether or not the lies was under oath. Ask Scooter Libby about lying to the FBI. Funny he went to jail but the guy who did the leaking was never charged. As for the emails, not producing the metadata is in of itself obstruction of justice. As for her lies in testimony that would be perjury in of itself if under oath.
I suspect you could do a similar job on nearly any politician with a similarly long career. I don't doubt that the Clintons are exceptionally corrupt, and more so, that their corruption is so much in the open, and that they are more openly hypocritical (it is mostly hypocrisies in view here).
But none of that is exclusive to the Clintons, possibly not even as a matter of scale.
And it's much less significant commentary on the Clintons than it is on the mass media and their audience.
As a practical matter it's unrealistic to hope for an honest politician at this level, if for no other reason than any who make it here are the sorts who are excellent at lying to themselves.
Blogger sunsong said...
To me, it says a lot about the democratic party and the party loyalists that they just don't care about her lying. "
Has Obama's lies been a bother to you?
The Scooter Libby business was a scandal. That Bush (and his coterie) let it happen ( the prosecution of Libby) was an aspect of his failure to conduct politics. They were extremely weak partisans, and much of subsequent events were the result of the lack of determination and initiative on their part.
The FNMA, home loans, and credit bubbles could have been controlled, as its clear that the administration understood the danger in time to do something, but they only made a weak and easily parried effort. That's just one
Dude1394 said... [hush][hide comment]
Kill me now. I couldn't get through it.
5/18/16, 10:35 AM
You do understand that if there were to happen, someone bearing your name would place a vote for the democrat come election day, right? Cause the dead have a right to be represented too you know.
Zombies are real and they reliably vote democrat...
John said...5/18/16, 10:26 AM
I heard an interesting theory from John C Dvorak the other day www.noagendashow.com
He theorizes that the reason that Hilary will not release the transcripts is because there are no transcripts. Just checks. She never gave the speeches, they just sent the checks to her. Straight up bribe, Clinton Foundation donation, advertising, call it what you will.
She probably did show up. And probably said at least a few words. Could be she spoke for 15 minutes. Maybe sometimes longer. Why omit the legal defense?
That doesn't make them not straight up bribes.
Even if you've got the legal defense that the person being paid is not holding any office of public trust at the moment, it's really messing things up not to show up. .
Besides, don't they need to meet privately with someone to discuss the quo? Isn't that a good opportunity - and it avoids using interstate electronic communications
A few of the speeches may contain remarks that wouldn't look good politically, and she can't release them selectively.
I also think it is possible that in some cases the organization that gave her the money was not doing the bribing, but was being used as a money laundry - someone contributed money, the organization raked off 5% or 10% - and in return they passed most of it on to the Clintons.
Bernie Sanders has been making this about banks, and Clinton says nothing and leaks nothing because she doesn't wnat to call attention to this, but most of the money has not come from banking institutions.
The New York Times reports today that the last speeches she gave before announcing for president were to the American Camp Association ($260,000) and eBay ($315,000) That was probably eBay's own money - it's a corporation, not a non-profit.
Bill Clinton actually made a few speeches after her announcement (which was accelerated due to the e-mail scandal) They were only to domestic trade groups and companies, [there is lots opof money at stake in trade negotiations] but he didn't give any speeches to overseas groups in 2015, unlike 2014. Bill Clinton collected as much as $285,000 for a speech in 2015, but had gotten sometimes nearly twice that amount.
Still, in 2015 he got $4.6 million. (She got $1.5 million - I guess another case of women getting paid less than men, or maybe since she was the candidate, she had to be more careful, and had less time for trips.)
"So people can basically force us — on pain of massive legal liability — to say what they want us to say, whether or not we want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and whether or not we think it’s a lie."
If that can stand up to any legal challenge, then we cease to exist as a country.
It's a nit, but you "hang sheet rock". You "lay tile" or "lay carpet".
Wasn't sure how it's done, honestly because I lack the competency to do it. But still damned important skill to have.
Second lying to the FBI in of itself is a crime whether or not the lies was under oath.
Yes, but she hasn't spoken yet. I think this law may not apply to testimony before Congress. There s no such law at the satte level either anywhere, I think. Yoiu have to be under oath.
As for the emails, not producing the metadata is in of itself obstruction of justice.
It was a Congressional investigation, not a criminal investigation.
Look, I think she likely committed espionage. She was circulating foreign propaganda sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal - what else was it? - throughout the U.S. government and asking for reaction to be written and sent to her.
Information as to what everybody in the U.S. government knows to be a lie and what is they are not so certain is a lie would be of value to some foreign governments. She probably gave feedback to Sidney Blumenthal only by telephone, though.
Regarding Scooter Libby - his problem was that he couldn't take the 5th amendment and keep his job and he knew that Judith Miller was not Bob Novak's source. If he told the truuth he might have gotten Judith Miller in trouble, because she caused him to inquire who picked Joe Wilson for the trip to Niger. He got back a lie: that it was Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who suggested his name, and this lie was spread through upper echelons of the U.S. government.
The trip itself was ridiculous. Nobody supposed that Saddam Hussein had actually bought uraium from Niger. It was a way to avoid answering the question. The CIA avoided exposing that some documents were forgeries. Cheney had wanted to double check that.
The person in the CIA responsible for obtaining these documents, about a supposed agreement by Iraq to buy yellowcake from Niger was Tyler Drumheller, who was jead of European operations or somethinbg like that for the CIA. The docuemnts came from a source in italy. This is the same Tyler Drumheller whom Sidney Blumenthal claimed in 2015 was the source of the disinformation he sent to Hillary Clinton. Well, Sid Blumenthal didn't call it disinformation that I know of.
@pdug, you're saying Hillary is easily confused? Seems reasonable
Somebody in a focus group maybe was confused, so she used it.
@HoodlumDoodlum said...
That's right. The whole video isn't really very good. It looks better to people who already know all these stories.
Dear buwaya puti, I was there in front of my TV when Bill wagged his finger and claimed the blowjobs Monica gave him were not sexual relations with Monica.
I asked my wife, who says they are, so there.
I was there when the tapes were played, of him explaining to Gennifer Flowers what to say if/when their affair was exposed.
I was there when Hillary blamed the entire nation or at least a VRWC, for the lies that her husband was unfaithful to her.
I was there when documents that could have sent her to jail were found in her personal quarters in the White House mere days after the statute of limitations on prosecution ran out.
I was there when it was reported she made 10 successive correct calls in a very short time span on cattle futures, which is so astronomically unlikely even with great guidance that most experienced traders assumed there were 2 trades listed for each try, and the winning one was assigned to her.
I was there when she left the White House nearly bankrupt, except for the millions in speaking fees she & Bill had already lined up, and all the Ws taken from the White House typewriters as a really high-class joke to the next president's staff.
The Clintons are criminals who lie for momentary political gain, who take money for access, influence and government decisions favorable to the donors. That crapola fest may fly in the third world, but here we try to hire better help.
There's infinitely more of that stuff.
I expect the Trumpian campaign ads will be rather harsh, and feature extensive Clinton quotes/clips.
The question of whether she is trustworthy or not will mean much to the swing voters.
It all boils down to her not getting enough sex in college. I believe all humans fail when they deny their sexuality any release.
It builds up bad ju-ju and comes out as leaky bowls and diabetic constipation.
Mikee,
I'm not disputing that they are liars, corrupt, etc.
Of course they are.
The more interesting part of this is not the lies and corruption, but that, as you illustrate, they get away with doing all this so openly.
There are plenty of other corrupt politicians. The most successful in their corruption are those who are more effective at hiding it. Though I have to say that the Clinton approach, of squelching coverage and large scale mass media cooperation in spinning, has been very effective so far.
This from the Wall Street Journal story:
The last honorarium that Bill Clinton received was in November, 2015, at some event in Toronto. He received a total of $2.7 million after Hillary Clinton had announced for president.
Some particulars: A speech to "America's Health Insurance Plans" in June, 2015 (285,000) This is the trade association for health insurance companies. There is $200,000 from Stephens. Inc (an Arkansas financial firm whose ties to Bill Clinton go back to the 1970s)and a payment from Computer Design and Integration LLC ($225,000) in September, 2015. This is a New Jersey firm.
The total speech income for both Clintons from January 2015 through April 2016 (but actually Noovember, 2015) was $6.7 million. Hillary Clinton also received $5 million in book royalties during that time. Bill Clinton was paid as a consultant by the Varkey GEMS Foundation and by Laureate Education Inc. This comes from the financial disclosure form the Clinton campaign released yesterday. The Clintons have not released a tax return for 2015 yet, and the financial disclosure form doesn't tell you much he earned from consulting work.
Assets are reported in wide ranges. The total would be between $11.3 million and $52.7 million, but does not include the value of their two houses in New York State and in Washington, D.C., or that of any federal defined-contribution retirement accounts or the present value of their public pensions. Their two largest assets were a cash account at J.P. Morgan Chase and an index fund at Vanguard Group (they don't go in for complicated investments when it comes to their own money) both at over $5 million and less than $25 million.
mikee said...
...I was there when it was reported she made 10 successive correct calls in a very short time span on cattle futures, which is so astronomically unlikely even with great guidance that most experienced traders assumed there were 2 trades listed for each try, and the winning one was assigned to her.
There were several different ways this could have been done. This was one of them. This version wouldn't have involved any actual inside information, but that's probably not the way it happened.
Eight-year-old girls always hang out on tarmacs of airports under attack.
It's a Bosnian tradition. Sheesh. Leave the lady alone.
"...I was there when it was reported she made 10 successive correct calls in a very short time span on cattle futures, which is so astronomically unlikely even with great guidance that most experienced traders assumed there were 2 trades listed for each try, and the winning one was assigned to her."
This could have been verified by inspecting the day-trading records of her broker. But guess what? Those records were missing.
When you've heaped lie upon lie for your entire life, there comes a time when telling the truth is just simply an option no longer available to you.
The lie is that Hillary always supported the positions she now holds as she runs for President. The video isn't saying she changed her position on the issues mentioned. It says that she denies changing her position. And you can look right at her as she lies about changing and you know she is lying as you look at her because you have just heard her on video taking the opposite position.
With the media in the tank for Hillary there won't be a big uprising - a drumroll of media attacks culminating in resignation, impeachment or whatever. But - that's a memorable video even if you have steadily detested Hillary since 1991. And millions more will see it.
Charles II was a lazy and sexually addicted man who routinely sold out his country to foreign interests whenever he could arrange a good price, and he was loved by all England for it. He faked being Protestant to get his crown, but reconverted to Catholicism on his deathbed. Nobody cared.
Some people want to hear the lies they are familiar with hearing. The Clintons understand that well.
But how does any of this disqualify her as the first woman president?
You lie lie lie lie lie
you lie lie lie lie lie
tell me why, tell me why, why'd you' have to lie
Shoulda realized you should have told the truth
should have realized you know what i'll do
You're in suspension
You're a liar.
mikee wrote:
Dear buwaya puti, I was there in front of my TV when Bill wagged his finger and claimed the blowjobs Monica gave him were not sexual relations with Monica.
I asked my wife, who says they are, so there.
I was there when the tapes were played, of him explaining to Gennifer Flowers what to say if/when their affair was exposed.
I was there when Hillary blamed the entire nation or at least a VRWC, for the lies that her husband was unfaithful to her.
I was there when documents that could have sent her to jail were found in her personal quarters in the White House mere days after the statute of limitations on prosecution ran out.
I was there when it was reported she made 10 successive correct calls in a very short time span on cattle futures, which is so astronomically unlikely even with great guidance that most experienced traders assumed there were 2 trades listed for each try, and the winning one was assigned to her.
I was there when she left the White House nearly bankrupt, except for the millions in speaking fees she & Bill had already lined up, and all the Ws taken from the White House typewriters as a really high-class joke to the next president's staff.
The Clintons are criminals who lie for momentary political gain, who take money for access, influence and government decisions favorable to the donors. That crapola fest may fly in the third world, but here we try to hire better help.
And therefore it seems kind of weird to support Hillary over Trump.
I mean, sure he's a crappy candidate, but do we really want more of THAT!??
She's not lying, because as soon she changes her position on some thing she instantly believes she always held the new position. The tell is the whiskey soak cackle of cognitive dissonance when she's pressed on the subject.
Should the documentary CLINTON CASH go viral even Obama's Justice Department will be forced to open a corruption investigation. The documentary details how a flat broke couple amassed 200 million dollars in personal wealth and 2 billion dollars they can tap into at the Clinton Foundation trading favors when Hillary! was Secretary of State for speaking fees and Foundation contributions.
Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to the FBI about something that wasn't illegal and yet here we are with the Clinton's.
Yes, and James Comey was the prosecutor.
You know, the guy in charge of the FBI right now.
Comey also helped engineer Scooter Libby's conviction for lying to the FBI about something that wasn't illegal.
Sociopathic Liar: Someone who lies incessantly in order to achieve their goals. Also a person that cares little about other people.
Some liars are worse than others. Hillary stood on the coffins of dead soldiers and lied to their parents about why their sons died in order to further the campaign narrative that Al Quaeda was defeated.
Any person that votes for Hillary Clinton has no soul.
Given her long association and close relationship to Bill Clinton, I'm disappointed at her ineptitude. Bill was the true master of the art. Buddhist monks study his utterances in order to induce a zen state about the futility of man's desire for the truth. Bill had just the right amount of sincerity mixed with indignation when he lied. His voice deepened and his physical gestures matched the points he was making. Hillary has probably told less whoppers than Bill, but her voice becomes shrill and her eyes become dead when passing a cow plop. She's not very good at it.....Donald Trump is in nowhere near Bill Clinton's class when wrangling the truth, but he's still pretty good at it. He uses the fishermen's defense. If you weren't there how could you possible know the size of the fish he caught. His lies sound more like tall tales than like Hillary's crafted and calibrated evasions.
I was there too Mikee where you said:
I was there when documents that could have sent her to jail were found in her personal quarters in the White House mere days after the statute of limitations on prosecution ran out.
THIS was the thing that completely persuaded me that she is a legal liar extraordinaire (along with her husband's "depends on what IS is" defense of abusing a White House intern)
Hillary stalled all investigations into her Whitewater Scandal and hid documents in the freaking White House and pretended it was an accidental - UNEXPECTED - oversight......Good Grief what a Master Liar and Dissembler!
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/06/us/elusive-papers-of-law-firm-are-found-at-white-house.html?pagewanted=all
Hillary is Garak
No, more like Gul Dukat.
"Hillary lying for 13 minutes straight."
Sometimes, 13 minutes seems like a lifetime.
Sammy, the point about the cattle futures that Democrats *SHOULD* care about, and maybe would if they stopped plugging their ears, is that the reason Tyson Chicken was so interested in getting the governor of Arkansas on their side was that their Arkansas chicken farms were huge sources of pollution and under regulation, over which Clinton was in control.
Hillary made a hundred grand, Tyson got to pollute the Arkansas River. It was a win-win!
SNIPERS!!!
Post a Comment