Clinton's Lies About Her Lies

A

anatta

100% recycled karma
While the media chase around Donald Trump hyperventilating over every syllable, Hillary Clinton slides by, dragging behind her a dust devil of lies and corruption.

More emails released this week reveal that the Democratic candidate turned the State Department into an adjunct of the Clinton Foundation as she jetted around the world as secretary of state. “This is another example of the Clinton business model of using political influence to get rich and further advance their political careers,” The Wall Street Journal noted on Thursday.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton continues to prevaricate and deceive about her private email server. She’s now telling lies about her lies.

Last week, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace played video clips of Mrs. Clinton saying she “did not email any classified material to anyone on my email” and that there was “no classified material.” Video also showed her saying she was confident she had “never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time.”



Mr. Wallace then reminded Mrs. Clinton that “after a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.” Mrs. Clinton responded in typical fashion by offering viewers more fiction. “Director Comey said my answers were truthful,” she said, “and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

But as Jacob Sullum at Reason.com pointed out this week, that’s not what Mr. Comey said during congressional testimony in July. When Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., asked Mr. Comey if Mrs. Clinton was telling the truth when she said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails, he said her comments were “not true.” Mr. Comey also disputed Mrs. Clinton’s assertions that she didn’t email any classified material, that she used only one device, that she returned all work-related emails to the State Department, and that her lawyers reviewed the content of every one of her emails.

Appearing on “Meet the Press” last Sunday, Tim Kaine covered for his running mate, surmising that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wallace appeared to be “sort of talking past each other” during their interview. Mr. Kaine said that Mrs. Clinton meant that her answers to the FBI were truthful.

But Mr. Wallace didn’t ask about the FBI interview. He was asking her if she had misled the public, which she did.

Hillary Clinton is a subtle yet habitual liar. Her apparent strategy for overcoming this glaring character flaw is to continue peddling falsehoods and count on the media to stay focused on her opponent

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-lying-about-her-lies
 
"the Democratic candidate turned the State Department into an adjunct of the Clinton Foundation"

All I saw was that her staff director did a couple of interviews for the Foundation one day.

What else came out in the emails?
 
The Real Scandal of Hillary Clinton’s E-Mails ( this on the Clinton Foundation-complicated by good read)

In the e-mails around Clinton, there is a constant, low-amplitude, transactional scurry: of older people for an audience, and of younger people for a position.
Access to governmental power depends too much on personal relationships; rich friends of politicians have too easy a time gaining an audience.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/the-real-scandal-of-hillary-clintons-e-mails
 
It might not be all that immediately clear to many why this is another big deal. After all, it follows Hillary’s ongoing private server email scandal, involving not just issues of the Secretary’s “judgment” and so-called “national security” but also revealing details about Clinton’s key role in the bloody destruction of Libya and her hawkish views in all circumstances.

CNN commentators assure us that the FBI investigation “went nowhere” because the FBI decided she’d committed no crime. (Just move on, folks; this was political all along.)

These new revelations come just after the scandal of the DNC rigging the primaries for Hillary, revealed by email leaks (from an unknown source) provided through Wikileaks. The content of these has been avoided like the plague by mainstream media, which is in Hillary’s camp and is generally protecting her. The focus instead is on alleged Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election, and the imagined Putin-Trump “bromance.” Respectable news agencies have been announcing, as fact, the idea that Wikileaks got the emails from Russia; and that Moscow is trying to swing the election towards Trump (because he’ll accept an invasion of Estonia, wreck NATO etc.). It’s (or it should be) obvious bullshit, an effort to change the subject while exploiting the McCarthyite paranoid sentiments of the most backward.

The headlines are so far cautious. “Emails renew questions about Clinton Foundation and State Department Overlap.” “Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.” They are not (yet) shrieking, “Sheik bought State Dept. favors from Clinton Foundation donation” but we shall see.

What do the emails show so far? Two examples have been highlighted by the conservative Judicial Watch, which requested the email transcripts through the FOIA. In the first, in 2009, Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese-born billionaire who has given the foundation up to five million dollars and used its assistance to build a project in Nigeria, and is one of the foundation’s top donors, contacted Doug Band, head of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, asking to be put in touch with a high ranking State Department official connected to Lebanon.

Band emailed Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin and advisor Cheryl Mills, expressing a need. He writes: “We need Gilbert Chagoury to speak to the substance person re Lebanon. As you know, he’s a key guy there and to us and is loved in Lebanon. Very imp.”

A key guy to us. To the Clinton Foundation? The U.S.A.? Abedin did not ask that question before responding, “It’s jeff feltman. I’m sure he knows him. I’ll talk to jeff.” Feltman had been U.S. ambassador to Lebanon from July 2004 to January 2008 but was apparently still seen as the go-to guy. So Hillary’s chief aide took it upon herself to contact the former ambassador to tell him Chagoury (whom she might mention is a major contributor to the Clintons) needed to talk with him.

Nothing illegal there, they will say. Why shouldn’t the State Department arrange contact between a billionaire Lebanese Clinton donor, loved in Lebanon, and the ex-ambassador, if it contributes to regional stability or U.S. national security? And the hard-core Hillary supporters will nod their heads, and maybe point out that Feltman has denied any “meeting.” (Maybe Huma just passed on his address and they chatted online.)

(CNN I notice is showing a video of Bill Clinton with Chagoury in Nigeria, inaugurating a multi-billion dollar waterfront development on the coastline established “under the umbrella of the Clinton Global Initiative.”)

The other instance of “overlap” central to the discussion so far is a request of Band to Abedin and Mills for “a favor.” Someone who had recently been on a Clinton Foundation trip to Haiti wanted a State Department job. He indicated that it was “important to take care of” this person. Abedin, apparently without questioning Band about why this person was important, got right back to him: “We all have him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.” So the head of the Clinton Foundation could snap his fingers, again stressing how “important” his demand was, and Hillary aides Huma and Cheryl paid by your tax dollars would snap into action.

A CNN report deplores “the intermingling of emails between State and Clinton Foundation and others, giving the overall effect that it’s getting really hard to know where any lines were drawn.”

Maybe nothing illegal here. But there is an ongoing FBI investigation, no longer about Hillary’s multiple phones and private server, nor about the content of the communications (revealing her hawkish savagery), but about the routine trade-off of foundation connections for political rewards.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/12/finally-the-eruption-of-the-clinton-foundation-scandal/
 
Man, is that ever an insane amount of speculation about a line like "As you know, he’s a key guy there."

People go overboard w/ Hillary. I think she has some issues w/ honestly in general, but stuff like this is classic tempest in a teacup. "As you know, he’s a key guy there" - scandal!
 
Thing1 said:
Man, is that ever an insane amount of speculation about a line like "As you know, he’s a key guy there."

People go overboard w/ Hillary. I think she has some issues w/ honestly in general, but stuff like this is classic tempest in a teacup. "As you know, he’s a key guy there" - scandal!
Click to expand...
do some research from the NYTimes. Or Fox covers it. Mediamattters is out there shooting it down
Be aware this is just what we know for certain..very little bits and pieces fom a few emails

Do you think it warrants any further investigation?
 
anatta said:
do some research from the NYTimes. Or Fox covers it. Mediamattters is out there shooting it down
Be aware this is just what we know for certain..very little bits and pieces fom a few emails

Do you think it warrants any further investigation?
Click to expand...

Not really.

How many times should Hillary be investigated, do you think? Do you think the findings of previous investigations warrant more investigations?

I definitely don't think "As you know, he's a key guy there" warrants anything.
 
Thing1 said:
Not really.

How many times should Hillary be investigated, do you think? Do you think the findings of previous investigations warrant more investigations?

I definitely don't think "As you know, he's a key guy there" warrants anything.
Click to expand...
this is separate from her private server (classified etc).

Investigations into the Clinton Foundation may or may not be happening (DoJ squashed one of them).

But given this new evidence of "pay for play" ( big donor access to State dept officials) -
are you OK with these outward signs of corruption just not being looked at by law enforcement?

The other instance of “overlap” central to the discussion so far is a request of Band to Abedin and Mills for “a favor.” Someone who had recently been on a Clinton Foundation trip to Haiti wanted a State Department job. He indicated that it was “important to take care of” this person. Abedin, apparently without questioning Band about why this person was important, got right back to him: “We all have him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.” So the head of the Clinton Foundation could snap his fingers, again stressing how “important” his demand was, and Hillary aides Huma and Cheryl paid by your tax dollars would snap into action.
Click to expand...
 
anatta said:
this is separate from her private server (classified etc).

Investigations into the Clinton Foundation may or may not be happening (DoJ squashed one of them).

But given this new evidence of "pay for play" ( big donor access to State dept officials) -
are you OK with these outward signs of corruption just not being looked at by law enforcement?
Click to expand...

As I've said, I don't think "As you know, he's a key guy there," or her staff director using personal time to conduct 2 interviews, rises to the level of "outward signs of corruption."

We're talking about a charity. Do you think the Clintons - who are among the super-rich now - are funneling money to their own accounts or something? What corruption do you speculate exists for a charity?
 
Thing1 said:
As I've said, I don't think "As you know, he's a key guy there," or her staff director using personal time to conduct 2 interviews, rises to the level of "outward signs of corruption."

We're talking about a charity. Do you think the Clintons - who are among the super-rich now - are funneling money to their own accounts or something? What corruption do you speculate exists for a charity?
Click to expand...
you are not following. It's not about money shifting. Look at the additional paragraph I just linked:
++
The other instance of “overlap” central to the discussion so far is a request of Band to Abedin and Mills for “a favor.” Someone who had recently been on a Clinton Foundation trip to Haiti wanted a State Department job. He indicated that it was “important to take care of” this person. Abedin, apparently without questioning Band about why this person was important, got right back to him: “We all have him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.” So the head of the Clinton Foundation could snap his fingers, again stressing how “important” his demand was, and Hillary aides Huma and Cheryl paid by your tax dollars would snap into action.
++

look at the fact some dig donor wants to be put in touch with an ambassador about protecting his interes
( and really you need to do some more research to get more info -i'm trying to give you highlites)
Is this not -at least on the surface - pay for play?

I appreciate your time. I gotta go work
 
I heard that the Trump Foundation could be facing an investigation.


The Trump Foundation, Donald Trump’s nonprofit organization, is under fire for operating as more of a political slush fund than a charity.

The foundation is accused of violating rules prohibiting it from engaging in politics—prompting ethics watchdogs to call for public investigations.

On numerous occasions this year, Trump’s campaign work and his foundation work have overlapped—putting himself at risk for penalties and his charity at risk of being shut down.

It’s the latest example of Trump courting controversy through private dealings that raise serious legal questions.

Trump is listed as the president of the foundation in the charity’s annual disclosures, and his children Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump are all listed as directors.

Foundations like theirs are exempt from paying taxes, and as such are barred from engaging in political causes.

“A 501(c)(3) [nonprofit organization], like the Trump Foundation, is strictly prohibited from engaging in political activity. On its tax forms, the Foundation told the IRS that it does not,” said Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/16/donald-trump-accused-of-using-his-charity-as-a-political-slush-fund.html
 
^ the Bondi thing looks worse ( clerical error?) but anything like that should get an IRS check over.
Isn't he being audited already? and like every other year? So I imagine it will..

Gotta have transparency by any politician
 
Thing1 said:
"the Democratic candidate turned the State Department into an adjunct of the Clinton Foundation"

All I saw was that her staff director did a couple of interviews for the Foundation one day.

What else came out in the emails?
Click to expand...

If you weren't stupid, you'd follow the money......Hillary is one influence whore that doesn't sell herself for free........

btw, what did you think about Bill Clinton calling Comey a liar ?.....
 
NOVA said:
If you weren't stupid, you'd follow the money......Hillary is one influence whore that doesn't sell herself for free........

btw, what did you think about Bill Clinton calling Comey a liar ?.....
Click to expand...

Are you seriously calling me stupid, you completely braindead partisan hack?
 
anatta said:
you are not following. It's not about money shifting. Look at the additional paragraph I just linked:
++
The other instance of “overlap” central to the discussion so far is a request of Band to Abedin and Mills for “a favor.” Someone who had recently been on a Clinton Foundation trip to Haiti wanted a State Department job. He indicated that it was “important to take care of” this person. Abedin, apparently without questioning Band about why this person was important, got right back to him: “We all have him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.” So the head of the Clinton Foundation could snap his fingers, again stressing how “important” his demand was, and Hillary aides Huma and Cheryl paid by your tax dollars would snap into action.
++

look at the fact some dig donor wants to be put in touch with an ambassador about protecting his interes
( and really you need to do some more research to get more info -i'm trying to give you highlites)
Is this not -at least on the surface - pay for play?

I appreciate your time. I gotta go work
Click to expand...

Thingy is a bit slow, you will have to spell it out for him!
t
Thingy is a bit slow, you will ve to spell i
 
Thing1 said:
Compared to you?

Dude - I have average intelligence, but I'm a friggin' demigod compared to you. I'm AI.
Click to expand...

If you think you only have average intelligence then odds are you are below average.

And for the record your question wasn't whether it was a comparison

Your question was "are you calling me stupid". The answer was yes

If you had even average intelligence that wouldn't be lost on you

Now get back to your Hillary support. She needs you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top