Hillary Caught In Another Lie; How Many Can She Get Away With?

2015-09-26T08:06:45-04:00

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/ [login to see] 46-clinton-caught-in-lie-about-top-aide-huma-abedin.htm?ref=yfp

Almost every week, it seems, there's another revelation culled from emails and other documents exposing another falsehood told by Hillary Clinton. The latest involves top aide Huma Abedin.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Sep 26 at 2015 8:34 AM

2015-09-26T08:34:05-04:00

Yet the sheep from her party still support her...

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Sep 26 at 2015 10:04 AM

2015-09-26T10:04:27-04:00

So hard to sort this out ....

1. "The State Department confirmed that Clinton turned over her email only after Congress discovered that she had exclusively used a private email system."

Nope. Fournier is referring to last night's Washington Post story, which says the State Department discovered it didn't know where Clinton's emails were. (Or Condi Rice's. Or Colin Powell's. Or Madeleine Albright's. Or much of anyone else's apparently.) Clinton turned over her emails when [the] State asked for them.

2. "A federal court has helped uncover more emails related to the Benghazi raid that were withheld from congressional investigators. Clinton has insisted she turned over all her work-related email and complied with congressional subpoenas. Again, she hasn’t been telling the truth."

This is flatly false. The linked Politico story says nothing about Clinton not turning over all her work emails. It says only that the State Department has claimed executive privilege for a few documents—something with no relation at all to Hillary Clinton. From Politico: "The FOIA lawsuits provide a vehicle to force the agency to identify those emails, although the substance of the messages is not disclosed."

3. "The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from her private server....The FBI has moved beyond whether U.S. secrets were involved to how and why. In the language of law enforcement, the FBI is investigating her motive."

I guess this isn't flatly false, but "how and why" were words used by Bloomberg's reporter in the linked story. There didn't seem to be any special significance attached to them, and it's the airiest kind of speculation to say this means the FBI is investigating Clinton's motive. They've consistently said that she's not the subject of a criminal investigation. Why would they be investigating motive if they're not investigating any underlying crime?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 26 at 2015 12:33 PM

2015-09-26T12:33:59-04:00

Imagine that! Another democrat getting a free pass. Had she been a republican, the liberal media and democrat party would have already tried and convicted her.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 26 at 2015 3:02 PM

2015-09-26T15:02:49-04:00

She gets away with it every time she opens her mouth.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 26 at 2015 3:05 PM

2015-09-26T15:05:14-04:00

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Oct 7 at 2015 1:02 PM

2015-10-07T13:02:38-04:00

I believe it comes with the Territory to some Degree!