Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

she said, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son"


Presidential material right there....


so much wrong with that...hard to fathom...

we are in very troubling times

Right. She was saying she was going to arrest the guy (an American citizen), KNOWING that there was at lest a great chance that he had nothing to do with tit, so that no one could blame her for the attack.

THAT'S who Spence wants to be President? Someone who will put you in jail, for no reason, for political gain?

[scottw]

what you need to understand and accept is that it does not matter...this stuff is accepted and condoned, HRC understands that she will never be held accountable and not only that, the MSM and Spence types will dutifully defend her...

great line I read this morning

"The point is that when it comes to Clinton's lying and the press not caring and turning their derision on those who do, it’s déjà vu for as far as the eye can see."

what we are on the verge of is a state of irreconcilable differences that will not be solved politically or peacefully...we have opposing views that would like us to start over as a nation...one would like to dissolve what we have been in terms of founding principles and institute their own version which will be much smarter and more efficient because they fancy themselves much smarter and more efficient...the other side would like to dissolve what we've become and return to our founding principles and has no interest in being dragged down the path of smarter living through some incarnation of socialism.....I suppose there are a bunch in the middle who have absolutely no clue what's going on......the Constitution guarantees that we will not be dragged down the path were government rules the individual... and it provides the remedies. At some point there(and I suspect sooner than later) will be an event which allows the one side to announce that the guarantees are no longer operable and at that point the other side will have had enough....won't be the first time in history...or the last....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Right. She was saying she was going to arrest the guy (an American citizen), KNOWING that there was at lest a great chance that he had nothing to do with tit, so that no one could blame her for the attack.

THAT'S who Spence wants to be President? Someone who will put you in jail, for no reason, for political gain?

At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.

You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. don't think so


If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender. "offender"?

You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...

it's not pretending...the only "role" was as a purposeful lie the admin could and did disseminate...happily

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's not pretending...the only "role" was as a purposeful lie the admin could and did disseminate...happily

So was General Petreaus lying when he initially told Congress the video was largely to blame. There were some 20 intelligence reports that pointed to the video at the time.

Did Hillary make all these up? I'm not sure even Bill Belichick could pull that off.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So was General Petreaus lying when he initially told Congress the video was largely to blame.

"Lying" . . . or "mistaken"? Hillary contradicts that testimony in her emails to her family and to the Egyptian government.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Lying" . . . or "mistaken"? Hillary contradicts that testimony in her emails to her family and to the Egyptian government.

While I think that this investigation is rediculous, I agree with you here.

What's shocking to me is the great surprise here as every politician in the world says one thing and does another.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

While I think that this investigation is rediculous, I agree with you here.

What's shocking to me is the great surprise here as every politician in the world s ays one thing and does another.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The surprise is that this is something we, the public didn't know before. It is not old news. And it is evidence, smoking gun if you will, that she knew she was lying.

If, indeed, all politicians in the world say one thing and do another, that is not quite the same as saying, portraying, one thing to the public to hide, or deflect from, what she knows truly happened. That would be called a cover-up. Which, ironically, is what she helped nail Nixon for. A cover-up.

But, apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander here. Nixon was forced to resign from the presidency or be impeached. HRC gets to run for President.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What's shocking to me is the great surprise here as every politician in the world says one thing and does another.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we're not talking about every politician in the world...we're talking about HRC....I think the great surprise for many here...is that for this particular politician, whose lies can be chronicled for decades and whose lies have been egregious and repetitive to the degree that a healthy % in the country when polled come up with the word "liar" to describe her (I'm not sure what you've got in terms of actual evidence for your "every politician in the world" hypocrite contention)...the surprise is that she is so aggressively defended and championed as someone who should be our President...

no Eben, we're not surprise that Hillary lies(it's actually expected at this point).... nor that politicians the world over lie or are hypocrites, or that people the world over lie or are hypocrites, but lying...particularly when it involves someone in a position of power and trust and involves great consequences should carry a stigma and even penalty, for some it appears to be an asset...you can't continue to claim the government is corrupt if you don't hold politicians or appointees of politicians accountable( if you haven't noticed the money, power and influence that currently exists in Washington makes it almost impossible to hold anyone accountable *note Justice Dept re: IRS and Lois L)....you can't continue to complain about corporate welfare etc.. while supporting and voting for someone who promises to grow the size and scope of government and funnel more of the country's resources through it (which will only exacerbate the problems that you currently see)...

"The point is that when it comes to Clinton's lying and the press(and others) not caring and turning their derision on those who do, it’s déjà vu for as far as the eye can see."

"We’ve grown accustomed to public officials lying to us, but the fabric of society requires we maintain a reasonable level of trust in those we’ve elected to protect our interests. When you’ve abused that trust, you invite chaos and misery."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What's shocking to me is the great surprise here as every politician in the world says one thing and does another.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Eben, as I've tried to explain regarding the above, can you explain to me how someone, who acknowledges the inherent dishonesty and current lack of accountability that exists through politics and government here and elsewhere, can possibly support a candidate whose plan is to grow the size and scope of the government full of corrupt and dishonest individuals and funnel more of the country's wealth through their fingers????

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Lying" . . . or "mistaken"? Hillary contradicts that testimony in her emails to her family and to the Egyptian government.

That depends on the context of what the current thinking was when the email was sent. I'd note the formal investigations into the general matter found that communication to Congress and the public was consistent with the state of the intelligence at that time.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd note the formal investigations into the general matter found that communication to Congress and the public was consistent with the state of the intelligence at that time.

The formal investigation did not have the emails by HRC noted here at that time.

[Doover]

Originally Posted by spence

At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.

You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...

Again you ignore the post stating the FACT that the Administration perused YouTube, video shopping, and finally settled on the video the Administration ran with.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.

Do you certainly believe that it is OK for an administration to "look" for legal options to prosecute someone who made a video which did not violate the law?

Uh . . . don't bother to answer that . . . you certainly believe an administration that you favor should "look" for ways to create a narrative which will absolve it from incompetence.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

At the time she was likely getting information from the CIA that they were leaning toward the video motivation. If this was the case I could certainly believe the Administration would be looking for legal options to arrest the offender.

You keep pretending like there's zero evidence the video had a role in the attack...

Oh, she was "likely" getting info that it was the video? You're getting a tad desperate now.

Let's assume she was getting conflicting data, which is certainly plausible. If that's true, why didn't she say, at the time, "we aren't sure what triggered this, we are looking into it". Instead, her public statements put the blame squarely on the guy who made the video (thus shielding herself from any culpability), yet in private she seemed to be saying it was a planned terrorist attack.

Why the conflicting statements, Spence? Why didn't she just say "we're looking into it"?

Isn't it also "likely" that she was very specific in her public statements, that it was the video, because that explanation suggests that the State Dept didn't do anything wrong? You think it's a coincidence, that even though she was getting conflicting reports as to what triggered the attack, that she settled on the possibility that paints her in the best possible light? That wasn't "likely" a deliberate calculation on her part?

Don't blame me that I'm proving my case that she's a lying witch who was willing to throw an American citizen under the bus, and make him a target for terrorists, to cover up the fact that her Agency badly mishandled security in Benghazi.

Look, I don't think the SeState personally makes every decision on where to deploy finite security assets. And no one has a crystal ball. This isn't an exact science, mistakes happen.

It's her lying, and the cover-up to make it seem like it was a spontaneous (thus not forseeable) event, that tells us exactly who she is.