Hillary Clinton

Clinton Falsely Claims the FBI's Director Pronounced Her 'Truthful'

James Comey confirmed that the Democratic nominee has repeatedly misled the public about her State Department emails.

|

Fox News

Although Donald Trump is a notorious, shameless liar, he still gets better ratings for honesty and trustworthiness than Hillary Clinton. In a recent CBS News survey, 67 percent of voters said the Democratic nominee was not honest and trustworthy, compared to 56 percent who said the same of Trump. To get a sense of how Clinton managed to surpass Trump in this area, have a look at the interview she gave to Fox News yesterday—in particular, her comments about the controversy over her use of a private email account and server while she was secretary of state.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace played a video clip of Clinton assuring the public that her email exchanges did not include classified material:

"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material." (March 10, 2015)

"I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time." (July 26, 2015)

"I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified." (August 19, 2015)

Wallace pointed out that "after a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true." Clinton responded by denying that Comey said what he said:

Chris, that's not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to, in my view, clarify.

Director Comey said my answers were truthful, 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.

I was communicating with over 300 people in my emailing. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe that what they were sending was classified.

Now, in retrospect, different agencies come in and say, well, it should have been, but that's not what was happening in real time.

On July 5, the day he recommended against prosecuting Clinton for her "extremely careless" handling of "very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey directly refuted Clinton's claim that retroative classification accounts for any official secrets that may have made their way into her email. "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department," he said, "110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received [emphasis added]."

As for Clinton's claim that "Director Comey said my answers were truthful," he said exactly the opposite in congressional testimony on July 7. Wallace highlighted part of an exchange between Comey and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.):

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said, "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material." Was that true?

Comey: There was classified material emailed.

There was more to that exchange, and it was equally damning:

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account. Was that true?

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related emails in—on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when the server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work-related emails…were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the e-mails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

So how could Clinton possibly claim that Comey pronounced her "truthful"? She is referring to this exchange between Comey and Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.):

Connolly: The FBI interviewed Secretary Clinton. Is that correct?

Comey: Yes.

Connolly: Did she lie to the FBI in that interview?

Comey: I have no basis for concluding that she was untruthful with us.

In other words, Comey confirmed that Clinton had repeatedly misled the public, but he said there was no evidence she had lied in her interview with the FBI (which would be a federal crime). Clinton's gloss: "Director Comey said my answers were truthful."

Trump lies blatantly, floridly, and compulsively. Clinton's lies, like her husband's, tend to be more subtle, based on split hairs, idiosyncratic interpretations, and mental reservations. But by now there is a clear public record of the contrast between her statements about the email controversy and the facts, forcing her to either admit a series of embarrassing errors, cop to deliberate dishonesty, or continue lying. In that respect she is looking more like Trump every day.

Advertisement

NEXT: U.S. National Debt

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And nothing else happened.

    1. Politifact rated it as a “pants on fire” lit earlier today

      http://www.politifact.com/trut…..-comey-ca/

      1. Hillary Clinton’s “wrong” claim is still galling. Hillary’s lie. Call it what it is.

  2. Yeah, that’s one hell of a big fib. Typical Clinton.

    1. “The Statue of Liberty’s in Pearl Harbor. True story.”

      /Il Duce Clinton.

    2. Come now, this depends on the definition of “fib,” “truthful,” and “lie.” It’s no more a “fib” to focus on the FBI testimony (which, after all, is what really matters), than it’s a “parody” to send out an outrageous “Gmail confession” portraying a distinguished academic department chairman as stating: “This is just the politics of Dead Sea Scroll studies. If I had given credit to this man, I would have been banned from conferences around the world.” When you say something’s a parody, you better have proof beyond any reasonable doubt at all, and when you say something’s a fib, you better have very strong proof. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

      https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    3. I’m not defending Clinton here, but at least this lie needs to be fact-checked and explained — that “truthful” in one’s responses doesn’t really mean truthful in the way that she suggested. Lies are lies, but at least Clinton attempts to appeal to reason and evidence in a way that Trump doesn’t. I mean, she is willfully misusing the evidence, but at least she is *appealing* to evidence, which at least implicitly recognizes that evidence matters. What bothers me about Trump is that most of his lies don’t need to be fact-checked or even Googled to know they’re wrong. He a fabulist, just saying shit that is demonstrably false and not caring about it one way or another. I’m voting for Johnson, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. But for some reason the Trump approach bothers me more.

      1. If you are seriously unable to see Hillary’s consistent lies and consistent irrational arguments, you have some mental block preventing you from seeing reality as it truly is.

        One recent example was for Hillary, supposed defender of domestic civil rights and free speech, falsely, irrationally, emotionally claimed a YouTube video was responsible for embassy attacks to hide executive branch mistakes, including her own. All with zero evidence to defend her position and copious evidence to the contrary.

        & as she’s lied all her life to support her goals and as she’s been a national politician since at least 1991, there are hundreds of other examples.

        Not that she’s that much worse than the next politician, but given her history and the facts, if any statement she’s made for any reason at all used reason and evidence, it was an accident, as she had proven time and again her focus is on her career and if the facts hurt that, which they do, she will lie to escape blame.

        And honestly, if you think Hillary madness rational points with evidence, why vote for Johnson?

  3. Although Donald Trump is a notorious, shameless liar, he still gets better ratings for honesty and trustworthiness than Hillary Clinton.

    Swoon.

    1. “Even Reason Magazine, Reason, this magazine for libertarians, crazy people really, love them, they say I’m more truthful than Hillary. More! Not less. Even these people. And these people hate me? Do you know, do you know how many articles they write about me a week? Guess. You’ll never guess. Its crazy. Its like they don’t know what else to talk about. You’d think they make more money talking about me. They have no money! Unbelievable. And even they say I’m honest. Not just honest, but the MOST honest! Everyone says it. Its a fact. Amazing!”

      1. Its like they don’t know what else to talk about.

        LOL

      2. +2

      3. That’s awesome.

      4. You did that so well, because you’re a speech writer for The Donald, aren’t you?

      5. That deserves a standing ovation, sir.

      6. Ok, that was funny.

      7. And Dennis is immediately hired as a speechwriter for the Trump campaign.

      8. That comment was yuge! It was the best comment, and I know comments! Hillary’s bad on comments, but this was the best!

      9. I can actually hear Donald Trump’s voice as I read your post, Dennis.

    2. and once again an article about Hillary must include shots at Trump but articles of Trump are only about Trump so even when there articles on both they are still attacking Trump.

      1. Didn’t the article about Trump’s comments about the Muslim soldier include a shot at Clinton for supporting the Iraq War (and suggest that Trump should have used that line of attack)?

        Also, while that line is an attack against Trump, it also serves to make Clinton look even worse. The fact that Clinton can’t even get better honesty and trustworthy ratings than Trump speaks volumes.

  4. “I never lie”

  5. Accounts Payable Manager Gojira pronounces her cuntful. And she can quote me on that.

  6. “that’s not what I heard Director Comey say”

    Typical Clinton bullshit.

    Whenever I listen to her (or Obama) my English parsing and logic analysis subroutines are going full blast.

    I wonder if the Repubs will start airing (a variant of) Reason’s Hillary-Comey, um, tit-for-tat.

    Of course, they’d only be beaten up for plagiarism.

    1. Similar to when she was interviewed by some left wing “journalist” after the story came out that she threw a vase at Bill in the White House which hit him in the head. The “journalist” asks if it was true that she threw a lamp at Bill, allowing her to evade the truth by saying she never threw a lamp at Bill.

      1. It is beyond me how *anyone* can hear this crap and not see she’s a weasel.

        1. Team dogwashers see what they want to see.

        2. Translation: “I’m going to intentionally tell falsehoods to the American people only when it is necessary, like for example, when I am running against a Republican for president. Because the well-being of the American people demands that I become president at any cost in order to help them and protect them from the evil Republicans. But except for such cases of dire necessity, I’m always going to try and overcome my natural tendency to lie.”

        3. The body language is noteworthy here. Constantly shaking her its head from side to side which to me screams liar.

        4. This is a pathological and deluded response. She actually believes herself when she says it, therefore it must be true – even if all the evidence says it is not.

          1. Yes, I dodged sniper fire in Bosnia. And yes, I was being truthful during my FBI interview.

            And yes, I’m bat-shit crazy.

          2. That’s my new theory: Hillary doesn’t actually lie. She’s so far gone into narcissistic delusion that she honestly believes anything she says must be true just because it’s her saying it. Or she’s reached such Obamian heights of megalomania that she believes she can make it true just by saying it.

  7. TRUUUUUUUUUMMMMMP

  8. Clinton’s designs for the federal judiciary are undoubtedly a threat without equal. Even if Trump were to nominate lukewarm, generic centrists for positions on the Supreme Court, it would be infinitely better for the citizenry than affording Clinton an opportunity to transform the Court into a totalitarian committee of sycophants.

    Hillary is a proven traitor. Her corruption is pervasive. Her catalog of past actions is a comprehensive exhibition of her malignancy, and the plentiful evidence of her misdeeds is incontestable. Any individual electing to support this degenerate is actively abetting the deconstruction of this republic.

    1. I forget, are treason accusations the first refuge of a scoundrel or the last?

      1. Well, it’s not the last.

      2. The quote is “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. That’s because decent people are Patriotic before they are cornered.

        1. That’s certainly one way to read that quote.

          1. They try other crap, then try to wrap themselves in the flag. If they were doing it first, would it not read “Patriotism is the first refuge of the scoundrel”?

            1. I mean, I cannot even sing the Swiss National Anthem!

              *practices yodeling*

              1. Happy Swiss National Day!

            2. See I read it as patriotism being what scoundrels resort to when they run out of other bullshit, and non-scoundrels stay away from patriotism altogether because it’s a weak justification for anything.

              1. Whassamatta, Hugh? You don’t think it’s cool to be proud of shit you didn’t do and feel superior to people you never met?

                1. Gentlemen, the issue here is *not* whether she broke a few rules or took a few liberties with her position. You can’t hold Clinton responsible for the actions a few, sick, perverted, individuals. For if you do, shouldn’t we blame the whole Party system? And if the whole Party system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our democratic institutions in general? I put it to you Hugh, isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society?

                  Well, you can do what you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!

                  USA! USA!

                  1. … Did Hillary give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor….HELL NO!…and she’s not gonna give up now!

      3. Whether they amount to refuges of any sort depends on their provability. Credible denunciations don’t constitute refuges.

      4. I would call selling access to the sitting SoS treason, but then I’ve always been a scoundrel.

        And a nerf herder.

        1. She makes Tammany Hall seem like a righteous bunch.

      5. So after poking around a bit, I found that the dude who made the scoundrel comment also said this:

        “Few errors and faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion.”

        1. Samuel Johnson also wrote:

          “He that wishes to see his country robbed of its rights cannot be a patriot.

          “That man, therefore, is no patriot, who justifies the ridiculous claims of American usurpation; who endeavours to deprive the nation of its natural and lawful authority over its own colonies, which were settled under English protection; were constituted by an English charter; and have been defended by English arms.

          “To suppose, that by sending out a colony, the nation established an independent power; that when, by indulgence and favour, emigrants are become rich, they shall not contribute to their own defence, but at their own pleasure; and that they shall not be included, like millions of their fellow-subjects, in the general system of representation; involves such an accumulation of absurdity, as nothing but the show of patriotism could palliate.

          “He that accepts protection, stipulates obedience. We have always protected the Americans; we may, therefore, subject them to government.”

          I am not sure why some people are so enamored of him.

          1. Well, he wrote the first dictionary.

      6. If the shoe fits, it doesn’t matter where it comes in hierarchy.

        1. If the shoe fits, someone should throw it at both candidates?

  9. Any individual electing to support this degenerate is actively abetting the deconstruction of this republic

    And the job has mostly already been done for her. All that is left to do is stack the court with the crookedest cronies she can find.

    1. Let’s not leave out stacking DOJ and the FBI, too. As noted, much has already been done, but to truly consolidate the burial of the rule of law, you need a successor to Lynch and Comey who will validate and thus institutionalize what they have done.

      Naturally, the IRS will continue to be weaponized and directed against Enemies of the State Executive.

      1. Imagine if the Director of the FBI had responded thusly instead to Clinton:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ozH3G2jfg

  10. This is a blatant witch hunt. Just replace ‘send classified material’ with ‘cast spells’. As for Comey he is the propaganda master with Chasing the Dragon and Countering Violent Extremism. They are running out of real crimes to prosecute and they are really hurting.

    1. Just say you support Clinton, shreek. You disingenuous shithead.

      1. OK I support Clinton. Nevertheless I will vote for Johnson.

        1. BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHH!!!!

          You’re so full of shit, your breath stinks!

    2. They are running out of real crimes to prosecute

      *** takes deep breath ***

      What do you consider a “real crime”, then?

      1. Certainly not compromising national security by illegally transmitting classified and Special Access Program material on a private email run on an unsecured private server. Or accepting millions of dollars in “donations” to the Clinton Foundation slush fund from foreign entities with business before the State Department which was subsequently approved by Herself.

        1. Wait. Let AddictionMyth offer something up.

          1. Can’t. Wait. That. Long.

      2. I bet they consider it a “real crime” to make a political film critical of Hillary Clinton using ones own money. All of my lefty acquaintances seem to think this is a blatantly obvious example of criminal behavior and roll their eyes and condescendingly put me down if I raise even the smallest of objections.

        1. You have friends? What’s that like?

          1. Don’t give me so much credit. I have acquaintances.

        2. You have friends? What’s that like?

          1. You would need to ask.

        3. a blatantly obvious example of criminal behavior

          Sure. HATE SPEECH!

          1. Maybe the next time they start whining about Citizens United I will pull a copy of the Constitution out of my pocket and start waving it in their face. Apparently they consider that to be quite a powerful bit of symbolism, and it seems like it would be even more powerful because the Constitution would actually back my position!

            1. How crass. My children were killed by citizens united. And by the constitution.

            2. When I saw Democrats cawing about the Constitution last week, I knew the irony had to be lost on these people—these same people who openly trash the constitution, the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments because they think throwing those away is “common sense”.

      3. They are running out of real crimes to prosecute

        Not at all. She has numerous crimes to be prosecuted for that we already know about. No need to pile on any new ones.

        1. No need to pile on any new ones.

          Somebody should tell her to stop perpetrating them…

    3. Well, she is an evil hag who devours the souls of children. I give your statement only two Pinnochios.

    4. This is a blatant witch hunt. Just replace ‘send classified material’ with ‘cast spells’.

      You mean just like addiction is a myth?

      Sorry to have to break this to you, but the facts contradict your irrational, unscientific, self-serving beliefs.

      1. shriek needs addiction to be a myth because he’s coming off the high of being a soulless shill for Obama over the last 8 years and realizes he got addicted to it.

        It’s okay shriek, Obama is much too big a narcissist to go quietly into private life.

    5. “Just replace ‘send classified material’ with ‘cast spells’.”

      Congrats. I personally thought the trolling a bit too over-the-top. I mean obviously everything becomes a witch-hunt when you replace the crime with “casting spells”, so no rational human would ever make that statement as if it was meaningful.

      But I have to admit, while I would have thought such trolling would be so obvious no one would fall for it, your bait has caught about seven people. Good trolling.

      1. Damn you!

    6. This is a blatant witch hunt. Just replace ‘send classified material’ with ‘cast spells’.

      Is this even an argument? It’s like a more absurd version of the Jedi Mind Trick. Argumentum ex Mad Libs… This is a _______. Just replace _______ with ______.

      This is a stickup. Just replace ‘sent classified material’ with ‘get your hands in the air and give me all the money’.
      This is a sporting event. Just replace ‘send classified meterial’ with ‘forward pass’.
      This is an orgy. Just replace ‘send classified material’ with ‘ejaculated reproductive fluids’.

      1. This is an orgy. Just replace ‘send classified material’ with ‘we’re all gonna be fucked’.

    7. This is a blatant witch hunt.

      Thankfully, in this case it’s an actual witch being hunted.

      1. ^This.

        That’s the first statement that comes to mind whenever Granmaw Felony whines about ‘witchhunts’.

        However, I expect you to hear from the Witches Association of Asia and America (WAAA) demanding that you apologize for comparing witches to Mrs. Clinton.

    8. Do you know what a SCIF is AM? Fucking tell me what a SCIF is, what is held in one, and what sort of clearance you need to enter one?

      Jesus Christ, fucking idiot

  11. “But by now there is a clear public record of the contrast between her statements about the email controversy and the facts, forcing her to either admit a series of embarrassing errors, cop to deliberate dishonesty, or continue lying.”

    +1 William Safire

    1. I’m going with option (c).

    2. If we’re betting here, I’m going with ‘continue lying’.

      1. Of course.

        She can’t not lie. She lies when there’s no need to and it can only come back to haunt her.

        Three months for “the haunting” ….

        1. It’s dangerous to get out of practice. If she ever started speaking the truth, who knows what would happen.

          1. Something like this?

    3. either admit a series of embarrassing errors, cop to deliberate dishonesty, or continue lying.

      I don’t see how that’s an either/or proposition;

      “I say a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,” she said.

      Being pedantic; millions of words a day.

  12. The good news is that if Assange is telling the truth here and not bluffing, and say what you want about Assange he never seems to bluff, people are going to forget all about Clinton lying about her FBI interview.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..sis-syria/

    Julian Assange: So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.

    If that turns out to be true, that would be a big fucking deal I would think.

    1. WDATPDIM?

      1. As long as the DemOp Media closes ranks, it may not matter how blatant her crimes,lies, and misjudgments are. Its down to Trump to force them into the national narrative. Which he is well-suited to do, but unless the RNC backs him, I don’t know how effective even that will be.

        1. I’m rooting for a Clinton loss because it will absolutely fuck all the kingmakers on both sides of the aisle. You think The Donald is going to let all those #NeverTrump Republicans in? I think they’re going to have to toady harder than they have since their sophomore year of HS when they were trying to be assistant editor of the school paper. And they, who gave us Trump versus Hillary deserve every degrading thing they will have to do to get their access back. And the NY Post will have a headline hardon for four years.

          1. I’m a bit more optimistic. My dream is that the #NeverTrump GOP would actually join Dems to oppose Donny’s attempts at expanding the Executive.

            They’d actually start asserting the prerogative’s of the Legislative branches for once.

            If Hillary is elected we get the same old split down the middle and the Executive keeps growing

    2. Yep. I don’t care if he’s working for the Lizard Men from the Hollow Earth, he’s doing liberty minded Americans a favor. Also, those sonsofbitches won’t be quite so cavalier in what they put in email from here on out. If they’re going to dodge the FOIA as a matter of course, I want them to work at least as hard as the gangs in The Wire.

      1. There is very little doubt in my mind that they were running weapons from Libya to the Syrian rebels and that is why the CIA and the Ambassador were in Bengazi. Remember, the entire Obama administration as well as the Clinton State Department operated under the assumption that there were radical Muslims who could be dealt with and coopted. These are the same people who thought the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt was a good idea. When you put that attitude together with their desire to fund anti-Assad rebels in Syria, there is no doubt in my mind at all, that they armed ISIS. Why wouldn’t they have armed ISIS? That is the kind of stupid shit they do.

        1. Of course they did. Or planned to. They seem to be able to fuck up a wet dream, but they sure wanted to. They thought they were so fucking smart, tearing apart the one fucking thing that the Bush team did right. Bush’s administration made it clear that if you were a strong man, and you stayed out of the NBC weapons game, you’d be safe from American meddling. It wasn’t utopia, but it was a clear set of rules that made dealing with America predictable. Now, nobody knows what the fuck America is going to do and it makes everyone nervous.

          1. you’d be safe from American meddling

            Everybody except Saddam that is. Unfortunately.

            1. Oh boy, are we going to rehash whether or not biological and chemical weapons were ever found again?

              1. Just sayin’. It was a colossal fuckup that Cheney predicted the outcome of back in 1994.

                1. which makes jumping into Libya and/or Syria all the more stupid, no? Geezus. And Saddam had nasty weapons. How the hell do you think he got them in the first place?

        2. Oh come on, John! That’s such weak tea! You are taking a few snippets of evidence and using it to build an unsupportable controversy!

          Yes, Stevens was there without a security detail at a consular site that had no function. Yes there were CIA guys around. Yes, he met the Turkish ambassador there shortly before a company sized force attacked the site and killed him.

          To spin these facts into a CIA gun running plot requires suspending our disbelief and ignoring a far more probable outcome.

          1) The Turkish ambassador came to benghazi because he had heard it offered lovely eel-infested waters for pleasure cruising.

          2) Ambassador Stevens happend to be traveling through the area on an inspection tour, and upon a chance meeting with the Turkish ambassador decided to exchange recipe ideas for Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.

          3) The CIA guys were there ensuring Khaddafy didn’t disguise himself as Justing Bieber and sneak out of the country.

          4) The company sized attack force were really Al Queda supporters who hated Justin Bieber (and who can blame them?) and were responding to rumors that he was in the U.S compound!

          1. No. The real truth is Stevens was left there without security so that he could be kidnapped and then traded for the MB blind guy in prison for the first WTC bombing.

            That to me is the craziest conspiracy theory to come out of this. I don’t believe it, but the fact that it is consistent with a lot of known and totally unexplained facts, like how an ambassador to a war zone was left in a consulate without security or why the military was told to sand down and not do a rescue mission, shows how bizarrely incompetent Hillary and Obama really are. It is not so much that I think they were trying to get Stevens kidnapped to then trade the Blind Shik for him, it is that they wouldn’t have acted any differently if they had. That is pretty fucking staggering when you think about it.

            1. I think my first question when offered an ambassadorship in the Clinton organization would be, “Can I have the contact information of the military team that will be overseeing my rescue if a mob storms my hotel?”

              1. “The REAL contact information, please. This phone number you gave me is only 5 digits, and one of them is an H.”

            2. Ambassador, operative; all these terms that get so confusing. Painting Stevens as the usual grip-and-grin, dinner-hosting suit in some far-off land is disingenuous at best. Then again, Hillary and the rest spent how long insisting that it was all about a movie. And if by “incompetent” you mean evil, then sure.

            3. I think the actual truth is going to be infuriatingly stupid. As in “we had to set the little girls on fire because they saw our faces and could ID us to the cops” infuriatingly stupid.

              1. I think the truth is likely “we had Stevens and the CIA there running guns to Syria but didn’t provide security or try to rescue him because we didn’t want the people of Libya to think we were occupying them.” That infuriating enough for you?

        3. *Help the Russians militarily to fight the Nazis

          *Russia becomes enemy.

          *Help al-Qaeda militarily to fight the Russians

          *Al-Qaeda becomes enemy.

          *Help ISIS militarily to fight al-Qaeda

          *ISIS becomes enemy.

          *Now we must help the new batch of “moderates” to fight ISIS…

          You’d think, at some point in time, we’d fucking learn.

          1. It’s like that pest control joke. We have too many mice, we get snakes to eat the mice, we have too many snakes, we get mongooses to eat the snakes, we have too many mongooses, we get wild dogs to eat the mongooses, now we have too many wild dogs.

            1. Hang on, i’m calling my bear guy about your wild dog problem.

              1. You rang?

      2. I want them to work at least as hard as the gangs in The Wire

        Julian Assange is our Fuzzy Dunlop.

    3. It won’t have any effect at all, on Clinton. If Assange released a video of Clinton eating human babies alive, it would have no effect. Because Trump is Hitler and the people who would vote for Clinton, with what they already know about here, have no principles or morals, at all. And the sycophant media will quietly sweep it all under the rug.

      1. And the media will remain oddly incurious about Hillary’s malfeasance while devoting endless copy and airtime to the latest mean thing Trump said about some Democrat operative.

        1. They’re deferential to her in an extreme, consistent way. She won’t be held to account for anything.

      2. It’s funny that I also came up with the image of Hillary eating live babies not making a difference to the sycophants.

        1. I don’t think the term “sycophant” is correct. Sycophants pretend to support someone out of self-interest, knowing full well that the person they support is an idiot.

          1. My dictionary says “a person who praises powerful people to get their approval”. Another lists synonyms like toady, yes-man, bootlicker. I find nothing indicating that the servile behavior is a pretense.

            1. Well, I’ll leave it to you to figure it out why one implies the other.

              In any case, the term “sycophant” is wrong.

            2. Personally, I think either ‘cheerleaders’ or ‘co-conspirators’ would be better definitions. I don’t think the media is pushing the Dem line to curry favor, they’re doing so because they’re true believers. A sycophant will turn when the power turns. The MSM never turns, they always push the leftist agenda. Does anyone really think that NBC will suddenly become RNC-TV if we have a President Trump? They’re going to become the vicious feral attack dogs that they SHOULD be no matter what letter is behind the President’s name (R or D).

      3. Over a nice dinner last night my parents were explaining to me that Trump is just like Hitler. I found myself in the awkward position of defending the guy. Where in his past, I argued, do we see any similar behavior? “The Art of the Deal” is hardly “Mein Kampf”, and frankly, the guy has gone 70 years without ever before trying to use the political process to gain power over others. It’s strange just how important it is too the left that people agree with them that Trump is absolute evil, when all the evidence just points to him being kind of a spoiled playboy with a big mouth.

        1. Never used the political process? He certainly used the bureaucratic process repeatedly.

          1. You might as well complain that a fish swims in water.

            You can’t be a big businessman, and especially not a big developer, without greasing the skids of bureaucracy.

            1. Yeah, there’s a difference between “doing what you got to do” vs. actively trying to make your occupation one of seeking power over other people.

        2. Just come back with “So Hitler is no worse than a guy who runs a big real estate business based out of Manhattan and has never been responsible for any deaths? Good to know you think Hitler was so benign.”

          Of course, every four years the Republican nominee is literally Hitler to these people.

        3. Paraphrase points 9-23 from the 25 Point Program, replacing “German” with “America” as necessary and adjusting words like “gymnastics” to be a bit more modern and appropriate. Ask them which of those they support and whether they sound more like Hillary or Trump.

          1. Every year some libertarian historian gives his students the political platforms of two historical figures, distorting some elements in order to obscure their authorship.

            Hitler always wins in a land-slide over Thomas Jefferson. It’s not even close.

          2. “Paraphrase points 9-23 from the 25 Point Program, replacing “German” with “America” as necessary and adjusting words like “gymnastics” to be a bit more modern and appropriate. Ask them which of those they support and whether they sound more like Hillary or Trump.”

            That doesn’t really work very well.

            “We want land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.”

            “No Jew may be a citizen”

            “Every citizen should have a job. Their work should not be selfish, but help everyone.”

            “We want all very big corporations to be owned by the government.”

            1. The first two are points 4 and 3. The latter two are implied by the existing Democratic platform.

            2. That doesn’t really work very well.

              Which part of “points 9-23” was too difficult to understand?

      4. It won’t on the true faithful, but those seem to be getting fewer by the day. If this is true, it will give the hard left another reason to vote Stein or stay home and it will make charges that Trump is “dangerous” a lot less convincing to everyone else.

      5. Because Trump is Hitler

        Although, technically, Clinton’s political positions are a lot closer to Hitler’s than Trump’s are. After all, pretty much at the top of what Hitler was against were capitalism, big business, and bankers; and at the top of the list of what Hitler promised were helping the middle class, free education, free health care, government retirement plans, and jobs for everybody.

        1. and jobs for everybody

          Well, almost everbody

          1. The saboteurs and obstructionists must be eliminated to achieve utopia.

          2. No, everybody, at least at first. Those camps were initially work camps. Of course, you have to have a definition of “jobs” that includes “slavery”.

            1. Those camps were initially work camps.

              True, but only because the goal of eliminating the undesirables was left to the einsatzgruppen. When the Nazis realized bullets weren’t fast enough, and that using soldiers as executioners was bad for morale, they experimented with other ideas, before settling on gassing and the camps. It’s also notable that a lot of people died at the camps before they really became death camps; getting work out of the prisoners was always less important than removing them from society.

          3. Are you forgetting “Arbeit macht frei”?

            1. What R C said.

              *** works on refreshing ***

    4. Also, obligatory:

      IT WAS RUSSIA THAT HACKED CLINTON, BECAUSE THEY LOVE TRUMP! RUSSIANS ARE ALL TRUMPETS! PUTIN IS A TRUMPET!

    5. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.

      Next step is overcoming the MSM defense wall. Or will enough alternative media pick this up that the 1,700 are made impossible to ignore?

      1. The MSM didn’t seem to stop the DNC emails from being a big deal. The MSM defense wall seems to be a bit porous these days.

        1. the DNC thing was inside baseball by comparison. How many on the left were really surprised that Bernie had been screwed and further, how many were that upset? Libya/Syria is on a different plane and has far more potential of harming Herself. Therefore, the MSM has all the more reason to defend against it. Not saying it won’t get out; just asking at what point does the press at large become unable to hand wave it?

        2. Maybe I am suffering from perception bias, but I remember seeing a lot more about Melania Trump plagiarizing Michelle Obama than I heard about the DNC leaks. At least until they could be spun as ‘the Russians are out to get Hillary!’

          1. Maybe I am as well. But I thought the DNC thing made a lot of headlines and made them look very bad.

            1. Maybe because you actually paid attention to the actual content of the emails. Most of the stories I saw were about how awful Trump was for asking the Russians to “hack” an American political party.

              1. which again raises the question: at what point do Libya/Syria emails become impossible for the MSM to ignore? They worked fairly hard to frame the DNC email leak. The Libya set is far, far more newsworthy to the public at large, meaning the press has even more reason to work to suppress widespread dissemination of the story.

          2. Yes, but Melania’s semi-nude photos will lock up the straight male and lesbian demographics.

    6. Nope, it wouldn’t.

      Move along—nothing to see here

  13. I will forever hate Trump if he gets this woman elected. I never liked him to begin with, but now I will truly hate him.

    1. “I will forever hate Trump if he gets this woman elected. I never liked him to begin with, but now I will truly hate him”

      Well ok, but it’s really silly to blame Trump for that one.

  14. The face of “lawyerly evasion”.

  15. As Bob Marley once said, “Fac’s and fac’s and t’ings and t’ings. Them’s all a lot of fuckin’ bullshit.”

  16. Did her lawyers have adequate security clearances and need-to-know to review those emails? Or is that just more non-crimes on top if her non-criminal behavior?

    1. If you believe her story, this is important. If you believe the FBI’s story, they read the headers, not the messages, so it should be a simple government Secret clearance.

    2. Look, Al Capone was never convicted of anything but tax evasion, so it must be true that he never did any murdering, or extortion, or bootlegging or anything else. His only criminal activity was failing to pay the proper taxes. He never committed any “real” crimes.

    3. Her lawyers should be in jail, too. They handled classified info illegally, and oversaw the deletion of emails that were the subject of a subpoena.

      The fact that Comey couldn’t even go after any of the smaller fry shows how corrupt he is, and how much he feared the smaller fry rolling over on the big fish.

      1. The fact that there weren’t even any sacrificial lambs only serves to validate the idea that there was hard evidence against Clinton that they couldn’t risk being exposed.

      2. I think part of Comey’s problem is that it was obvious that the White House knew all about Hillary’s email and private server and allowed it to go on, and there was no way he would go after Hillary knowing it would come back on Obama.

        1. of course, the White House knew. If I remember write, there have been stories of Obama telling her not to do it, and her actions told him to fuck off.

          Just think about that – this woman, this noble public servant, basically tells POTUS to screw himself. Now imagine her in that chair. Who the hell is going to stop her from doing anything?

          1. Reportedly, Valerie Jarret went to see Hillary specifically to tell her to knock it off with the private email setup. Hillary ignored her and continued to do whatever the fuck she wanted to. So yeah, just wait until she is actually sitting the Throne.

          2. Obama was in on the fix from the beginning when he said that he didn’t think she did anything wrong while the investigation was still taking place. What’s the guy going to do, admit that he’s a weakling because Hillary ignored him? His reputation with the party’s a lot more important to him than his integrity.

  17. I’m going to run on a platform of eradicating troll safe spaces online, and rounding up the squirrels and marching them straight out of town. Who’s with me?

    1. Just the voices in your head.

      1. You have quite the boner for me today. Wanna talk about it?

        1. Not really. You’re actually pretty boring. I was just amusing myself, but I think I’m done now.

          1. OK well if you ever need to talk I’m here for you.

        2. You have quite the boner for me today. Wanna talk about it?

          Send pics first.

    2. So you’re saying we should vote against what’s in your own best interest…

      1. That’s been the DNC message to everyone above the poverty level for a long time.

        1. Everybody below it too … they just drank the koolaid and didn’t know any better.

    3. SQUIRRELS WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!

    4. SQUIRRELS WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!

    5. SQUIRRELS WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!

    6. SQUIRRELS WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!

    7. SQUIRRELS WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!

    8. SQUIRRELS WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!

    9. SQUIRRELS WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!

    10. SQUIRRELS WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!

    11. SQUIRRELS WILL NEVER SURRENDER!!

  18. So how could Clinton possibly claim that Comey pronounced her “truthful”?

    He pronounced her “truthful” in general, over a cup of coffee at her home, not specifically truthful on every single statement she ever made.

    Sheesh, you only hold her to this impossible standard because she is a woman and because you are a vile misogynist and racist. If Hillary were a man, the E-mail controversy would have been forgotten months ago and Hillary could get back to talking about how to rescue the American middle class!

    1. I know the comment section is where all the magic happens, but it’s a Jacob Sullum article so there’s no reason to skip it entirely.

      1. Are you having trouble with sarcasm?

    2. I believe his “truthfulness” statement only referred to her FBI interview, and even then he only said he had no reason to believe she was lying … during that interview, which of course we don’t know what was actually asked or answered,

  19. Nothing on Politifact about this? Shockng.

    1. They just rated it pants on fire today

      http://www.politifact.com/trut…..-comey-ca/

  20. Here is a TOP MAN admitting he was wrong.

    I still believe that organizing medicine into networks that can share information, coordinate care for patients and manage risk is critical for delivering higher-quality care, generating cost savings and improving the experience for patients. What I know now, though, is that having every provider in health care “owned” by a single organization is more likely to be a barrier to better care.

    You’ll be shocked that the answer is for more and better laws to be drafted to fix this slight, unforseen problem with his government-big-business solution to health care.

    1. Yeah, fuck that bitch. He helped ruined everyone’s healthcare system and then moved on. But he admits he was wrong, so it’s ok.

    2. I still believe that organizing medicine into networks that can share information, coordinate care for patients and manage risk is critical for delivering higher-quality care, generating cost savings and improving the experience for patients.

      In other words, he has learned nothing other than “next time we will pass more laws and get it right.” God forbid he ever conclude that medicine shouldn’t be “organized’ by anyone other than those involved.

      1. He’s a slaver. Individual autonomy is a concept heretical to his authoritarian dogma.

        1. That term is thrown around a bit too loosely but this is one of the cases where it is appropriate. And he is the worst kind of slaver, a well meaning one. He wants to enslave people and run their lives for their own good.

          1. Yes, well, if only those poor people would stop doing stupid things like working themselves to death and relieving their stress one cigarette at a time, we could have perfect healthcare.

          2. It isnt thrown around too loosely.

            If someone thinks I should work for someone else, even in small part, against my will, then the term is accurately applied.

            Yes, it means it gets applied across a wide range of slavers. But its a matter of degree, not difference.

      2. These people can’t possibly envision a solution to a problem that isn’t more, bigger and badder statism. I have to wonder how they think humanity has made it this far in our history, since big government nanny statism and hyper-regulation are very recent developments. I guess the first hunter-gatherers who decided to plant some crops must have had instructions from the Sumerian Department of Agriculture. (full disclosure, I have been repeatedly told by progs and socialists that we wouldn’t have farming without the department of agriculture.)

        1. I’m actually pretty sure that Sumeria did have a Department of Agriculture responsible for verifying that the proper amount of grain was turned into beer and enough beer was paid as tax.

          1. Fun fact: in Sumeria the proper amount of grain to be turned into beer was apparently upwards of 2/3 of the harvest.

            1. Best way to keep the fucking rats from eating it.

              1. Meh, the rats just drank their share of the beer.

        2. big government nanny statism and hyper-regulation are very recent developments

          What is feudalism if not the nascent form of nanny statism? The serf, the knight, and even the feudal lord give up some of their freedom and autonomy in return for protection and favor from the next higher authority, each of whom is expected to keep his charges in line and working for the “greater good” instead of his own self-interest.

          People talk of history as the doing of kings, generals, statesmen, and occasionally philosophers, rather than the messy rabble whose job it is to put the plans into practice.

          That having been said, your point remains. None of the great kings of old are still alive; none of the legendary dynasties still extant; even the most stable of orders eventually collapses. Yet people still live and prosper.

          1. What is feudalism if not the nascent form of nanny statism?

            Feudalism is a system of contracts between vassals and sovereigns. It’s not nanny statism. Most lords and early kings had almost no ability to change “the law” on their own, except those regarding their own household and directly ruled estates. The law was regarded as an ancient thing, changes to it were viewed as highly dubious and so occurred only very slowly or in the wake of calamities.

            Often times kings and feudal lords were unable to even raise taxes to fund some project or military excursion, and so the costs were borne on themselves.

            each of whom is expected to keep his charges in line and working for the “greater good” instead of his own self-interest.

            That’s exactly backwards. Historically one of the great criticisms leveled against feudal orders were that each vassal was too self-interested to promote the greater good. The most common purveyor of that criticism was actually kings and princes who were eager to increase their power within the realm, invariably the king claimed to represent that “greater good”.

          2. ‘The serf, the knight, and even the feudal lord give up some of their freedom and autonomy in return for protection …’
            No even wrong.
            The King gave land to those who would fight for him. He depended on them for protection. They depended on him for a legitimate claim to the land they occupied.

        3. big government nanny statism and hyper-regulation are very recent developments.

          Nope. Go look up the emperor Diocletian.

          -jcr

          1. If that’s your standard then you could look up any number of Roman tyrants practicing legal positivism. There is a difference between Diocletian or Caligula or Domitian outlawing hair styles or mandating grain prices and those same rulers passing 40,000 new laws and regulations every year regulating every last aspect of commercial and social existence. They simply didn’t have the capability to do it, both logistically and financially. Tyranny isn’t new but nor is tyranny a perfect synonym for nanny-statism.

    3. Heck, even Gruber admitted before the law was passed that the law was wrong, but that nobody really knew what to do, and this would tie up enough money in the system that they then could figure out how to spend it later.

  21. “In other words, Comey confirmed that Clinton had repeatedly misled the public, but he said there was no evidence she had lied in her interview with the FBI (which would be a federal crime).”

    And of this, of course, we only have Clinton’s and Comey’s word, since no transcript or other record was made of her interview with the FBI. Just wait until you see what she does when she’s President.

  22. “Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say”

    I think I see the problem here.

    1. I read that as “hear’d.”

      I tell you huwhut.

      1. Hillary ain’t no ways tahrd!

  23. I i get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Heres what I’ve been doing:==>==>==> http://www.Alpha-Careers.com

  24. “Clinton Falsely Claims the FBI’s Director Pronounced Her ‘Truthful'”

    It’s really spelled L-I-E-D.

    1. I really wish a major publication would run a story on this subject under the title, “Hillary Clinton is Full of Shit — And a Traitor.” Can you even imagine the outrage?

  25. In your flyovers, poaching your voters.

    On factory floors and in school gymnasiums, Clinton pitched her economic vision to union members, teachers and assembly line workers, most of whom described themselves as part of the lower and middle classes. She promised huge investments to revive manufacturing and higher wage jobs, and a country where “people still make things.”
    And she repeatedly issued a sober warning about Trump, calling him reckless, inexperienced and out to get the little guy.

    “Donald Trump goes around with that hat on, Make America Great Again. Everything he make, he makes somewhere else besides America. The only thing he makes in America are bankruptcies,” Clinton said at a K’NEX factory in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, on Friday, surrounded by injection molding presses, surface grinders that flatten steel and other large machinery.
    “We don’t resent success in America,” she added. “But we do resent people who take advantage of others in order to line their own pockets on the way up.”

    If Hillary says she’s going to bring back manufacturing jobs, she she’ll do it! How hard can it be?

    1. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
      Hmm, hmm, hmm.
      She came, she saw, she conquered,
      Hmm, hmm, hmm.

    2. “We don’t resent success in America,” she added. “But we do resent people who take advantage of others in order to line their own pockets on the way up.”

      The saddest thing about the whole shit-the-bed special prosecutor of Bill Clinton in the 90s is that there is so much explicit evidence that Mr. & Mrs. Clinton have done this at every turn, but they let themselves get spun as witchhunting prudes who were focused on the bedroom closets of consenting adults.

    3. How hard can it be?

      It’s not hard at all. Just throw out the tax code.

      Of course, for Hillary, that will be impossible.

      -jcr

    4. Aren’t we basically the manufacturer’s of the equipment that those evil Chinese use to sell us cheep Trump crap?

      Aren’t those higher wage manufacturing jobs?

  26. Lies are truth as predicted by George Orwell

  27. Hillary seems to have given up the high-collared outfits. They must have her on some better meds for her goiter.

    Now, my question is – that weird thing on her tongue in the photo with Obama at the convention was almost certainly a biopsy. Why was she biopsied, and what’s the result?

    1. Inconclusive, and the lab where the biopsy was cultured had to be covered in a sarcophagus of lead-lined concrete. It’s now at the center of a sixty-mile exclusion zone and the guards have orders to shoot on sight anything trying to leave.

    2. The goiter is not really a goiter and it goes where it wants.

    3. Now, my question is – that weird thing on her tongue in the photo with Obama at the convention was almost certainly a biopsy. Why was she biopsied, and what’s the result?

      To be serious, and assuming a BX has indeed taken place (we don’t know for sure – and that foto is not conclusive proof, RC) BX are done on the tounge to confirm or R/O:

      1) A benign lingual lesion. Which, using strictly that foto, is what that spot appears to me to be. I am certainly willing to admit error when presented with better foto evidence.

      2) Lingual Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC). Possible, certainly, and can present as both dark and lightened areas on the surface of the tongue.

      3) Oropharangeal SCC. This is much more serious, since by including the pharynx (which incidentally, could account for her coughing fits if either meds or growths [or both (D/T regional thickening)] are causing a oropharangeal, pulmonary obstruction.

      Again, I am going to need more than a foto with dark spot on her tongue to confirm or R/O a possible BX, much less conjecture why she may or may not have had one (and most likely would have been a punch BX).

      1. that foto is not conclusive proof, RC

        Its not, but its practically a textbook image of a tongue biopsy, isn’t it? Its not just a “spot” – its a well-defined, sharply bordered circle.

        1. Not a punch BX, which is what would be most likely used to get the specimen. What we don’t know is if there is was rounded, convex, protruding growth.

          But if curettage or dessicator via electrosurgery, yes, then a larger hole would be apparent. It’s well defined, but from a distance, so is “hairy tounge”.

          IMMO, if there was electrosugery performed, it was to TX something already DX’d. Not a tongue BX.

          1. That pic is horrifying.

            I was going more off of this pic of a tongue biopsy:

            http://imgur.com/gallery/oPm0W

            warning; googling “tongue biopsy images” is pretty nauseating.

            1. Hmm, there *are* definite similarities, no question. My biggest problem with the gawping maw foto is that there should be definite depth and a shiny edge to any depression created by electrocautery or dessication.

              With all the speaking she has being doing up to that point, it’s not easy to hide something like that. And, that’s accounting for the fact that the tongue is the fastest healing organ/tissue in the human body.

              Yeah, I am still sticking with existing growth or lesion until I get better evidence.

        2. Addendum: What we don’t know is if there is was rounded, convex, protruding growth in evidence, prior to that particular foto.

  28. that weird thing on her tongue in the photo with Obama at the convention was almost certainly a biopsy.

    Rug burn.

  29. Rather than own her mistakes, she doubles down on the lies.

    I have more respect at this point for the people voting Clinton purely out of anti-Trump sentiment. I at least understand it. The people who still actively like and defend her I just don’t understand.

    1. I have more respect at this point for the people voting Clinton purely out of anti-Trump sentiment.

      Should be = I have more respect at this point for the people not voting for Clinton purely out of anti-Trump sentiment.

    2. I have more respect at this point for the people voting Clinton purely out of anti-Trump sentiment.

      Should be = I have more respect at this point for the people not voting for Clinton purely out of anti-Trump sentiment.

      1. The comparison was between different groups of people voting for Clinton, hence why that group (which I would include myself in, as a Johnson supporter who is strongly anti-Trump) wasn’t mentioned.

  30. “So how could Clinton possibly claim that Comey pronounced her “truthful”?”

    By telling bald-faced lies. But Trump is the one who cant be trusted.

  31. Clinton told a falsehood?
    I’m shocked !

  32. RE: Clinton Falsely Claims the FBI’s Director Pronounced Her ‘Truthful’
    James Comey confirmed that the Democratic nominee has repeatedly misled the public about her State Department emails.

    Now, now.
    Who are you going to believe?
    An FBI agent who track downs some of the most violent and dangerous criminals in the USA, or a Clinton running for president?
    We all know the answer to that one.

  33. Hillary Clinton is awful, but first a gratuitous shot at Donald Trump. Reason just can’t help itself, can it?

  34. There are so many dis-qualifiers contained in that one 30-minute interview that the discussion should be over for all time.

  35. Think of 10 of your friends… 3 of them STILL think Hillary is Honest and Trustworthy… That’s terrifying.

  36. but she’s a woman.

  37. She’s a student of her husband. And a Democrat to boot.

  38. “Clinton falsely claims…”. What else is new?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.