13 Minutes of Hillary Lying

Originally posted by vivify
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."

This already been dealt with in the FactCheck article you gave the link to. To wit:

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 concerned the e-mails of lower-level officials, under a system known as SMART (State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset). A footnote in the report makes that clear: “These assessments do not apply to the system used by the Department’s high-level principals, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, and their immediate staffs, which maintain separate systems.” (A statement from the National Archives also emphasizes that high-level memos are not captured by SMART.)

What systems are used to capture high-level communications? There are actually four that track the records of the Office of the Secretary of State, according to the State Department:

The Secretariat Tracking and Retrieval System (“STARS&rdquo😉, an automated system used to track, control, and record documents containing substantive foreign policy information passing to, from, and through the offices of the Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, and other principal officers.
Secretariat Telegram Processing System (“STePS&rdquo😉, an electronic system designed to distribute cables among the Department’s principals.
Cable Archiving Retrieval System (“CARS&rdquo😉, an electronic system designed to provide access to a contemporary portion of the Department’s telegram archive.
Top Secret files

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

So Gowdy and his staff either didn't read the footnote or ignored it in trying to "trap" HC (if the latter it appears to have worked on the gullible).

Originally posted by vivify
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."

I think there is a serious problem with that assertion in the article.
Thet article gives a link to a State department briefing for the sentence you just quoted. But he was far more equivocal than the article suggests:

QUESTION: You may have seen in the press that there was a rather lengthy hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday involving the Secretary’s predecessor and the Benghazi committee. At one point during that testimony, there was an exchange with Secretary Clinton about her email account, where she said that the State Department had 90 to 95 percent of all her work-related emails already captured in State Department systems. And the chairman asked her who had told her that and she said, quote, “We learned that from the State Department and their analysis of the emails that were already on the system.” Can you tell us who at the State Department would have informed Clinton or her aides that 90 to 95 percent of the emails had been captured in State Department systems?

MR TONER: So, we’re aware of that exchange and appreciate the question. I’m not, frankly, in a position to do that right now. I would have to refer you, frankly, to her campaign team, which has used that figure previously, I think, and explained it in a fact sheet that they released. It was, frankly, her campaign staff that used it – the figure – so they can give you more information about the rationale or the background behind it. I’m not aware that we have given that figure, but again, I’m not in a position right now to confirm that.

QUESTION: Okay. And she indicated that that information came from a July meeting last year between her people and the department. Was there anything said in that meeting that you’re aware of that would lead one to that impression? And can you give us any other background information on what that July meeting was about?

MR TONER: On that July meeting? I can certainly look into it. I don’t have any information available right now in front of me about that meeting. But again, I’m aware that 90 to 95 percent is something that her campaign has been using. I’m not aware of the source of that.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/10/248681.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
This already been dealt with in the FactCheck article you gave the link to. To wit:

[b]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]... or ignored it in trying to "trap" HC (if the latter it appears to have worked on the gullible).[/b]

Like I already told you: this doesn't change that Hilary lied about receiving info from the Department.

Originally posted by vivify
Like I already told you: this doesn't change that Hilary lied about receiving info from the Department.

And the proof of that is? From the State Department press conference hyperlinked from the article you have repeatedly cited:

QUESTION: Okay. And she indicated that that information came from a July meeting last year between her people and the department. Was there anything said in that meeting that you’re aware of that would lead one to that impression? And can you give us any other background information on what that July meeting was about?

MR TONER: On that July meeting? I can certainly look into it. I don’t have any information available right now in front of me about that meeting. But again, I’m aware that 90 to 95 percent is something that her campaign has been using. I’m not aware of the source of that.

So Hillary gave as the source of her information a specific meeting between her staff and people at State. Presumably her staff told her what the State people said at that meeting. I've seen nothing contradicting their account.

So the "lie" is what again?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think there is a serious problem with that assertion in the article.
Thet article gives a link to a State department briefing for the sentence you just quoted. But he was far more equivocal than the article suggests:

QUESTION: You may have seen in the press that there was a rather lengthy hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday involving the Secretary’s ...[text shortened]... I’m not aware of the source of that.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/10/248681.htm[/b]

What point, exactly are you trying to make?

Originally posted by no1marauder
And the proof of that is? From the State Department press conference hyperlinked from the article you have repeatedly cited:

QUESTION: Okay. [b]And she indicated that that information came from a July meeting last year between her people and the department. Was there anything said in that meeting that you’re aware of that would lead one to that im ...[text shortened]... d at that meeting. I've seen nothing contradicting their account.

So the "lie" is what again?[/b]

WHO from the meeting told her that figure?

Also, does the fact that the State Department confirmed they didn't give her this info mean nothing to you?

Originally posted by vivify
WHO from the meeting told her that figure?

Also, does the fact that the State Department confirmed they didn't give her this info mean nothing to you?

I assume one or more of her staff who was present.

Where and when does the State Department "confirm" this? It certainly appears the information was accurate; where else could it have come from?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think there is a serious problem with that assertion in the article.
Thet article gives a link to a State department briefing for the sentence you just quoted. But he was far more equivocal than the article suggests:

QUESTION: You may have seen in the press that there was a rather lengthy hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday involving the Secretary’s ...[text shortened]... I’m not aware of the source of that.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/10/248681.htm[/b]

That the statement made in the article that you referenced "a State Department spokesman indicated that the number did not come from any State Department analysis " is not supported by the actual comments made by the State Department spokesman.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I assume one or more of her staff who was present.

WHO gave her staff this information?

"Where else could it have come from?"

Probably the same place as "sniper fire".

Originally posted by vivify
[b]WHO gave her staff this information?

"Where else could it have come from?"

Probably the same place as "sniper fire".[/b]

You're getting rather desperate, aren't you?

So far, you've been completely unable to produce ANY evidence that Hillary Clinton "lied" i.e. made a knowingly false statement with intent to deceive - when she said that the information was received from the State Department. She said such information was transmitted to her staff during a July 2015 meeting with State department officials; no one has definitely stated that that is incorrect.

So find someone who does say it was incorrect and perhaps you'll reach Step 1 - i.e. establishing that the statement is false.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're getting rather desperate, aren't you?

So far, you've been completely unable to produce ANY evidence that Hillary Clinton "lied" i.e. made a knowingly false statement with intent to deceive - when she said that the information was received from the State Department. She said such information was transmitted to her staff during a July 2015 meetin ...[text shortened]... t was incorrect and perhaps you'll reach Step 1 - i.e. establishing that the statement is false.

I'm getting l'm getting "desperate" by asking the same question I've been asking since the beginning of this thread, because no one (including Hillary) can answer it? The same question asked by Trey Gowdy during her hearing?

I'm the "desperate" one, because you now have to resort to shifting blame to Hillary's staff...because you know a question that should be easily answered, can't be? You know...the same thing that happens to people caught in a lie?

Okay dude. I'm shaking in my boots.

Originally posted by vivify
I'm getting l'm getting "desperate" by asking the same question I've been asking since the beginning of this thread, because no one (including Hillary) can answer it? The same question asked by Trey Gowdy during her hearing?

I'm the "desperate" one, because you now have to resort to shifting blame to Hillary's staff...because you know a question that shou ...[text shortened]... .the same thing that happens to people caught in a lie?

Okay dude. I'm shaking in my boots.

The burden of proving someone is a liar is on the person making the accusation, not the person being accused. If you can't meet that burden, then you should withdraw the accusation. After all, you're not a partisan shill like Trey Gowdy.

So, find someone who says that Hillary Clinton and/or her staff did not receive from the State Department the apparently correct information that 90-95% of her work related e-mails while Secretary of State were sent to state.gov accounts and thus should be recoverable.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The burden of proving someone is a liar is on the person making the accusation, not the person being accused. If you can't meet that burden, then you should withdraw the accusation. After all, you're not a partisan shill like Trey Gowdy.

So, find someone who says that Hillary Clinton and/or her staff did not receive from the State Department the appar ...[text shortened]... y of State were sent to state.gov accounts and thus should be recoverable.

Thanks in advance.

I've already posted a source showing that the state department confirmed the information did not come from them. A spokesman said it, and the State Department confirmed this. You read the source and quoted it.

Originally posted by vivify
I've already posted a source showing that the state department confirmed the information did not come from them. A spokesman said it, and the State Department confirmed this. You read the source and quoted it.

🙄🙄

Except for the fact that the spokesman clearly didn't say that. I've provided his statement several times; I strongly urge you to actually read them this time (I've helpfully bolded the parts where he doesn't say the information didn't come from State and never contradicts the claim that it did.

EDIT: One more time:

QUESTION: Okay. And she indicated that that information came from a July meeting last year between her people and the department. Was there anything said in that meeting that you’re aware of that would lead one to that impression? And can you give us any other background information on what that July meeting was about?

MR TONER: On that July meeting? I can certainly look into it. I don’t have any information available right now in front of me about that meeting. But again, I’m aware that 90 to 95 percent is something that her campaign has been using. I’m not aware of the source of that.


"I don't have any information" and "I'm not aware of the source of that" doesn't "confirm" anything.

Originally posted by no1marauder
🙄🙄

Except for the fact that the spokesman clearly didn't say that. I've provided his statement several times; I strongly urge you to actually read them this time (I've helpfully [b]bolded the parts where he doesn't say the information didn't come from State and never contradicts the claim that it did.

EDIT: One more time:

QUESTION: Okay. [ ...[text shortened]... on't have any information" and "I'm not aware of the source of that" doesn't "confirm" anything.[/b]

This is what makes you pathetic. In the same quote, it's pointed out the State Department itself confirmed that the figure didn't come from them. Instead of focusing on the larger point of the actual Department confirming this, you instead focus your entire post on a spokesman.

The Department itself, as pointed out in the Washington Post, refuted Hillary's claim. Your nauseating fixation on winning rather than being right, doesn't change this.