Atsushi wrote:
I think people misunderstand what lying is.

Even if a statement turned out to be not correct later, it doesn't make it lying.

Based on the intelligence available at the time, Benghazi attack appeared to be inspired by anti-muslim video. That's what CIA advised the administration, and that's why Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton stated so.

It may later turn out to be not correct, but they didn't lie. They made the statement based on available information at the time.

Similarly, Clinton thought that if email is not marked Classified, it isn't classified. You can blame her for not knowing that, but her statement is completely consistent with what she had believed. Just because it later turned out to be incorrect, that's not lying. She thought she had submitted all of her official emails, but because the server didn't have archiving function, many emails had been deleted. That's not lying. That's misunderstanding.

Hater will continue to believe Clinton lied. I don't.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

stillinjc wrote:

The rabid leftist bitch Maddow has no answers to Hillary lies so she's shooting the messenger (Comey). That is all she can do.

Is it really necessary to call Maddow a bitch? Nothing like mixing some misogyny in with the racism. Just like Brexit is unleashing "a frenzy of racism" - the politics of Trump is bringing out the worst in people.

...This is an example of the over-sensitivity of liberals to ANYTHING that might relate to gender, race, religion or sexual orientation regardless of whether it is innocuous or whether the statement is true. This, in itself, is actually incredibly grating and obnoxious behavior which is a major reason for many people voting Republican in the first place.

neverleft wrote:
Regarding her State Department email practices, "my predecessors did the same thing."
? Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, March 9th, 2016 in a Univision/Washington Post Democratic debate

POLITIFACT 3/9/2016:

Our ruling

Clinton said, regarding her State Department email practices, "my predecessors did the same thing."

This is a misleading claim chiefly because only one prior secretary of state regularly used email, Colin Powell.
Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did.

We rate this claim Mostly False.

neverleft wrote:
This is the link to the FBI?s entire statement ?wow? no wonder the media is being very selective on what it is pulling out of it. (wouldn't want to make Hillary look bad)


https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pres ... -a-personal-e-mail-system


"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton?s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton?s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton?s personal e-mail account."

sullyx wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
In my view, this was also the state department's system's failure. Yes, she made a dumb mistake, wanting to use one email address for her private business and official business.
But wasn't there anyone (or a system) in the department that told her that what she wanted to do was not a good idea?

she used multiple email addresses, devices and servers despite her claims otherwise making her a flat out liar.

neverleft wrote:
I want him to explain the wording of his below statement from his transcript. They did not find direct evidence that the e-mail domain was successfully hacked but they assess that it would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. Huh?

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton?s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton?s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton?s personal e-mail account."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pres ... -a-personal-e-mail-system

stillinjc wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
As to Brexit, I will note that the liberal/conservative argument occurring here mirrors many of the same arguments that occurred over there (including asserting that everyone pro-Brexit were stupid racists)
...

The average net worth of people in the UK is around $200k. Given the collapse in sterling and UK assets is likely to approach 20% by the end of this year - that works out to each voter paying ~$40k to leave the EU.

Freedom is not free.

The Hillary Clinton email controversy is never going to end. At least that's what Republicans are trying to ensure, and they're now calling for a new FBI investigation of Clinton on the question of whether she lied to Congress about her emails.

On Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that that his bureau had found no basis to bring a criminal case against Clinton for her handling of email when she was secretary of state. Immediately, Republicans and conservatives howled, with GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump claiming this was all part of some nefarious cover-up. Outraged House Republicans demanded hearings on the FBI decision, and on Thursday morning, Comey appeared on Capitol Hill before the House oversight committee.

Comey began his testimony by explaining again that there was no cause to prosecute Clinton and reiterated that there was no precedent for bringing such a case. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman, chose to focus on another matter. He asked Comey if the FBI had investigated whether the statements Clinton made under oath about her email when she appeared before the Benghazi committee last year had been accurate. Comey said that the bureau had not examined those statements and explained that there had been no "referral" from Congress on that matter.

"Do you need a referral from Cingress to investigate her statements under oath?" Chaffetz asked.

"Sure do," Comey replied.

"You'll have one, " Chaffetz said, with a laugh. "You'll have one in the next few hours."

Here was the GOP ploy: request yet another FBI investigation of Clinton, with this one focused on whether she had testified accurately to Congress about the emails.

Moments later, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who chaired the fizzled-out Benghazi committee, indicated what the House GOPers want the FBI to probe. Citing Clinton's testimony to his committee, he asked Comey a series of questions. Did Clinton email classified information? Yes, Comey said. Did she use just one device? No, Comey said, there were multiple devices. Did Clinton return all work-related emails to the State Department? No, Comey said, the bureau found others. Did her lawyers read through every single email they reviewed before returning the material to the State Department? No, Comey said, they had not.

The implication was clear: Several Clinton statements to the committee about the emails were not accurate. Gowdy maintained that any false statements would be a sign of "intent and consciousness of guilt." So not only might Clinton be guilty of lying to Congress, Gowdy suggested, but these statements could be the basis for concluding that she should have been prosecuted for mishandling the emails.

At the hearing, Comey was firm in defending the FBI recommendation in the email case. Yet the GOPers demonstrated they have another goal: to kick-start a new FBI inquiry. Then they?and Trump?can spend the next few months declaring that Clinton remains under FBI investigation.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Wow the RNC already came out with a Hillary email lie video..

https://www.youtube.com/embed/O0vHZqVn-io



.

and your point is what??

stillinjc wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
FBI Director James Comey: Hillary Clinton didn't lie or break law in email handling

http://www.amny.com/news/fbi-director ... email-handling-1.12010216

For people with rational mind, this closes this matter.

The issue is not whether Clinton lied to the FBI; it is whether she lied to the American public via statements to the media.

Sorry, this matter is still very much open, regardless of how much the left would like to see it closed.

Atsushi wrote:
FBI Director James Comey: Hillary Clinton didn't lie or break law in email handling

http://www.amny.com/news/fbi-director ... email-handling-1.12010216

For people with rational mind, this closes this matter.

neverleft wrote:
Wow the RNC already came out with a Hillary email lie video..

https://www.youtube.com/embed/O0vHZqVn-io



.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
As to Brexit, I will note that the liberal/conservative argument occurring here mirrors many of the same arguments that occurred over there (including asserting that everyone pro-Brexit were stupid racists)
...

The average net worth of people in the UK is around $200k. Given the collapse in sterling and UK assets is likely to approach 20% by the end of this year - that works out to each voter paying ~$40k to leave the EU.

devilsadvocate wrote:
These are just labels used to describe obnoxious behavior that happen to be gender specific. This is an example of the over-sensitivity of liberals to ANYTHING that might relate to gender, race, religion or sexual orientation regardless of whether it is innocuous or whether the statement is true. This, in itself, is actually incredibly grating and obnoxious behavior which is a major reason for many people voting Republican in the first place.

devilsadvocate wrote:
...
As to Brexit, I will note that the liberal/conservative argument occurring here mirrors many of the same arguments that occurred over there (including asserting that everyone pro-Brexit were stupid racists)
...

SOS wrote:
Quote:

stillinjc wrote:

The rabid leftist bitch Maddow has no answers to Hillary lies so she's shooting the messenger (Comey). That is all she can do.

Is it really necessary to call Maddow a bitch? Nothing like mixing some misogyny in with the racism. Just like Brexit is unleashing "a frenzy of racism" - the politics of Trump is bringing out the worst in people.

sullyx wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
It's bullshit because she used them in turn (desktop, laptop, phone), not multiple phones. And she also was denied a secure device anyway.

Nobody denied her a secure device and they pointed out that the devices she was using were insecure

Atsushi wrote:
What James Comey and John Roberts have in common

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sh ... roberts-have-common#break

Quote:

In conservative circles, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used to be a respected figure, held in high regard. Roberts enjoyed a lengthy record as a center-right jurist, and when then-President George W. Bush nominated him to the high court, Republicans everywhere were delighted.

Roberts did not, however, stay in the right?s good graces. After the chief justice voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act ? twice ? quite a few conservatives, and even some Republican presidential candidates, turned on Roberts, questioning his judgment, intellect, and integrity.

Right about now, I suspect FBI Director James Comey can relate to how Roberts must feel about his former admirers abruptly changing their opinions.

Comey, in case anyone?s forgotten, is a lifelong Republican who served as a top official in the Bush/Cheney Justice Department. He cut his teeth as a public-sector attorney in the 1990s, when Comey signed on ?as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee,? where he went after, of all people, Hillary Clinton.

I?m not aware of anyone on the right questioning Comey?s abilities or professionalism ahead of yesterday?s announcement in the email matter. On the contrary, Republicans gave Comey a vote of confidence as recently as June. Politico published this report one month ago today:

Should the FBI not recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton following its investigation of the setup of her private email server, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Monday said he and his Republican colleagues would ?probably? accept the outcome.

?Oh, probably, because we do believe in [FBI Director] James Comey,? the Utah Republican said during an appearance on Fox News? ?Outnumbered.? ?I do think that in all of the government, he is a man of integrity and honesty.?

Yesterday, however, Chaffetz said the exact opposite, and accused Comey of failing to carry out his duties. Other GOP members of Congress made related arguments, while some Republican pundits adopted an even harsher posture.

The pattern matters. John Roberts was an excellent justice, Republicans said, right up until he strayed from the partisan script. Trey Gowdy was the perfect person to lead the GOP?s Benghazi Committee, they said, right up until he failed to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton.

And Jim Comey was a fine FBI director, right up until he left his party dejected by exercising independent judgment.

In reality, Roberts, Gowdy, and Comey aren?t guilty of corruption or partisan betrayals ? their ?failures? exist solely in the minds of lazy ideologues. What their Republican critics don?t seem to appreciate is that their ostensible allies asked them to go too far, ignore their responsibilities, abuse an otherwise legitimate process, and look out for the ?team,? whether the facts warranted it or not.

Comey didn?t play along with a partisan game, and his reward is a round of condemnations from the same people who, up until 24 hours ago, sang their praises.

Maybe this will give birth to a new (or expanded) conspiracy theory that Right Wingers can entertain themselves.

papadage wrote:
It's bullshit because she used them in turn (desktop, laptop, phone), not multiple phones. And she also was denied a secure device anyway.

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Clinton hater will continue their attack, and FBI has given them plenty of ammunition for sure.

But I don't see inconsistencies between Clinton's statements and FBI's assessment as lies.

Not true. In fact, the AP, which if anything is liberally biased, performed a fact check and demonstrated that basically everything Hillary has said on the email issue since it first was public was an outright, demonstrable lie.

Wouldn't count on her to start telling the truth now.

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8 ... 593a34a3d9f993d0f140aecbd

I don't recognize the inconsistencies between Clinton's statements and FBI statement as lies. I would characterize them as misstatements.

No, they are lies. You clearly didn't read the article.

Just as one example, Hillary lied and said she used a personal server so she only needed to carry one device around. She said it was too complicated to have a device for work emails and one for personal so she just combined them.

Comey told us that Hillary flat out lied, and in fact she used many devices to send and receive email. There are many more lies detailed in the article.

I read it, and I didn't recognize them as lies. Again, I see them as misstatements.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Clinton hater will continue their attack, and FBI has given them plenty of ammunition for sure.

But I don't see inconsistencies between Clinton's statements and FBI's assessment as lies.

Not true. In fact, the AP, which if anything is liberally biased, performed a fact check and demonstrated that basically everything Hillary has said on the email issue since it first was public was an outright, demonstrable lie.

Wouldn't count on her to start telling the truth now.

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8 ... 593a34a3d9f993d0f140aecbd

I don't recognize the inconsistencies between Clinton's statements and FBI statement as lies. I would characterize them as misstatements.

No, they are lies. You clearly didn't read the article.

Just as one example, Hillary lied and said she used a personal server so she only needed to carry one device around. She said it was too complicated to have a device for work emails and one for personal so she just combined them.

Comey told us that Hillary flat out lied, and in fact she used many devices to send and receive email. There are many more lies detailed in the article.

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Clinton hater will continue their attack, and FBI has given them plenty of ammunition for sure.

But I don't see inconsistencies between Clinton's statements and FBI's assessment as lies.

Not true. In fact, the AP, which if anything is liberally biased, performed a fact check and demonstrated that basically everything Hillary has said on the email issue since it first was public was an outright, demonstrable lie.

Wouldn't count on her to start telling the truth now.

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8 ... 593a34a3d9f993d0f140aecbd

I don't recognize the inconsistencies between Clinton's statements and FBI statement as lies. I would characterize them as misstatements.