Bengaaaazzziiiiiiiii. !!!!!!!!

[Jim in CT]

Tyrone Woods' father, Charles, recalled meeting Clinton when his son's body arrived at Andrews Air Force Base two days after the attacks.

"I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand and she said, 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son," Woods said, reading the account from his journal.

"That was a complete bald-faced lie," he told FoxNews.com Friday. "The day after the attack, she was talking to the Prime Minister of Egypt and she said the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the video."

Also...

"The thing that was shocking – one of the pinnacle moments – was the revelation she told her family there was a terrorist attack while she told America something else," Smith's uncle, Michael Ingmire, told FoxNews.com. "Mrs. Clinton is a serial liar."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt2

[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

[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.

[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.