• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

hillary is a pathological liar

jhmd2000 said:
But let's get back to "Not criminally charged!" as a pride point for her supporters. Congrats?
Click to expand...

Where is one person that is celebrating? I actually think today wasn't particularly good for her. And I posted that this morning.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I will put his integrity up against hers. She lied for 16 months about nearly every aspect of this investigation (classified, two devices, etc).
Click to expand...

But did she get caught lying to the FBI?
 
From Wash Post:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and FBI Director James B. Comey listened as prosecutors did a mock run-through of the government’s case, a preview of how they would present their evidence to Petraeus’s lawyers in order, they hoped, to force a guilty plea.

The presentation included felony charges: lying to the FBI and violating a section of the Espionage Act. A conviction on either carried potentially years in prison.



The parties then agreed to a plea on a small misdemeanor charge. But the lying to FBI was definitely a central aspect, jhmd
 
And yes, I think there would also be a big difference in prosecution for a regular everyday CIA / NSA employee between:

1. Being extremely careless with top secret information in a way that could have and may have compromised the secrets to hackers.
2. Telling an author with a security clearance that they are friends with tons of top secret information (while knowing the whole time that they shouldn't) and lying to the FBI about it when confronted.
 
A: No, he wasn't charged or convicted of perjury. He was convicted of mishandling classified material.
I guess you could say that the Attorney General put on a compelling case that he could have proven perjury, had he wanted to.
For some reason, Loretta Lynch wasn't quite as involved in this investigation. Weird.
 
jhmd2000 said:
A: No, he wasn't charged or convicted of perjury. He was convicted of mishandling classified material.
I guess you could say that the Attorney General put on a compelling case that he could have proven perjury, had he wanted to.
For some reason, Loretta Lynch wasn't quite as involved in this investigation. Weird.
Click to expand...

But he got caught lying to the FBI. Right?
 
Strickland33 said:
But he got caught lying to the FBI. Right?
Click to expand...

Just like Hillary, if he wasn't charged, it must not have happened, right?

I reiterate: none of this is disqualifying. To me, it is more interesting how far people will go in their defense of her.
Talk about ambulatory goal posts....
 
Wasn't the right generally happy that the FBI was investigating this, but now the FBI is a bunch of hacks?
 
Ball State Deac said:
Wasn't the right generally happy that the FBI was investigating this, but now the FBI is a bunch of hacks?
Click to expand...

I did not need a press conference to know this Administration was not going to hold her accountable. I didn't realize how far the deniers would go to swallow her spin. Just about every explanation, mitigation or defense she offered was shredded. I underestimated the appetite her supporters had to Cape up for her after she lied to them.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I did not need a press conference to know this Administration was not going to hold her accountable. I didn't realize how far the deniers would go to swallow her spin. Just about every explanation, mitigation or defense she offered was shredded. I underestimated the appetite her supporters had to Cape up for her after she lied to them.
Click to expand...

But why would the FBI shill for her? Is it possible she just demonstrated shitty judgment but shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution?
 
Ball State Deac said:
But why would the FBI shill for her? Is it possible she just demonstrated shitty judgment but shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution?
Click to expand...

Of course. My Kingdom for "She exercised shitty judgment...". Instead, we get a steady diet of "but Condi and Colin did the same thing!!!" (Like hell they did) "this is a witchhunt!!!"
Her Administration is going to require some level of skepticism, right? We need to drop the "don't give up the ship" apology-in-perpetuity
 
jhmd2000 said:
Of course. My Kingdom for "She exercised shitty judgment...". Instead, we get a steady diet of "but Condi and Colin did the same thing!!!" (Like hell they did) "this is a witchhunt!!!"
Her Administration is going to require some level of skepticism, right? We need to drop the "don't give up the ship" apology-in-perpetuity
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with the investigation?
 
ChrisL68 said:
What does this have to do with the investigation?
Click to expand...

The investigation blew a hole in nearly every excuse she threw out; each of which was dutifully ingested by her apologists. If I had believed a) no classified (correction 110), b) only wanted one device (cirrection: multiple servers, multiple devices); c) turned over everything (correction: deleted thousands of email, and omitted professional material from production); I would have watched that press conference and felt gross about her lies I had repeated in her defense.
 
Welp, guess we can move onto the next thing. When's the next Benghazi report/subcommittee/testimony?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Petraeus gave classified info to someone else who also had a clearance. Be smarter than this.
Click to expand...

Maybe she had a clearance (I don't know that she did), but she did not have an official need to know.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Just like Hillary, if he wasn't charged, it must not have happened, right?

I reiterate: none of this is disqualifying. To me, it is more interesting how far people will go in their defense of her.
Talk about ambulatory goal posts....
Click to expand...

You're yelling at the wrong cloud, jhmd. I'm about as far from a Clinton defender as you'll get from a lefty on here.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Maybe she had a clearance (I don't know that she did), but she did not have an official need to know.
Click to expand...

She had a clearance (no question there) but she had no need to know (also no question). He broke the rules and he was punished. That's how it is supposed to work.
 
FckVwls said:
From what I have read and heard (from law professors, legal experts, not the national review) I don't think any major presidential candidate would have been criminally charged in the same circumstance. It was never likely at all.
Click to expand...

0YFDbpz.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top