hero69 wrote:
State department reopening probe is a big waste.....better crooked Hillary than donald, the pathological liar.

Atsushi wrote:
GOP accidentally does Clinton a favor with James Comey hearing

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sh ... james-comey-hearing#break

Quote:

Congressional Republicans had a nice, simply morality tale to tell. The main narrative was a little thin ? any story built around email server protocols is going to be dry ? but GOP lawmakers had clearly identified protagonists and antagonists. Just as importantly, they?d convinced much of the media that their tale was as important as it was riveting.

Today, however, Republicans lost the plot.

On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that while Hillary Clinton?s email server protocols were careless, no sane prosecutor would find her actions worthy of an indictment. House Republicans, who were counting on an indictment to improve the GOP?s election chances, were apoplectic and hastily threw together a hearing, forcing Comey to go to Capitol Hill to explain himself.

What Republicans didn?t realize is the degree to which they were doing Clinton and Democrats a favor. NBC News reported on the proceedings:

FBI director James Comey stuck to his guns Thursday and defended his decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime for her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state.

Summoned to appear before the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Comey insisted again that Clinton ?did not break the law? and that there was not enough evidence to charge her with a crime. ?That?s just the way it is,? Comey said.

I honestly have no idea what Republicans thought they were going to achieve with this spectacle. Did GOP lawmakers expect Comey to declare, ?Now that you?ve yelled at me for a few hours, I?ve changed my mind and now support criminal charges against Clinton??

Before the hearing Republicans had a series of fairly specific talking points: Clinton lied to the FBI; she created a national security threat; she plays by a different set of rules than everyone else. But instead of simply repeating those talking points, GOP lawmakers invited the FBI director ? a lifelong Republican, whom GOP officials have repeatedly praised for his honesty ? to testify about how wrong the party?s arguments are.

?We have no basis to believe she lied to the FBI,? Comey said. Asked about Clinton benefiting from a different set of rules, he responded, ?It?s not true.? Asked about classified emails, Comey said there were only three messages ? each of which were not properly marked classified when she received them.

In other words, congressional Republicans had the bright idea of holding a hearing with a credible witness who was perfectly happy to explain to them how wrong they are.

Making matters worse, GOP lawmakers forgot who the villains and heroes were supposed to be in their story. Republicans were supposed to make Clinton the scoundrel of this narrative, but today, they decided instead to go after the director of the FBI ? because he had the audacity to say a Democrat didn?t commit a crime.

But what?s to be gained from going after Comey? The Washington Post?s Greg Sargent noted during the Q&A that the hearing ?was meant to be about Hillary,? but it instead devolved to the point in which ?Comey is angrily defending his integrity against conspiracy theories.?

And that helps Republicans, how?

As if that weren?t enough, note that on Tuesday, the story looked like Comey vs. Clinton ? the FBI director didn?t think the Democratic candidate broke any laws, but he clearly wasn?t pleased with some of her decisions, and he delivered a public rebuke. Now the story is Comey vs. Republicans ? GOP lawmakers had some baseless allegations and reckless conspiracy theories, some of which targeted Comey directly, and they asked the FBI director to give testimony knocking down each of their bad arguments.

For their part, Democrats suddenly found themselves keeping up with Republican attempts to change the subject ? talking about Clinton?s emails is suddenly less important than talking about Comey?s credibility and reliability.

When congressional Republicans take stock this evening and reflect on their failed gambit, one wonders whether they?ll appreciate the fact that this Comey hearing was a bad plan, executed poorly. The last time Democrats were this pleased with GOP hearing, it was Clinton?s 11-hour Benghazi Committee testimony ? in which Republicans made fools of themselves and their conspiracy theories, and Clinton turned her entire presidential campaign around.

It helps sometimes to be blessed with incompetent enemies.

This sums it up nicely.

Congressional Republicans had a nice, simply morality tale to tell. The main narrative was a little thin ? any story built around email server protocols is going to be dry ? but GOP lawmakers had clearly identified protagonists and antagonists. Just as importantly, they?d convinced much of the media that their tale was as important as it was riveting.

Today, however, Republicans lost the plot.

On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that while Hillary Clinton?s email server protocols were careless, no sane prosecutor would find her actions worthy of an indictment. House Republicans, who were counting on an indictment to improve the GOP?s election chances, were apoplectic and hastily threw together a hearing, forcing Comey to go to Capitol Hill to explain himself.

What Republicans didn?t realize is the degree to which they were doing Clinton and Democrats a favor. NBC News reported on the proceedings:

FBI director James Comey stuck to his guns Thursday and defended his decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime for her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state.

Summoned to appear before the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Comey insisted again that Clinton ?did not break the law? and that there was not enough evidence to charge her with a crime. ?That?s just the way it is,? Comey said.

I honestly have no idea what Republicans thought they were going to achieve with this spectacle. Did GOP lawmakers expect Comey to declare, ?Now that you?ve yelled at me for a few hours, I?ve changed my mind and now support criminal charges against Clinton??

Before the hearing Republicans had a series of fairly specific talking points: Clinton lied to the FBI; she created a national security threat; she plays by a different set of rules than everyone else. But instead of simply repeating those talking points, GOP lawmakers invited the FBI director ? a lifelong Republican, whom GOP officials have repeatedly praised for his honesty ? to testify about how wrong the party?s arguments are.

?We have no basis to believe she lied to the FBI,? Comey said. Asked about Clinton benefiting from a different set of rules, he responded, ?It?s not true.? Asked about classified emails, Comey said there were only three messages ? each of which were not properly marked classified when she received them.

In other words, congressional Republicans had the bright idea of holding a hearing with a credible witness who was perfectly happy to explain to them how wrong they are.

Making matters worse, GOP lawmakers forgot who the villains and heroes were supposed to be in their story. Republicans were supposed to make Clinton the scoundrel of this narrative, but today, they decided instead to go after the director of the FBI ? because he had the audacity to say a Democrat didn?t commit a crime.

But what?s to be gained from going after Comey? The Washington Post?s Greg Sargent noted during the Q&A that the hearing ?was meant to be about Hillary,? but it instead devolved to the point in which ?Comey is angrily defending his integrity against conspiracy theories.?

And that helps Republicans, how?

As if that weren?t enough, note that on Tuesday, the story looked like Comey vs. Clinton ? the FBI director didn?t think the Democratic candidate broke any laws, but he clearly wasn?t pleased with some of her decisions, and he delivered a public rebuke. Now the story is Comey vs. Republicans ? GOP lawmakers had some baseless allegations and reckless conspiracy theories, some of which targeted Comey directly, and they asked the FBI director to give testimony knocking down each of their bad arguments.

For their part, Democrats suddenly found themselves keeping up with Republican attempts to change the subject ? talking about Clinton?s emails is suddenly less important than talking about Comey?s credibility and reliability.

When congressional Republicans take stock this evening and reflect on their failed gambit, one wonders whether they?ll appreciate the fact that this Comey hearing was a bad plan, executed poorly. The last time Democrats were this pleased with GOP hearing, it was Clinton?s 11-hour Benghazi Committee testimony ? in which Republicans made fools of themselves and their conspiracy theories, and Clinton turned her entire presidential campaign around.

It helps sometimes to be blessed with incompetent enemies.

Today's grilling of FBI Director James Comey was probably a dumb move on the part of Republicans. He didn't give them anything new to work with, but he did offer up plenty of answers helpful to Hillary Clinton. Here's a small sampling:

Did Hillary Clinton lie?
To the FBI? We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.

Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?
Not to the FBI. Not in a case we're working.

Do you agree with the claim that General Petraeus "got in trouble for far less"? Do you agree with that?
No, it's the reverse.

What do you mean by that?
His conduct, to me, illustrates the categories of behavior that mark the prosecutions that are actually brought. Clearly intentional conduct, knew what he was doing was a violation of the law, huge amount of information. Even if you couldn't prove he knew it, it raises the inference that he did it. An effort to obstruct justice. That combination of things makes it worthy of a prosecution.

If you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?
Correct.

Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "C" in the text someplace?
No....There was no header on the email or the text.

So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
That would be a reasonable inference.

I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that. But you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.

Did you get any political interference from the White House?
None.

Did you get any political interference from the Hillary Clinton campaign?
None.

This last one is from Rep. John Micah of Florida, who spent most of his time laying out a full-blown conspiracy theory about collusion between Comey, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Loretta Lynch about this investigation. Then he claims there's something "fishy" about the whole thing:

Tomorrow we'll go back to our districts and we have to explain to people, in a couple cafes where I see folks and have meetings. They're going to ask a lot of questions about what took place....One week ago, former president Clinton meets with the attorney general in Phoenix. The next Friday, last Friday, Mrs. Lynch, the AG, says she's going to defer to the FBI. On Saturday morning I saw the vans pull up....Then on Tuesday morning...you basically said you going to recommend not to prosecute. Correct? And then Tuesday we had President Obama and Secretary Clinton arrive in Charlotte at 2:00. Shortly thereafter we had the attorney general closing the case. This is rapid fire. I mean, my folks think there is something fishy about this. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but there are questions on how this came down.

I hope what you'll tell the folks in the cafe is, look me in the eye and listen to what I'm about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone. The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination. There was an insinuation in what you were saying. I don't mean to get strong in responding, but I want to make sure I was definitive about that.

I don't know that this hearing will have any real effect one way or another. But there was no reason for Republicans to hold it other than inchoate rage at not getting the indictment they so desperately believed they were due. It accomplished nothing for their side, since Comey had already delivered a pretty blistering assessment of Hillary Clinton's "carelessness" and was unlikely to go further in front of Congress. But it did give Democrats a chance to get Comey on record refuting several conservative talking points and conspiracy theories. That was dumb. But that's what happens when you live in a bubble where Hillary Clinton is an obvious villain and it's simply inconceivable that she did nothing illegal.

Pebble wrote: Nothing you have written here demonstrates a remote knowledge of IT systems let alone a server. What you know of computers is exceptionally minimal.

You write this ?The FBI does have evidence that her staffs email accounts were hacked because they were on a private company server. Which means any emails Hillary sent to them were hacked.? And want me to take you seriously as someone that knows IT. Do you even know what a hack is? That an email was hacked means someone got in, not that they have repeated access. You also assume that the hole wasn?t sealed when the hack occurred. This is willfully simple thinking and a largess of assumptions for someone that has been in IT for 40 years.

Nothing in the FBI report states that her server?s security was ?unsophisticated.? They only noted that it is possible someone could have hacked it without detection. This is a fact that applies to every server on the planet with internet access.

Pebble wrote: Do you even know what a hack is?That an email was hacked means someone got in, not that they have repeated access.

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

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.

Okay, have fun then. Remember how well Benghazi investigations turned out.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote: In the end, few people have changed or will change the way they view Hilary Clinton because of this. I get it though; it's more fun to attack the opponent than defending your man. Enjoy the moment while it lasts.

Yes it will change people?s view of her. This is how they view her now??just 37 percent of people believe Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy while 57 percent say they don't think she is.? Do you think her numbers will improve after this?

The email server is going to follow Hillary until Election Day especially with what will come out of the Comey testimony today. There will be commercial after commercial with his testimony. Yes we know it is more fun to attack your opponent just look at how the media hits Trump ?. ?Star of David?, ?praising Suddam?, ?AC bankruptcies? , ?playing golf in Scotland? etc

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote: Politifact is correct in that Hillary is ?mostly false.? However, which is worse, housing government data on a server you personally own and is managed by a government employee or housing that government data, as Powell did, on his personal account which is managed and owned by a private company?

This is worse.. housing a store brought server in your basement as Clinton did with absolutely no security what so ever as Comey just stated on Capitol Hill. A personal account on a private company?s server has way more levels of security. Also those private companies are working 24/7 on ways stop attacks on their systems. I don't recall there being a concern that Powell's email account was hacked, no log of it being hacked.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote: It is truly pathetic to continue the ?left wing media? trope when they are literally run by right wingers? But, enough about those facts, how about the highlighted portion?? Well, that?s a lot of ?could have? and ?possible? but I don?t see any actual evidence that anything happened. As such, a big wad of nothing.

After Comey?s 15 minute statement did you see any other information come out of it in the media except for the one quote? ?extremely careless? ? I didn?t so I went right to the fbi source/transcript (below) to get the real story. And in that real story is the following highlighted line: . Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton?s personal e-mail account." Isn?t that the scary thing about this whole private server issue? No one knows if her unsecured server was hacked or not?

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

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Of course you don?t understand it. The technology and information about said technology flies over your head. That?s perfectly fine given that you likely aren?t involved in technology such as servers, databases, protocols, ports, etc.
It?s actually quite simple: Nobody broke in. Nobody stole data. Nobody had access. There is no evidence to showing that anyone broke in and stole anything.
However, they have to leave the door open to the super hacker that can somehow break into the system without leaving any trace to indicate as such. It?s extremely unlikely.

Ha ha I have been in the IT world for 40 years you are probably using systems I wrote before you were born. The FBI does have evidence that her staffs email accounts were hacked because they were on a private company server. Which means any emails Hillary sent to them were hacked. They can?t tell if Clintons server was hacked because it was so unsophisticated , not many bells and whistles or logs like a private companies server.

"It?s extremely unlikely." ? Again read?.

?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.

Atsushi wrote: In the end, few people have changed or will change the way they view Hilary Clinton because of this. I get it though; it's more fun to attack the opponent than defending your man. Enjoy the moment while it lasts.

Pebble wrote: Politifact is correct in that Hillary is ?mostly false.? However, which is worse, housing government data on a server you personally own and is managed by a government employee or housing that government data, as Powell did, on his personal account which is managed and owned by a private company?

Pebble wrote: It is truly pathetic to continue the ?left wing media? trope when they are literally run by right wingers? But, enough about those facts, how about the highlighted portion?? Well, that?s a lot of ?could have? and ?possible? but I don?t see any actual evidence that anything happened. As such, a big wad of nothing.

Of course you don?t understand it. The technology and information about said technology flies over your head. That?s perfectly fine given that you likely aren?t involved in technology such as servers, databases, protocols, ports, etc.
It?s actually quite simple: Nobody broke in. Nobody stole data. Nobody had access. There is no evidence to showing that anyone broke in and stole anything.
However, they have to leave the door open to the super hacker that can somehow break into the system without leaving any trace to indicate as such. It?s extremely unlikely.

JCMan8 wrote:
You can deflect from Hillary's lies all you want, won't change the fact that she has demonstrably lied on pretty much every public statement she's ever given about her national security scandal.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

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.

Actually I don't think you understand what lying is. For example, Clinton lied when she said that no documents she received were marked classified. The FBI director specifically said this wasn't true, and in fact they found documents that had classified markings, in addition to thousands more that were classified.

This isn't a "misstatement," it is a flat out lie.

Clinton said she didn't send or receive emails that were marked Classified. She believed that that's how she would know if email contained classified information. Her understanding was incorrect.

FBI said that she sent or received emails that contained classified information even though they weren't labeled classified.

So you can accuse her of not knowing this (I certainly do)--Comey seems to think that she should have known better. But what Clinton said wasn't a lie. It was a statement based on her incorrect understanding of what constitutes classified.

You still don't get it. In addition to Hillary sending and receiving thousands of emails containing classified information that were not marked classified, the FBI said that she also handled emails that WERE marked classified, albeit a much smaller number.

And this was only her latest lie. You obviously don't remember, but when this story first broke, Hillary confidently looked into the camera and proclaimed that there was no classified information at all on her server.

That's so very terrible! Can you image how damaging it would be if Colin Powell had left classified information on a Yahoo server...? Oh wait, that actually happened.

Where is your outrage over the outing of Valerie Plame? We know for a fact it doesn't exist due to the fact that her husband is liberal and you are a hateful little lonely boy (hence all that nasty racism you post).

You can deflect from Hillary's lies all you want, won't change the fact that she has demonstrably lied on pretty much every public statement she's ever given about her national security scandal.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

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.

Actually I don't think you understand what lying is. For example, Clinton lied when she said that no documents she received were marked classified. The FBI director specifically said this wasn't true, and in fact they found documents that had classified markings, in addition to thousands more that were classified.

This isn't a "misstatement," it is a flat out lie.

Clinton said she didn't send or receive emails that were marked Classified. She believed that that's how she would know if email contained classified information. Her understanding was incorrect.

FBI said that she sent or received emails that contained classified information even though they weren't labeled classified.

So you can accuse her of not knowing this (I certainly do)--Comey seems to think that she should have known better. But what Clinton said wasn't a lie. It was a statement based on her incorrect understanding of what constitutes classified.

You still don't get it. In addition to Hillary sending and receiving thousands of emails containing classified information that were not marked classified, the FBI said that she also handled emails that WERE marked classified, albeit a much smaller number.

And this was only her latest lie. You obviously don't remember, but when this story first broke, Hillary confidently looked into the camera and proclaimed that there was no classified information at all on her server.

That's so very terrible! Can you image how damaging it would be if Colin Powell had left classified information on a Yahoo server...? Oh wait, that actually happened.

Where is your outrage over the outing of Valerie Plame? We know for a fact it doesn't exist due to the fact that her husband is liberal and you are a hateful little lonely boy (hence all that nasty racism you post).

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

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.

Actually I don't think you understand what lying is. For example, Clinton lied when she said that no documents she received were marked classified. The FBI director specifically said this wasn't true, and in fact they found documents that had classified markings, in addition to thousands more that were classified.

This isn't a "misstatement," it is a flat out lie.

Clinton said she didn't send or receive emails that were marked Classified. She believed that that's how she would know if email contained classified information. Her understanding was incorrect.

FBI said that she sent or received emails that contained classified information even though they weren't labeled classified.

So you can accuse her of not knowing this (I certainly do)--Comey seems to think that she should have known better. But what Clinton said wasn't a lie. It was a statement based on her incorrect understanding of what constitutes classified.

You still don't get it. In addition to Hillary sending and receiving thousands of emails containing classified information that were not marked classified, the FBI said that she also handled emails that WERE marked classified, albeit a much smaller number.

And this was only her latest lie. You obviously don't remember, but when this story first broke, Hillary confidently looked into the camera and proclaimed that there was no classified information at all on her server.

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

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.

Actually I don't think you understand what lying is. For example, Clinton lied when she said that no documents she received were marked classified. The FBI director specifically said this wasn't true, and in fact they found documents that had classified markings, in addition to thousands more that were classified.

This isn't a "misstatement," it is a flat out lie.

Clinton said she didn't send or receive emails that were marked Classified. She believed that that's how she would know if email contained classified information. Her understanding was incorrect.

FBI said that she sent or received emails that contained classified information even though they weren't labeled classified.

So you can accuse her of not knowing this (I certainly do)--Comey seems to think that she should have known better. But what Clinton said wasn't a lie. It was a statement based on her incorrect understanding of what constitutes classified.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

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.

Actually I don't think you understand what lying is. For example, Clinton lied when she said that no documents she received were marked classified. The FBI director specifically said this wasn't true, and in fact they found documents that had classified markings, in addition to thousands more that were classified.

This isn't a "misstatement," it is a flat out lie.

papadage wrote:
And then he testified the markings were improperly done.