13 Minutes of Hillary Lying

Originally posted by vivify
This is what makes you pathetic. In the same quote, it's pointed out the State Department itself confirmed that the figure didn't come from them. Instead of focusing on the larger point of the actual Department confirming this, you instead focus your entire post on a spokesman.

The Department itself, as pointed out in the Washington Post, refuted Hillary's claim. Your nauseating fixation on winning rather than being right, doesn't change this.

You do realize you are wasting your time with him, right?

All politicians lie except Hillary.

Originally posted by vivify
This is what makes you pathetic. In the same quote, it's pointed out the State Department itself confirmed that the figure didn't come from them. Instead of focusing on the larger point of the actual Department confirming this, you instead focus your entire post on a spokesman.

The Department itself, as pointed out in the Washington Post, refuted Hillary's claim. Your nauseating fixation on winning rather than being right, doesn't change this.

Provide me with the State Department statement confirming that. Since the article rather clearly incorrectly characterized the spokesman's statement, I'm not willing to accept its characterization of another unquoted statement.

Originally posted by whodey
You do realize you are wasting your time with him, right?

Yes.

Originally posted by vivify
This is what makes you pathetic. In the same quote, it's pointed out the State Department itself confirmed that the figure didn't come from them. Instead of focusing on the larger point of the actual Department confirming this, you instead focus your entire post on a spokesman.

The Department itself, as pointed out in the Washington Post, refuted Hillary's claim. Your nauseating fixation on winning rather than being right, doesn't change this.

Not from this post, but what the hell.

You have asked one question in particular, namely, 'how did she lie?'

These next words, which have been fashioned into a sentence which is categorized as a question are in response to your question 'how did she lie?'

When Clinton claimed to have been in an airplane which took evasive maneuvers involving a corkscrew-type navigation of the airplane, and then once landed on a tarmac with the heeded advice which saw her running for cover under sniper fire, was that a lie or was that the truth?

Originally posted by whodey
You do realize you are wasting your time with him, right?

All politicians lie except Hillary.

Your constant falsehoods about my positions here are tiresome and utterly hypocritical in someone who keeps complaining about someone else's supposed "lies".

Not being a partisan shill like you are, I take the same approach to all claims that someone has lied i.e. present the evidence supporting the claim that the statement made by X is a knowingly false statement made with intention to deceive. That virtually all of the claims made that Hillary has "lied" emanating from the right wing blogosphere where you get virtually all your "information" fail that simple test does not indicate a fault in the test but a fault in the (lack of) evidence.

That you or vivify or anyone else find this frustrating is your or their own problem.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your constant falsehoods about my positions here are tiresome and utterly hypocritical in someone who keeps complaining about someone else's supposed "lies".

Not being a partisan shill like you are, I take the same approach to all claims that someone has lied i.e. present the evidence supporting the claim that the statement made by X is a knowingly fa ...[text shortened]... dence.

That you or vivify or anyone else find this frustrating is your or their own problem.

What's frustrating is that you're blind to your hypocrisy. You blast the right for deceitful tactics, yet constantly use them.

The Washington Post said that Toner "indicated" that 90-95 percent figure from them. Evidence:

Toner: "I just don’t – again, we’ve not been able to confirm that. I’m not sure where that information come from."

That is indeed "indicating" that the 90-95 percent figure wasn't from the State Department. The Washington Post reported that the State later confirmed this indication. The problem is that you start playing games you learned as a lawyer, and cherry-pick what you think helps you win an argument. This is clearly a dishonest "discredit the source" shtick, even at the expense of personal integrity. You wrongly accuse the Washington Post of being incorrect about Toner, and then use that as a basis to refuse what they said about the State Department.

These cheap lawyer tricks are what make you frustrating; not this false martyrdom you've set up for yourself.

Originally posted by vivify
What's frustrating is that you're blind to your hypocrisy. You blast the right for deceitful tactics, yet constantly use them.

The Washington Post said that Toner "indicated" that 90-95 percent figure from them. Evidence:

Toner: "I just don’t – again, we’ve not been able to confirm that. I’m not sure where that information come from."

That is in ...[text shortened]... awyer tricks are what make you frustrating; not this false martyrdom you've set up for yourself.

Why should I accept the Washington Post's characterization of what Toner said as 'evidence" when I have his actual words? And his words are basically "I don't know" which indicates absolutely nothing. He admits he didn't know anything about what happened at the July meeting, so what kind of "evidence" is that?

I suppose to stubborn shills insisting on real evidence before labelling someone a "liar" is "cheap lawyer tricks" or something. Your arguments in this thread have been below pathetic; no wonder why whodey wants to help out.

EDIT: Tell me again what this "indicates":

Toner: I don’t have any information available right now in front of me about that meeting.



🙄🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why should I accept the Washington Post's characterization of what Toner said as 'evidence" when I have his actual words? And his words are basically "I don't know" which indicates absolutely nothing. He admits he didn't know anything about what happened at the July meeting, so what kind of "evidence" is that?

I suppose to stubborn shills insisting on ...[text shortened]... ve [b]any information available right now in front of me about that meeting.



🙄🙄🙄🙄[/b]

Again: cherry-picking. You ignored that he actually does indicate the SD didn't give the figure. Nothing else you quote negates that.

Furthermore, you dodged my question of WHO gave Hillary's team that info, and changed the topic to something not smacking you in the face as hard with how wrong you are. Whoever trained you as a lawyer would be proud.

Originally posted by vivify
Again: cherry-picking. You ignored that he actually does indicate the SD didn't give the figure. Nothing else you quote negates that.

Except it does negate that. If he says he doesn't know, he cannot simultaneously say he knows.

Furthermore, you dodged my question of WHO gave Hillary's team that info,
We don't know. It could have been in that meeting. It may not have. It doesn't matter. What we do not know, is that nobody gave Hillary's team that info.

Certainly the charge that it is obvious from the YouTube alone that Hillary was lying is false (and based on your behaviour since, most likely was a lie on your part).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except it does negate that. If he says he doesn't know, he cannot simultaneously say he knows.

[b]Furthermore, you dodged my question of WHO gave Hillary's team that info,
We don't know. It could have been in that meeting. It may not have. It doesn't matter. What we do not know, is that nobody gave Hillary's team that info.

Certainly the char ...[text shortened]... lary was lying is false (and based on your behaviour since, most likely was a lie on your part).[/b]

When did I say it's obvious from the video alone? YOU claimed that there's "no evidence" Hillary is lying, which is what started this exchange; that's is clearly false. Based on your anger tears, it seems you realize that.

Originally posted by vivify
Again: cherry-picking. You ignored that he actually does indicate the SD didn't give the figure. Nothing else you quote negates that.

Furthermore, you dodged my question of WHO gave Hillary's team that info, and changed the topic to something not smacking you in the face as hard with how wrong you are. Whoever trained you as a lawyer would be proud.

No, he doesn't. How many times do I have to quote him?

EDIT: In fact, he specifically declined to say it was untrue:

QUESTION: So I know you want to defer to the campaign, but are you suggesting that the figure is untrue? I mean, they wouldn’t know that. You would know that. So --

MR TONER: I just don’t – again, we’ve not been able to confirm that. I’m not sure where that information come from. I just don’t have a firm --

EDIT2: To stop your BS "cherry picking" accusation, here's EVERYTHING he said at the press conference concerning the issue:

QUESTION: You may have seen in the press that there was a rather lengthy hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday involving the Secretary’s predecessor and the Benghazi committee. At one point during that testimony, there was an exchange with Secretary Clinton about her email account, where she said that the State Department had 90 to 95 percent of all her work-related emails already captured in State Department systems. And the chairman asked her who had told her that and she said, quote, “We learned that from the State Department and their analysis of the emails that were already on the system.” Can you tell us who at the State Department would have informed Clinton or her aides that 90 to 95 percent of the emails had been captured in State Department systems?

MR TONER: So, we’re aware of that exchange and appreciate the question. I’m not, frankly, in a position to do that right now. I would have to refer you, frankly, to her campaign team, which has used that figure previously, I think, and explained it in a fact sheet that they released. It was, frankly, her campaign staff that used it – the figure – so they can give you more information about the rationale or the background behind it. I’m not aware that we have given that figure, but again, I’m not in a position right now to confirm that.

QUESTION: Okay. And she indicated that that information came from a July meeting last year between her people and the department. Was there anything said in that meeting that you’re aware of that would lead one to that impression? And can you give us any other background information on what that July meeting was about?

MR TONER: On that July meeting? I can certainly look into it. I don’t have any information available right now in front of me about that meeting. But again, I’m aware that 90 to 95 percent is something that her campaign has been using. I’m not aware of the source of that.

QUESTION: And why – just to follow up on that --

MR TONER: Sure, sure. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: If indeed it were true, why would there have been such urgency to try to recover emails from her, from three former secretaries, if – because that – frankly, that capture rate sounds a lot higher than, for example, the inspector general has found in reports, where they found like in certain situations less than 1 percent of emails being captured in the systems.

MR TONER: Sorry, so your – but your question is why would that have – sorry, I just want to be clear I understand the --

QUESTION: My question is: In terms of this 90 to 95 percent figure --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- why would the State Department have gone to these former secretaries to seek their assistance in restoring its systems? Because that figure seems, frankly, much, much higher in terms of capturing official email than other reports we’ve seen saying State was, in some situations, capturing only 1 percent or less on average of record emails, at least under prior archiving systems. It doesn’t seem like the kind of capture rate that would have led to an urgent effort to collect email from former secretaries.

MR TONER: Sure. Again, I can look into the timeline and the history behind – and what motivated us to reach out to the secretaries of state – the former secretaries of state. I believe it was, frankly, part of a realization that we perhaps hadn’t captured all of the records, not just of Secretary Clinton but previous secretaries of state. And partly it was a, I believe, part of a newly updated federal record-keeping mandate that forced us to go back and look at how some of these email records were compiled over the years, and so we reached out in – kind of in that spirit to the former secretaries of state.

QUESTION: So I know you want to defer to the campaign, but are you suggesting that the figure is untrue? I mean, they wouldn’t know that. You would know that. So --

MR TONER: I just don’t – again, we’ve not been able to confirm that. I’m not sure where that information come from. I just don’t have a firm --

QUESTION: Forget 95 percent. Can you find out when you asked last year for the emails how much you had already on the system?

MR TONER: On the system? I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: You’ll take the – thank you. Thanks.

Originally posted by vivify
When did I say it's obvious from the video alone?

The OP implies it. When I questioned it, you tried various tactics to dodge discussing it and on page two you say:

-even though the video already defends its points-

YOU claimed that there's "no evidence" Hillary is lying, which is what started this exchange;
Please quote my full statement.

that's is clearly false.
Clear as mud.

Based on your anger tears, it seems you realize that.
Back to 'anger tears' again are we. What a sore loose you are.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, he doesn't. How many times do I have to quote him?

EDIT: In fact, he specifically declined to say it was untrue:

QUESTION: So I know you want to defer to the campaign, but are you suggesting that the figure is untrue? I mean, they wouldn’t know that. You would know that. So --

MR TONER: I just don’t – again, we’ve not been able to confirm th ...[text shortened]... TONER: On the system? I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: You’ll take the – thank you. Thanks.

"we’ve not been able to confirm that. I’m not sure where that information come from."

"It was, frankly, her campaign staff that used it "

These words don't "indicate" that the 90-95 percent figure didn't come from the Department? How about "imply" or "suggest"? Because they all mean similar things, sand they apply to what the Washington Post said about Turner.

And you're still dodging the question about who have Hillary's staff that figure.

Originally posted by vivify
"we’ve not been able to confirm that. I’m not sure where that information come from."

"It was, frankly, her campaign staff that used it "

These words don't "indicate" that the 90-95 percent figure didn't come from the Department? How about "imply" or "suggest"? Because they all mean similar things, sand they apply to what the Washington Post said about Turner.

And you're still dodging the question about who have Hillary's staff that figure.

"I have no information" "I'm not sure where the information came from" and his other phrases don't "indicate" anything except he doesn't know.

You are the one calling Hillary a "liar". Provide the evidence supporting that claim. I have tried numerous searches but I can't find anywhere where the State Department "confirmed" the information did not come from anyone at State nor anyplace where anybody from HC's campaign or staff specifically said who at State said it nor who was at the July meeting.

But the burden remains on you, not me.

EDIT: Of course, even if that was established, you'd have to provide evidence that Hillary Clinton wasn't told by her people at the July meeting that the info came from someone at State. But you're not there yet.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The OP implies it. When I questioned it, you tried various tactics to dodge discussing it and on page two you say:

-even though the video already defends its points-

[b] YOU claimed that there's "no evidence" Hillary is lying, which is what started this exchange;
Please quote my full statement.

that's is clearly false. ...[text shortened]... , it seems you realize that.[/b]
Back to 'anger tears' again are we. What a sore loose you are.[/b]

So you chop up my post in order to misquote me and lie. Classy. That quote wasn't about the obviousness of the video; it was about your cheap debate tactics of asking me to defend the video---though the video already defends its points--while you provide no argument of your own.

Congrats. You've proven yourself a liar. Never mind that I didn't actually say "it's obvious from the video alone" like you claimed; what's more important is that you win at ago costs.

Since you've proven yourself a liar, we're done here.