Hillary says grieving mother is wrong!

Does being in the process of grieving make someone incapable of being wrong? Originally Posted by eatfibo

What's HillariousNoMore grieving about?

Not having a cakewalk to the White House? Or Bill still getting blow jobs?

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I think the baboon will find his ass buried on your face. Stupid pig.

Some of the investigations covered this exact claim. Again, none, AFAIK (yes, you have the meaning right), concluded that she is lied or intentionally misled anyone. If you have one that says otherwise, I would love to read it. Do you? It's a simple question, it shouldn't be hard to answer.

If you believe they are BSing in the conclusions of the investigations, why? Why would the republicans, who spent plenty of tax payer money trying to get Clinton on this (obvious by the rhetoric), consistently produce reports that say she didn't mislead people intentionally?


Again, covered by the investigations, they concluded otherwise. Do you have any investigation that concluded that she did lie to them?


Disagreeing with someone's recollection of a events is not "in essence" accusing them of lying.

On that note, some of the families say they didn't hear her mention the videos during that meeting. Are you, in essence, accusing them of lying?


You claim to know more than the investigators into these incidents, such that you can come to a different conclusion then they did. I'm just reiterating the opinions of republican led committees that have all repeatedly concluded that she did not mislead people. How does this make me suspending rationality? Why is it irrational to believe the conclusions of a group that would actually *benefit* from coming to a different conclusion than they did? Originally Posted by eatfibo

It's recorded in the Congressional record where Representative Jordan determined Hildabeast was a liar.

"[T]there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary....

"You can live with a protest about a video. That won't hurt you. But a terrorist attack will. So you can't be square with the American people. You tell your family it's a terrorist attack, but not the American people. You can tell the president of Libya it's a terrorist attack, but not the American people. And you can tell the Egyptian prime minister it's a terrorist attack, but you can't tell your own people the truth." Representative Jordan.

It's recorded in the Congressional record where Representative Jordan determined Hildabeast was a liar. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your evidence of what the committee concluded is a loaded question during the hearings? Do you honestly believe this represents the conclusion of any investigation?

Let me post parts of an actual conclusion of another, GOP led, investigation:

"After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through Ambassador Susan Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps remain."

Basically, what this comes down to, is that you can find no investigation - despite there existing many - that concluded Clinton intentional misled anyone nor that concludes the intelligence wasn't "conflicting" when her false statement was made.

Your evidence of what the committee concluded is a loaded question during the hearings? Do you honestly believe this represents the conclusion of any investigation?

Let me post parts of an actual conclusion of another, GOP led, investigation:

"After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through Ambassador Susan Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps remain."

Basically, what this comes down to, is that you can find no investigation - despite there existing many - that concluded Clinton intentional misled anyone nor that concludes the intelligence wasn't "conflicting" when her false statement was made. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Your "conclusion" -- based on a November 2014 statement -- that any investigation was complete before the FBI recovered deleted emails from Hildabeast's private server is quite disingenuous. Basically, what this comes down to, is that you cannot find any statement since the October 2015 hearing that refutes the substantive fact revealed by Representative Jordan in that hearing: that Hildabeast told the American public a lie as she told her family and inner circle the truth.

Your evidence of what the committee concluded is a loaded question during the hearings? Do you honestly believe this represents the conclusion of any investigation?

Let me post parts of an actual conclusion of another, GOP led, investigation:

"After reviewing hundreds of pages of raw intelligence, as well as open source information, it was clear that between the time when the attacks occurred and when the Administration, through Ambassador Susan Rice, appeared on the Sunday talk shows, intelligence analysts and policymakers received a stream of piecemeal intelligence regarding the identities/affiliations and motivations of the attackers, as well as the level of planning and/or coordination. Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps remain."

Basically, what this comes down to, is that you can find no investigation - despite there existing many - that concluded Clinton intentional misled anyone nor that concludes the intelligence wasn't "conflicting" when her false statement was made. Originally Posted by eatfibo

OK, wait a minute - all you sumbitches that talk about "conflicting intelligence" as a way to make Hillary seem blameless are the same kool-aid drinking dumbasses that still repeat the mantra "Bush Lied, People Died."

It's the same fuckin' issue...if you can make the connection in your brain to forgive that lying bitch for faulty intelligence, then you really should STFU about Bush too...

So I guess you boyz has made up your minds who you gwine vote fo.

I don't remember this much outrage over My Pet Goat. I spoze it was OK then...

Is this another Benghazi thread? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Have you decided who you're going to vote for, AssupLiar? Are you going to vote for the most corrupt and dishonest candidate in history, Hillary Clinton? Even though you said it is wrong to lie? Are you, AssupLiar?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
So I guess you boyz has made up your minds who you gwine vote fo.

I don't remember this much outrage over My Pet Goat. I spoze it was OK then...

Is this another Benghazi thread?

Yes. and you and goats are .. forbidden topic you goat slut.

Have you decided who you're going to vote for, AssupLiar? Are you going to vote for the most corrupt and dishonest candidate in history, Hillary Clinton? Even though you said it is wrong to lie? Are you, AssupLiar? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

the world awaits your answer Assuplicker.

will you reply, turdhead?????





boohooahahahahahahaha dicknose.

Some of the investigations covered this exact claim. Again, none, AFAIK (yes, you have the meaning right), concluded that she lied or intentionally misled anyone. If you have one that says otherwise, I would love to read it. Do you? It's a simple question, it shouldn't be hard to answer. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Check your timeline, fido. The two SMOKING GUNS against Hillary didn't surface until October 2015 (just hours before Hillary's testimony). So all those previous investigations were stonewalled from examining the key evidence. Which means any "conclusions" they reached weren't very, er, conclusive. Still want to look them up? Be my guest.

If you believe they are BSing in the conclusions of the investigations, why? Why would the republicans, who spent plenty of tax payer money trying to get Clinton on this (obvious by the rhetoric), consistently produce reports that say she didn't mislead people intentionally? Originally Posted by eatfibo

Wrong question, fido. You should be asking this - why does Hillary think she is above the law and entitled to withhold evidence for almost two years after it was subpoenaed by Congress and supposed to be produced under FOIA lawsuits?

Instead of hiding behind investigations that you know full well were thwarted by Hillary's stonewalling and cover-ups, why don't you address the SMOKING GUNS directly? Don't they prove she intentionally lied when she blamed the Benghazi attack on a stupid youtube video? It's a simple question, it shouldn't be hard to answer.

Tyrone woods dad kept a contemporaneous journal, which he has shown to the media wherein Hilary's lies were recorded

A, Why would members of different families collude to lie about her?

B. Conversely, does Clinton have a reason to lie?

Tyrone Woods' dad kept a contemporaneous journal, which he has shown to the media wherein Hilary's lies were recorded. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You mean this? As Megyn Kelly said "in a court of law, this is admissable..."




Hey fido - do these folks sound authentic enough for you? Go to 3:15 and watch Patricia Smith... "Hillary is a liar! I know what she told me! ... Bullfeathers!" ... this woman is not afraid to speak out and she ain't stopping until the Hildabitch is toast!

Like I said a few years ago, Barack Obama, et al., threw the first Amendment under the bus for political expediency and few in the media said "boo!"

We are supposed to believe that while

1. Clinton and Obama were lying directly to the American people about an Internet video

2. They were sending out Susan rice and that press secretary to lie for them, and

3. They rounded up the poor guy who put out the video on any possible charge and put him in jail(what a wickedness to their coverup)

While all that was happening, before, during and after, Clinton, however,didn't say it to the families

So she said it to us but not to them? And she did it to the video guy but she didn't say that to the families?
Hillary is an awful person in so many ways

... that concluded Clinton intentional misled anyone nor that concludes the intelligence wasn't "conflicting" when her false statement was made. Originally Posted by eatfibo

If anyone sounds conflicted, it's you. I'm already starting to see it on my FB timeline, folks rationalizing how they are going to eat the shit sandwich by voting for Hillarious.

BTW, the whole WMD narrative was pushed by President Clinton and Senator Clinton too. Live with it.

this thread is not about what any investigation could not determine with certainty due to administration intransigence

this thread is about now

its about Hillary now, the other day, claiming she never said that to the families. and that its the families who are lying or idiots. she dare not claim a right wing conspiracy but she would if she could