Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Aug '16 13:53 / 2 edits
    http://www.inquisitr.com/3387503/hillary-clinton-stands-by-f-b-i-remarks-denies-lying-to-the-public/

    Does this make any sense to anyone? It is with a 100% certainty that Hillary lied, at least according to FBI director Comey, yet Hillary insists she stands by the remarks of Comey while saying she never lied.

    Does anyone here believe this?

    Does anyone here think she actually believes this? Is this behavior of a sociopath or merely someone who has no shame and no ability to be accountable for anything?

    For those who have not seen it, judge for yourself

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Aug '16 14:48
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.inquisitr.com/3387503/hillary-clinton-stands-by-f-b-i-remarks-denies-lying-to-the-public/

    Does this make any sense to anyone? It is with a 100% certainty that Hillary lied, at least according to FBI director Comey, yet Hillary insists she stands by the remarks of Comey while saying she never lied.

    Does anyone here believe this?

    Does anyon ...[text shortened]... or those who have not seen it, judge for yourself

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc
    It's 100% certain you are lying; Comey never said that Hillary lied:

    "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.
    Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI," Comey said.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-not-lie-fbi-225212

    Now you can go back to claiming that Comey was just covering up for her but you can't simultaneously claim that AND that Comey said she lied which is what you are trying to do on this board.
  3. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    06 Aug '16 15:01
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's 100% certain you are lying; Comey never said that Hillary lied:

    "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.
    Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer. I can speak about wh ...[text shortened]... eously claim that AND that Comey said she lied which is what you are trying to do on this board.
    Holy ships.
    To the public.
    To the FBI.
    Any distinction between those two phrases?
    She lied repeatedly to the public, which was confirmed with the results reported by the FBI (the I of which stands for investigation, not, as Clinton assumed: inquiry).
    Of course, we will never know what Clinton said to the FBI, as:
    no oath was taken
    it was not recorded
    there is no transcript

    And, seeing that she was accompanied by a phalanx of lawyers, it is doubtful she said, er, intended to say anything incriminating.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Aug '16 15:28
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Holy ships.
    To the public.
    To the FBI.
    Any distinction between those two phrases?
    She lied repeatedly to the public, which was confirmed with the results reported by the FBI (the I of which stands for investigation, not, as Clinton assumed: inquiry).
    Of course, we will never know what Clinton said to the FBI, as:
    no oath was taken
    it was not recor ...[text shortened]... ed by a phalanx of lawyers, it is doubtful she said, er, intended to say anything incriminating.
    Right wingers seem to think that if they stamp their feet and say the same things over and over and over again, it can transform things that are not true to the truth.

    Reality doesn't work that way.
  5. 06 Aug '16 15:36
    I don't think any reasonable non-lawyer playing with words can maintain she didn't lie. It's clear that she did. I thought I would never vote for her because of this flaw she shares with her overrated husband, a sense that she is entitled to her own standards. Its reminiscent
    of Nixon"s "if the president does it, its legal," and its dangerous.
    But the fact is that she's the practical alternative to Trump. And that is a game-changer.
    He is less qualified than any candidate in my (long) lifetime.
    I'm not going to admire her presidency. But his is lunacy.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Aug '16 15:58
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    I don't think any reasonable non-lawyer playing with words can maintain she didn't lie. It's clear that she did. I thought I would never vote for her because of this flaw she shares with her overrated husband, a sense that she is entitled to her own standards. Its reminiscent
    of Nixon"s "if the president does it, its legal," and its dangerous.
    But the fac ...[text shortened]... any candidate in my (long) lifetime.
    I'm not going to admire her presidency. But his is lunacy.
    Except every time it is confidentially stated that Statement A is a "lie" i.e. A knowingly false statement uttered with intent to deceive - even cursory examination of said statement (as regards this petty e-mail brouhaha anyway) reveals it does not meet such criteria. In reality, it is right wingers who are constantly lying about this matter by repeating claims, such as the use of a private server by the Secretary of State was "illegal", when these statements have been shown many times to be incorrect.
  7. 06 Aug '16 16:41
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Right wingers seem to think that if they stamp their feet and say the same things over and over and over again, it can transform things that are not true to the truth.

    Reality doesn't work that way.
    [b} Right wingers seem to think that if they stamp their feet and say the same things over and over and over again, it can transform things that are not true to the truth.
    [b]

    Seems you are using that same technique here, and quite regularly I would add.
  8. 06 Aug '16 16:45
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    I don't think any reasonable non-lawyer playing with words can maintain she didn't lie. It's clear that she did. I thought I would never vote for her because of this flaw she shares with her overrated husband, a sense that she is entitled to her own standards. Its reminiscent
    of Nixon"s "if the president does it, its legal," and its dangerous.
    But the fac ...[text shortened]... any candidate in my (long) lifetime.
    I'm not going to admire her presidency. But his is lunacy.
    I don't know how Presidential credentials are counted, when there is no incumbent. Let's face it, only incumbents have experience on the job. If that's a key requirement, we could just extend the term and eliminate reelections.
  9. 06 Aug '16 20:57
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's 100% certain you are lying; Comey never said that Hillary lied:

    "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.
    Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer. I can speak about wh ...[text shortened]... eously claim that AND that Comey said she lied which is what you are trying to do on this board.
    This proves once and for all that you are nothing but a partisan shill.

    Here is Congressman Gowdy questioning Comey about Hillary.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ

    Without a any doubt whatsoever, Comey admits she lied.

    Have you no shame or does lying just come naturally to you as well?

    I'm beginning to think that being a Democrat is a psychotic state of mind.
  10. 06 Aug '16 20:58
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Right wingers seem to think that if they stamp their feet and say the same things over and over and over again, it can transform things that are not true to the truth.

    Reality doesn't work that way.
    Left wingers seem to think that all they have to do is scream, "Liar, liar!" to cover up all of their lies.
  11. 06 Aug '16 20:59
    Originally posted by normbenign
    [b} Right wingers seem to think that if they stamp their feet and say the same things over and over and over again, it can transform things that are not true to the truth.
    [b]

    Seems you are using that same technique here, and quite regularly I would add.
    He is just waiting to call you a liar any second now.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Aug '16 21:03
    Originally posted by whodey
    This proves once and for all that you are nothing but a partisan shill.

    Here is Congressman Gowdy questioning Comey about Hillary.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ

    Without a any doubt whatsoever, Comey admits she lied.

    Have you no shame or does lying just come naturally to you as well?

    I'm beginning to think that being a Democrat is a psychotic state of mind.
    I don't watch youtubes; I gave Comey's direct quotes which contradicts your claim.
  13. 06 Aug '16 21:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I don't watch youtubes; I gave Comey's direct quotes which contradicts your claim.
    You don't watch youtube? If you did, you would have seen the youtube I provided with Hillary speaking and then Comey speaking contradicting every assertion that she made previously.

    Here is the transcript

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/


    A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.


    The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"

    Here's a full transcript of the exchange:

    Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?


    Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

    Gowdy: It was not true?

    Comey: That's what I said.

    Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

    Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

    Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

    Comey: There was classified information emailed.

    Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

    Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

    Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

    Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

    Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

    Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

    Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

    Comey: No.

    Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?

    Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

    Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

    Comey: That is right?


    U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy
    Alex Wong | Getty Images

    U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy


    Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

    You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

    They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

    Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

    This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.

    She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

    So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

    And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.

    You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'

    It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

    My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

    And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
  14. 06 Aug '16 21:16
    Come on Marauder, double down like Hillary.

    I dare you.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Aug '16 21:20
    Originally posted by whodey
    You don't watch youtube? If you did, you would have seen the youtube I provided with Hillary speaking and then Comey speaking contradicting every assertion that she made previously.

    Here is the transcript

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/


    A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretar ...[text shortened]... he appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
    So there's a very long speech from a political hack after he interrupts Comey at every turn. Yawn.

    The classified information nonsense was dealt with in the thread a month ago. There were 3 count 'em 3 e-mails which were marked classified but they were incorrectly marked in the body of the e-mail rather than in the header where they were supposed to be under official Government guidelines. Comey conceded under questioning from another Congressman that it was utterly reasonable for Hillary to have missed the classification.

    Nothing to see here.