Originally posted by vivify Hilary failed to name who have her the"95" percent figure from the State Department like she claimed, and then changed her story to say the figure is an assumption.
How is that not evidence that she lied?
Just because she bleaches her e-mails after deleting this is no evidence that she has done anything wrong.
Originally posted by vivify Hilary failed to name who have her the"95" percent figure from the State Department like she claimed, and then changed her story to say the figure is an assumption.
How is that not evidence that she lied?
She never "changed her story"; she said that she got the figure from the State Department presumably at one of the meetings between her staff and SD officials. These meetings undeniably occurred and the 90-95% figure is accurate. The existence of the meetings and the fact that the figure is accurate is strong evidence that her statement isn't even false, nevermind a "lie".
Originally posted by no1marauder She never "changed her story"; she said that she got the figure from the State Department presumably at one of the meetings between her staff and SD officials. These meetings undeniably occurred and the 90-95% figure is accurate. The existence of the meetings and the fact that the figure is accurate is strong evidence that her statement isn't even false, nevermind a "lie".
Because a meeting existed, that means anything claimed by the attendees actually happened?
"Clinton claimed that 90 to 95 percent of her emails were in the State Department system. She even wrongly suggested this calculation had been made by the State Department, when actually it was calculated by her staff."
Hilary's claim was not only false, but a lie. That she can't name one person who allegedly have this figure is evidence Hillary lied.
Originally posted by mchill It will be the less than honest, but experienced Hillary vs the trash talking, blustery, and equally dishonest Trump. We'll just have to see who the public dislikes more. Not a happy choice.
Far from equally. There's a trail of death w/hillary behind everything she is involved with. How many deaths can be attributed to the Donald?
"Clinton claimed that 90 to 95 percent of her emails were in the State Department system. She even wrongly suggested this calculation had been mad ...[text shortened]... a lie. That she can't name one person who allegedly have this figure is evidence Hillary lied.
We've been all through this in the other thread. The assertions in the WaPo article are incorrect; the State Department has never said the figure did not come from them. We do know that the figure is accurate, however.
Apparently no one has bothered to ask her after the Benghazi hearing for a specific individual at State who provided the figure. So that she hasn't done so isn't any evidence of anything. Again there is zero evidence of a "lie" i.e. a deliberately false statement made with intent to deceive. The whole line of questioning was based on Gowdy trying to get a "gotcha" moment when he was relying on State Department figures for low level employees using a completely different system that high ranking officials at State. The attempt fell on its face with only desperate anti-Clinton fanatics like you still trying to make a mountain out of this (not even) a molehill.
Originally posted by kquinn909 Far from equally. There's a trail of death w/hillary behind everything she is involved with. How many deaths can be attributed to the Donald?
Originally posted by no1marauder We've been all through this in the other thread. The assertions in the WaPo article are incorrect; the State Department has never said the figure did not come from them. We do know that the figure is accurate, however.
This was never proven incorrect. Show it if it was.
Originally posted by DeepThought This is conspiracy theory territory. Read the page on Wikipedia about denialism and apply it to what your are saying.
If you're trying to imply something, say it outright instead. As it stands, No1 is claiming that simply being at a meeting is evidence that a statement no one can verify hapenned; even though all that's needed to verify the claim is one simple name.
Originally posted by no1marauder We do know that the figure is accurate, however.
I missed this part.
The figure isn't "accurate". That's a false statement from you. The figure is a reasonable estimate, but there's no way to tell that this figure is "accurate". This is part of the reason why the State Department won't confirm Hilary's false claim.
I don't think anything more needs to be said on the subject. Hilary lied, plain and simple.
The figure isn't "accurate". That's a false statement from you. The figure is a reasonable estimate, but there's no way to tell that this figure is "accurate". This is part of the reason why the State Department won't confirm Hilary's false claim.
I don't think anything more needs to be said on the subject. Hilary lied, plain and simple.
I see no difference in saying an approximate figure is a "reasonable estimate" and saying it was "accurate". That you are reduced to such hair splitting shows how weak your claim is.
The State Department has neither confirmed or denied Hillary's statement.
Your foot stamping is amusing but you've added nothing here to the discussion in the other thread. In sum, you have failed to produce any reasonable evidence that Hillary's statement was false, nevermind that it was deliberately so with intent to deceive. Therefore you have not met your burden of showing it to be a lie.
26 Sep '16 21:31
Scandals: Clinton's vs Trump's
Back to Top