13 Minutes of Hillary Lying

Originally posted by vivify
"How specific must I be?"

Pick something you disagree shows Hillary lying, and provide support as to why you think so.

Got it?

OK, so I take it you have decline my challenge.

I will respond to yours. I cannot read Hillarys mind, so I cannot prove whether she was lying or not lying for any given statement, but what I can do is point out a lack of strong evidence that she was lying.

When she says 90-95% of the state department emails were captured by the system, I see no evidence whatsoever that that is a lie. She may be wrong, but even that isn't demonstrated in the video as it does not go into enough detail on the matter.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which is worth a whole lot more than the words of a flat earther. Sorry, but I already warned you about trying to play superior when you are flat earther. It falls flat.

There is no superior here, numbnuts.
There is a video with Clinton making several claims using specific words to describe her position at specific points in time.
At a later point in time, Clinton is, again, using specific words to describe her position on the exact same topics but now using specific words which either directly contradict her previous claims, or are shown to be demonstrably contradictory with the facts and/or her previous claims.
The condition or state of a person's mind cannot and does not alter the presence of a lie.
Intention does not hold sway in a single one of these examples.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There is no superior here, numbnuts.

On the contrary, there most definitely is. And it isn't the flat earther.

The condition or state of a person's mind cannot and does not alter the presence of a lie.
Find a dictionary.
Look up 'lie'.
Then find an encyclopedia.
Look up 'shape of the earth'.
Educate yourself, its embarrassing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
On the contrary, there most definitely is. And it isn't the flat earther.

[b]The condition or state of a person's mind cannot and does not alter the presence of a lie.
Find a dictionary.
Look up 'lie'.
Then find an encyclopedia.
Look up 'shape of the earth'.
Educate yourself, its embarrassing.[/b]

Given your penchant for burying your head in the sand coupled with believing everything you are told, you make a point... I simply didn't think it was seemly to point out the obvious to you.

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

According to your bizarro world, it isn't possible to ascertain Clinton's intentions.
Since her statements are clearly, patently false, it can only be assumed you are contending she didn't intend to intend to deceive.
Your contorted attempt at justifying her statements is porous, at best, and, as previously observed, intransigence at worst.
If there was EVER a time wherein Clinton was in a corkscrew evasive maneuver landing on a tarmac, ducking and running for cover under sniper fire--- EVER --- but simply misremembered the locale and/or date of the same, one could make a case as to her intentions, and the lack thereof.
Then, and only then, could your idiotic scenario gain any traction.

But she never did experience what she repeatedly claimed had happened, had she?

So much for your dictionary bailout.

As far as the question of the flat earth goes, you stick with what you read, what you've been told.
I'll continue testing and proving whether a statement is factual or not.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Given your penchant for burying your head in the sand ...

Says the flat earther.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Says the flat earther.

Says, well, you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
When she says 90-95% of the state department emails were captured by the system, I see no evidence whatsoever that that is a lie. She may be wrong, but even that isn't demonstrated in the video as it does not go into enough detail on the matter.

Hillary told the public that she "90-95 percent" of "work related emails" were in the state department's figure. Trey Gowdy asks her where that figure came from, Hillary says "the State Department". Gowdy then points out that the Attorney General found that figure to be be less than one percent.

Hillary's claim that the State Department told her a figure that's so wildly off from what was actually found to be true, in addition to no one other than Hillary having cited that figure, is indeed evidence that she lied.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Says, well, you.

The not-flat earther. Guess which one of us has his head in the sand.

Originally posted by vivify
Hillary told the public that she "90-95 percent" of "work related emails" were in the state department's figure.

No, she doesn't. Not in that video. Quote her exact words.

Trey Gowdy asks her where that figure came from, Hillary says "the State Department". Gowdy then points out that the Attorney General found that figure to be be less than one percent.
And?

Hillary's claim that the State Department told her a figure that's so wildly off from what was actually found to be true,
No, it isn't evidence that she lied. Its not at all clear what figures the two people are talking about, and I am fairly sure even you don't know what they are talking about.
Please explain in detail what those figures are referring to in the various statements made.

... in addition to no one other than Hillary having cited that figure, is indeed evidence that she lied.
Who else would have cited the figure if Hillary was telling the truth?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, she doesn't. Not in that video. Quote her exact words.

[b]Trey Gowdy asks her where that figure came from, Hillary says "the State Department". Gowdy then points out that the Attorney General found that figure to be be less than one percent.
And?

Hillary's claim that the State Department told her a figure that's so wildly off from wha ...[text shortened]... dence that she lied.
Who else would have cited the figure if Hillary was telling the truth?[/b]

The mind reels.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, she doesn't. Not in that video. Quote her exact words.

[b]Trey Gowdy asks her where that figure came from, Hillary says "the State Department". Gowdy then points out that the Attorney General found that figure to be be less than one percent.
And?

Hillary's claim that the State Department told her a figure that's so wildly off from wha ...[text shortened]... dence that she lied.
Who else would have cited the figure if Hillary was telling the truth?[/b]

In the video, Hillary claims that she believed all of her work related emails were turned over to the state department; "all" would mean she believes 100 percent of emails were turned over. That's far from the "less than 1 percent" figure the Attorney General found.

"Who else would have cited the figure if Hillary was telling the truth?"

Who else would cite this number during a Congressional hearing where thousands of classified emails were involved? At least one other person. Yet, there were none.

Your claim that it's "not clear' what figures about being talked about is actually evidence of stupidity. Clearly, they are talking about emails that are in the system of the State Department, since they actually state this.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The mind reels.

Your mind reeled at the thought that the earth might not be flat.

Originally posted by vivify
In the video, Hillary claims that she believed all of her work related emails were turned over to the state department; "all" would mean she believes 100 percent of emails were turned over. That's far from the "less than 1 percent" figure the Attorney General found.

But that is not the statement we are discussing. I am asking about the specific statement we are discussing.

Who else would cite this number during a Congressional hearing where thousands of classified emails were involved? At least one other person.
How do you know this?
And what does the number of classified emails have to do with it? (and there weren't thousands of classified emails were there? What gave you that idea?).

Your claim that it's "not clear' what figures about being talked about is actually evidence of stupidity.
Yet you failed to give clarity and instead decided to sidestep and discuss another claim altogether.

Clearly, they are talking about emails that are in the system of the State Department, since they actually state this.
Please quote which statements are clearly talking about such emails.

[edit]
I'll help you out here:
Hillary says:
90-95% of my work related emails were in the state system, if they wanted to see them, they would most certainly have been able to do so.
Mr Gowdy uses your argument that nobody else has cited the figure. He then states a figure of 1%. He doesn't demonstrate that Hillary was lying. Also note that the video cuts out and does not show Hilaries response if any. Did they never get to the bottom of it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that is not the statement we are discussing. I am asking about the specific statement we are discussing.

[b]Who else would cite this number during a Congressional hearing where thousands of classified emails were involved? At least one other person.
How do you know this?
And what does the number of classified emails have to do with it? (and ...[text shortened]... deo cuts out and does not show Hilaries response if any. Did they never get to the bottom of it?[/b]

You insist that it's "not clear" what the 90-95 percent figure is referring to, and then quote Hillary specifically stating it's referring to the State Department's system. You just refuted yourself.

(and there weren't thousands of classified emails were there? What gave you that idea?).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/what-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html

2,000 emails have since been classified "confidential"

So again, in response to you saying there's "no evidence" of Hillary lying, you're clearly wrong.

Originally posted by vivify
You insist that it's "not clear" what the 90-95 percent figure is referring to,

Go back and reread my post more carefully this time.

You just refuted yourself.
No, I did not. You just failed to understand what I said.

2,000 emails have since been classified "confidential"

So by 'classified' you mean someone later on decided they were confidential? And was this before or after the meeting in question at which you claimed thousands of classified emails were being discussed?

So again, in response to you saying there's "no evidence" of Hillary lying, you're clearly wrong.
In what way am I 'clearly wrong'? You haven't addressed my points at all. My point about the classification of the emails had nothing to do with whether or not Hillary lied. It had to do with your ridiculous claim that someone else must have quoted a particular statistic because of the quantity of classified emails being discussed. Do you dispute that that reasoning of yours was ridiculous in the extreme?