13 Minutes of Hillary Lying

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you know the difference between a statement that turns out to be incorrect and a lie?

If I say I went to see the Giants play the Dolphins last December 1st and it turns out they played on December 14th, am I a liar?

Clinton may have been wrong that it was the State Department that gave the 90-95% figure, but the figure itself remains reasonable; ...[text shortened]... Department even though it is certainly consistent with what the State Department has disclosed.

A lie is a knowingly false statement made with intention to deceive. It is most unlikely that HC would have told this "lie" when it could be easily verified that the number did not come from the State Department even though it is certainly consistent with what the State Department has disclosed.

A) Hillary said she learned this number from the State Department, yet can't provide a name of someone from the State Department who allegedly disclosed this information.

B) Clinton has a history of lying about things that are easily verifiable; "sniper fire" is just one example.

Originally posted by vivify
[b]A lie is a knowingly false statement made with intention to deceive. It is most unlikely that HC would have told this "lie" when it could be easily verified that the number did not come from the State Department even though it is certainly consistent with what the State Department has disclosed.

A) Hillary said she learned this number from the Stat ...[text shortened]... s a history of lying about things that are easily verifiable; "sniper fire" is just one example.[/b]

A gets an: 🙄

The article you just linked to shows that HC didn't "lie" about the figure.

Are we back to the "if someone is ever shown to have told an untruth at any time in their life, they we must assume that lie about every other thing?"

The fact is the 1% v. 90-95% molehill seems to be a misunderstanding with Gowdy using a source that had no bearing on the Sec. of the State's e-mail system (or any top official's at State for that matter). And HC's staff might have have calculated the 90-95% figure (based on info from State I might add), but it seems far more reasonable than Gowdy's.

So who, if anybody, lied?

EDIT: The Bosnia story was told more than a decade after the incident and she was apparently told that there was some risk of sniper fire at the airport.http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-bosnia-sniper-fire-2016-6

A "lie"? Perhaps bit I doubt it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The link you just gave clearly shows that the "1%" number would not apply to HC's e-mails:

But it’s also not unreasonable for Clinton to assert that most of these e-mails resided somewhere in the State Department’s systems. Gowdy referenced an 2015 inspector general’s report concerning poor e-mail retention at the State Department, but that report con ...[text shortened]... vel memos are not captured by SMART.)

So the 1% v. 90-95% is an apples to oranges comparison.

Because you've proven yourself to be intelligent, this comes across as blatant dishonesty rather than a mistake.

We were just discussing that Hillary SAID she learned that figure from the State Department, which turned out to be untrue; the SD confirmed that this figure did NOT come from them. Whether or not the SD actually retained those emails is irrelevant to the fact that she made such a falsehood.

Originally posted by vivify
Because you've proven yourself to be intelligent, this comes across as blatant dishonesty rather than a mistake.

We were just discussing that Hillary SAID she learned that figure from the State Department, which turned out to be untrue. Whether or not the SD actually retained those emails is irrelevant to the fact that she made such a falsehood.

Untrue does not equal a lie, as has been patiently explained to you. The falsehood must be deliberate and knowing and made with the intention to deceive.

The chances that those conditions are met here are approximately zero. When she said it, she surely believed that the information had come from the State Department. Why would she say otherwise? It doesn't make sense.

Calling a post which contains facts which disprove your propaganda "blatant dishonesty" is pretty dishonest. Find something dishonest in that post.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Untrue does not equal a lie, as has been patiently explained to you. The falsehood must be deliberate and knowing and made with the intention to deceive.

The chances that those conditions are met here are approximately zero. When she said it, she surely believed that the information had come from the State Department. Why would she say otherwise? It doesn't make sense.

The chances that those conditions are met here are approximately zero. When she said it, she surely believed that the information had come from the State Department. Why would she say otherwise? It doesn't make sense.

On what basis did she "believe" the information came from the State Department, given that the SD confirmed this didn't come from them?

Originally posted by vivify
[b]The chances that those conditions are met here are approximately zero. When she said it, she surely believed that the information had come from the State Department. Why would she say otherwise? It doesn't make sense.

On what basis did she "believe" the information came from the State Department, given that the SD confirmed this didn't come from them?[/b]

Your story fully explains that. The information she did get was far more accurate than Gowdy's preposterous 1% claim.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your story fully explains that. The information she did get was far more accurate than Gowdy's preposterous 1% claim.

I keep forgetting you're a lawyer.

Hillary Clinton claimed the figure CAME from the State Department. That's the issue. You quite skillfully changed the subject away from that.

Hillary's claim that the figure actually came from the SD is unverifiable, begging the question, as Gowdy asked, "Who told you that?" Clinton was unable to answer who gave her that figure, in addition to the SD verifying they didn't give her that information.

This is what shows Clinton was lying; it's a FACT that SD didn't tell her the figure, though she claimed the opposite, and it's a FACT that Hillary can't provide a name of someone from the SD she allegedly got this info from.

Get it? This isn't a matter of Hillary receiving incorrect info and making a false statement as a result; this is a matter of Hillary not receiving such info in the first place, and lying that she did.

Originally posted by vivify
I keep forgetting you're a lawyer.

Hillary Clinton claimed the figure CAME from the State Department. That's the issue. You quite skillfully changed the subject away from that.

Hillary's claim that the figure actually came from the SD is unverifiable, begging the question, as Gowdy asked, "Who told you that?" Clinton was unable to answer who ...[text shortened]... this is a matter of Hillary not receiving such info in the first place, and lying that she did.

It isn't a fact at all. Hillary's staff had had contact with State regarding this issue for months; where is the evidence that the information was not received from State? Esp since the underlying statement i.e. that 90 percent of the e-mails went to state.gov accounts and thus should be recoverable from them - appears to be true as the article you just cited concedes.

Your willingness to swallow right wing propaganda on this matter seems to be inexhaustible. Gowdy is a lousy cross-examiner who didn't do his homework.

Originally posted by vivify
You are indeed playing games.

It is quite clearly you that is playing games given that you consistently accuse me of playing games yet fail to provide any counter argument.

When you allege that it's not clear what a figure in a video is referencing, then post a quote from the video that clearly states what it's referencing...are you not playing games?
Actually I have asked you to provide the quotes. You are not forthcoming. Why?

Or do you have poor listening comprehension?
Clearly it is better than yours.

My observations of your debating style are spot on:
Clearly not.
Worse, all you seem to have is 'observations of my debating style. Is that your debating style? No argument, just observations of other peoples debating style?

you dispute what's being said in the video without any support for doing so;
I provided support. You then went off on a rant about my debating style instead of addressing my argument.

So quite clearly, you're incorrect (again) in your claims about my logic.
What exactly did I say that was incorrect. What appears to be incorrect is your ability to read. (I don't need to explain it in detail because no1 has already done that above).

Originally posted by no1marauder
It isn't a fact at all. Hillary's staff had had contact with State regarding this issue for months; where is the evidence that the information was not received from State?

Both the Attorney Geneeral and the State Department itself confirmed that the SD didn't give her this information. That's the evidence.

If Hillary had indeed contacted the SD "regarding this issue for months", why can't she name even one person as a source of this information? The fact that she can't is even more evidence that she didn't receive this from the State Department.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is quite clearly you that is playing games given that you consistently accuse me of playing games yet fail to provide any counter argument.

[b]When you allege that it's not clear what a figure in a video is referencing, then post a quote from the video that clearly states what it's referencing...are you not playing games?
Actually I have asked ...[text shortened]... ability to read. (I don't need to explain it in detail because no1 has already done that above).[/b]

Worse, all you seem to have is 'observations of my debating style. Is that your debating style? No argument, just observations of other peoples debating style?

More games. Even though it's quite obvious that I put forth an argument and used legitimate sources to back up my point, you still claim I've put forth no argument, while providing no support for your claims...the exact way I described your debate style as. Interesting how you seem unable to stray from this style, even though it's been pointed out multiple times. This explains your anger tears.

The only difference this time, is you're being dishonest in claiming I've put forth no argument. My multiple sources and posts making arguments based on those sources, are quite obvious.

Originally posted by vivify
More games.

Over and over and over you just accuse me of games and more games whilst refusing to discuss the actual issue.
Your sources were completely destroyed by no1.
Do you have anything else?
How about you summarise your argument without once again spending ages trying to analyse my posting style? Maybe I missed your argument in all the waffle.

Here is my summary:
1. Clinton mentions that 90-95% of her emails would have been captured by the system.
2. The other speaker gives a figure of 1%, but does not say he is referring to Clintons emails. I believe no1 has demonstrated that he is not.
3. There is no clear evidence that she was lying.
You have so far used some very ridiculous arguments such as:
a) nobody else quoted the same figures (were they asked to?) (is it reasonable to think they would?)
b) Clinton has lied on other occasions (irrelevant and you know it).
c) lots and lots of nonsense about my anger and tears.
Where is your actual argument supporting your case that Clinton lied?

Originally posted by vivify
Both the Attorney Geneeral and the State Department itself confirmed that the SD didn't give her this information. That's the evidence.

If Hillary had indeed contacted the SD "regarding this issue for months", why can't she name even one person as a source of this information? The fact that she can't is even more evidence that she didn't receive this from the State Department.

No they did not. Present some evidence that they ever said "the State did not give Hillary's staff the accurate information that 90 per cent of her State Department e-mails were sent to state.gov accounts and therefore should be recoverable."

I'll wait.

I doubt Hillary was personally involved; she has staff for such matters. Your non-existent evidence is obviously insufficient so now you are reduced to speculative grasping at straws. Claims that someone is a liar require far more at least to fair minded individuals.

Originally posted by twhitehead

The other speaker gives a figure of 1%, but does not say he is referring to Clintons emails. I believe no1 has demonstrated that he is not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/09/hillary-clintons-claim-that-90-percent-of-her-emails-were-in-the-system/

"...as part of the exchange with Clinton, Gowdy referenced an inspector general’s report that “less than one percent of State Department emails” were captured."

Originally posted by no1marauder
Present some evidence that they ever said "the State did not give Hillary's staff the accurate information that 90 per cent of her State Department e-mails were sent to state.gov accounts and therefore should be recoverable."

I'll wait.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/09/hillary-clintons-claim-that-90-percent-of-her-emails-were-in-the-system/

"a State Department spokesman indicated that the number did not come from any State Department analysis but was a calculation made by the Clinton campaign–a fact later confirmed by the Department."