• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

TFT has a rule:

Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or making a similar accusation, is not acceptable even if you believe that your fellow poster really is a liar or deceitful. This kind of accusation never furthers the debate. Some people sincerely believe the strangest, most illogical things, and they aren't 'lying' when they express those irrational beliefs. They really believe them to be true, even when they obviously contradict other things they have said. The only acceptable response to what appears to be a lie from a fellow poster is to present evidence or argument to contradict what your fellow poster has said.

Now I am not suggesting that HRC is covered under TFT TOU - far from it. You are free to call her a liar all you want. But the problem with calling someone a liar is that you need to show evidence of "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth". You haven't, and I doubt you can.

That doesn't make me a "partisan hack" - quite the opposite. In the absence of evidence of "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth", I will maintain that - with only 3 emails out of almost 4,000 over 4 years, and those three containing only the little (c) notations (portion markings) somewhere in their body and no emails containing any type of classified notation in the header - it is more reasonable to believe that she is simply mistaken. Either she never realized until now that any of the nearly 4,000 emails had classified markings, or forgot about these three with "portion markings" somewhere in their body.

But please, feel free to continue to name call HRC. There is no rule against it. (There is, however, a TOU rule against calling me names such as "partisan hack")
 
She also lied under oath
during an exchange over false statements made by Clinton on her private email server.

“Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?” Chaffetz asked.

“Not to the FBI,” Comey responded. “Not in a case we were working.”

Chaffetz then reminded the FBI director that Clinton claimed under oath that “there was nothing marked classified” in her emails, either “sent or received.”

Comey said was “aware” of the comments but the FBI has not investigated the testimony because there has not been a referral from Congress.

“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?” Chaffetz pressed.

“Sure do,” Comey replied.

“You’ll have one,” Chaffetz said. “You’ll have one in the next few hours.”
(at about 10:26 a.m. before congress)

Again, not evidence that she lied. Only evidence that Chaffetz thinks she did, or at minimum wants to continue to=he witch-hunt by claiming she did
 
Again, not evidence that she lied. Only evidence that Chaffetz thinks she did, or at minimum wants to continue to=he witch-hunt by claiming she did

during an exchange over false statements made by Clinton on her private email server.

“Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?” Chaffetz asked.

“Not to the FBI,” Comey responded. “Not in a case we were working.”

Chaffetz then reminded the FBI director that Clinton claimed under oath that “there was nothing marked classified” in her emails, either “sent or received.”

Comey said was “aware” of the comments but the FBI has not investigated the testimony because there has not been a referral from Congress.

“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?” Chaffetz pressed.

“Sure do,” Comey replied.

“You’ll have one,” Chaffetz said. “You’ll have one in the next few hours.”
Clinton claimed under oath that “there was nothing marked classified” in her emails, either “sent or received.”
This is a fact that Chaffetz reminded Comey of. Hillary did say that. It is in the congressional record if you'd like to fact check. And Comey testified that some of the emails sent and some of the emails received were, in fact, marked classified.
Both are statements were made under oath. Only one of them is lying.
 
during an exchange over false statements made by Clinton on her private email server.

“Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?” Chaffetz asked.

“Not to the FBI,” Comey responded. “Not in a case we were working.”

Chaffetz then reminded the FBI director that Clinton claimed under oath that “there was nothing marked classified” in her emails, either “sent or received.”

Comey said was “aware” of the comments but the FBI has not investigated the testimony because there has not been a referral from Congress.

“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?” Chaffetz pressed.

“Sure do,” Comey replied.

“You’ll have one,” Chaffetz said. “You’ll have one in the next few hours.”
Clinton claimed under oath that “there was nothing marked classified” in her emails, either “sent or received.”
This is a fact that Chaffetz reminded Comey of. Hillary did say that. It is in the congressional record if you'd like to fact check. And Comey testified that some of the emails sent and some of the emails received were, in fact, marked classified.
Both are statements were made under oath. Only one of them is lying.

HRC claims that she never knowingly received classified mail. The key is knowingly. According to the law, she can't be convicted unless she knew the e-mails were classified and didn't properly secure them. Now if someone wants to make the case that she is lying and knew that the e-mails were classified, they need to demonstrate that with proof.
 
during an exchange over false statements made by Clinton on her private email server.

“Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?” Chaffetz asked.

“Not to the FBI,” Comey responded. “Not in a case we were working.”

Chaffetz then reminded the FBI director that Clinton claimed under oath that “there was nothing marked classified” in her emails, either “sent or received.”

Comey said was “aware” of the comments but the FBI has not investigated the testimony because there has not been a referral from Congress.

“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?” Chaffetz pressed.

“Sure do,” Comey replied.

“You’ll have one,” Chaffetz said. “You’ll have one in the next few hours.”
Clinton claimed under oath that “there was nothing marked classified” in her emails, either “sent or received.”
This is a fact that Chaffetz reminded Comey of. Hillary did say that. It is in the congressional record if you'd like to fact check. And Comey testified that some of the emails sent and some of the emails received were, in fact, marked classified.
Both are statements were made under oath. Only one of them is lying.
This is Hillary Clinton, she knows how to say things in a particular manner to make the statement infalsifiable.
 
How it pains me that this video is not coming from presumptive nominee Bernie Sanders.

Great video about how Trump stiffed his architect. Makes your blood boil. Not sure how much of it has been vetted by impartial news outlet.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/751092479013695488

This is the same video:


You really can't fake the emotions this guy has, there is a 99.999999999999999999% chance he is telling the truth.

------------------------------------------

Hope the money you stiffed this guy out of is worth the votes this will cost you, Trump.
 
How it pains me that this video is not coming from presumptive nominee Bernie Sanders.

Great video about how Trump stiffed his architect. Makes your blood boil. Not sure how much of it has been vetted by impartial news outlet.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/751092479013695488

This is the same video:


You really can't fake the emotions this guy has, there is a 99.999999999999999999% chance he is telling the truth.

------------------------------------------

Hope the money you stiffed this guy out of is worth the votes this will cost you, Trump.

Hey, Trump is a very generous guy. Just ask Pam Bondi, Florida's Attorney General.
 
Both are statements were made under oath. Only one of them is lying.

Or one of them is mistaken...

and it appears to be Director Comey as later in the testimony:

Just to reiterate.:

CARTWRIGHT: All right. You were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here. Marking classified national security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little "c"s on them.

Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

COMEY: No.

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?

COMEY: Correct.

CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

...

CUMMINGS: I wanted to clear up some things. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether Secretary Clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified.

On Tuesday you stated, and I quote, "only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings, and I emphasis bore markings, indicating the presence of classified information."

Republicans have pounced on this statement as evidence that Secretary Clinton lied. But today we learned some significant new facts and I hope the press listens to this. First you clarify that you were talking about only three e-mails out of 30 thousand. Your office is reviewed. Is that right?

COMEY: Three, yes.

CUMMINGS: Three out of 30 thousand, is that right?

COMEY: Yes at least 30 thousand.

CUMMINGS: At least 30 thousand. Second, you confirmed that these three e-mails were not properly marked as classified at the time based on Federal guidelines and manuals.They did not have a classification header; they did not list the original classifier, the agency, officer of origin, reason for classification, or date for declassification. Instead these e-mails included only a single quote see parenthesis, end parenthesis and then end of quotation mark for confidential on one paragraph lower down in the text, is that right?

COMEY: Correct.

CUMMINGS: Third, you testified that based on these facts it would have been a quote "reasonable inference for Secretary Clinton to" quote "immediately" end of quote conclude that these e-mails were not in fact classified. So that was also critical new information. But there's one more critical fact that these e-mails were not in fact, and that is this Director, and to the press these e-mails were not in fact classified.

The State Department explained to us yesterday -- they reported that these e-mails are not classified and that including the little C on these e-mails was a result of a human error. The bottom line is that those little Cs should not have been on those documents because they were not in fact classified.

When Representative Watson Coleman asked you a few minutes ago about this you testified that you had not been informed. And I understand that, I'm not beating up on you I promise you. But can you tell us why Director Comey -- because I want -- because republicans are pouncing saying the Secretary lied and I want to make sure we're clear on this. Can you tell us why Director Comey did you consult, and we're just curious, did you consult about these three e-mails out of the more than 30 thousand or did this just not come up? What happened there?

COMEY: Yes I'm not remembering for sure while I'm here. I'm highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. I don't know about what happened yesterday. Maybe their view has changed or they found things out that we didn't know. But I'm highly confident we consulted with them about it.

CUMMINGS: So this is solely different than what we understood yesterday. Today we learned that these e-mails were not in fact classified, they should not have been included in those -- they should not have included those straight (ph) markings. They were not properly marked as classified and the Director of the FBI believes it was reasonable for Secretary Clinton to assume that these documents were not classified.

...

CUMMINGS: Today 10s of thousands of Secretary Clinton's e-mails are probably available on the State Department's website. And our staff have been reviewing the e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. Based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than one thousand individuals who sent or received the information that is not redacted as classified. Let me make that clear. About one thousand people sent or received the same information that was contained in Secretary Clinton's e-mails and retroactively classified. Were you aware of that?

COMEY: No, the number doesn't surprised me though.

CUMMINGS: Why not?

COMEY: Because this was -- they were doing the business of the State Department on this e-mail system, so I don't know how many thousands of people work in the State Department. But it doesn't surprise there'd be lots of people on these chains.

CUMMINGS: And would you agree that something needs to be done with regard to this classification stuff because classified things are classified then they're not classified, then they are retroactively classified. I mean does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this?

COMEY: Yes I don't pay much attention to the up classified stuff because we're focused on intent. So if someone classifies it later, it's impossible that you formed intent around that because it wasn't classified at the time. I know that's a process -- I wasn't familiar with it before this investigation, but I don't spend a lot of time focused on it in the course of a criminal investigation.

CUMMINGS: I understand. We also reviewed who these people are and they include a host of very experienced career diplomats with many years of experience. So let me ask you this. When you received this referral from the Inspector General about Secretary Clinton's e-mails, did you also receive any referrals for any of the other one thousand people who sent and received those e-mails? Did you?

COMEY: No.
 
and more to the point

All three network evening broadcasts ignored State Department spokesman John Kirby’s explanation that two emails sent to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were erroneously marked confidential after a staffer failed to change the markings on a routine email that should have been marked sensitive but unclassified (SBU).

Journalists seized on FBI Director James Comey’s July 5 statement that “a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information” to claim that Comey, in the words of The Washington Post, “directly contradicted Clinton’s claim that she did not send or receive materials ‘marked’ classified.”

But in his July 6 press briefing, State Department spokesman Kirby provided an explanation for the discrepancy, saying that the “markings were human error” and should not have been included in the documents, which were call sheets for Clinton. From the July 6 daily press briefing:

I’m not going to comment on their findings and recommendations or all the documents that they reviewed. I am aware that there have been media – a media report pointing to call sheets within the Clinton email set that appear to bear classification markings. So let me just talk to that in a sense.

Generally speaking, there’s a standard process for developing call sheets for the secretary of state. Call sheets are often marked – it’s not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level – prior to a decision by the secretary that he or she will make that call. Oftentimes, once it is clear that the secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet SBU, sensitive but unclassified, or unclassified altogether, and then mark it appropriately and prepare it for the secretary’s use in actually making the call. The classification of a call sheet therefore is not necessarily fixed in time, and staffers in the secretary’s office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. Given this context, it appears the markings in the documents raised in the media report were no longer necessary or appropriate at the time that they were sent as an actual email.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/0...y-information-regarding-clinton-emails/211397
 
By the way, this architect's name is Andrew Tesoro. Trump owes him some money as far as I am concerned. Cheap, chseling, conman Trump. Corrup, oh so corrupt. This burns me up.
 
TFT has a rule:

Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or making a similar accusation, is not acceptable even if you believe that your fellow poster really is a liar or deceitful. This kind of accusation never furthers the debate. Some people sincerely believe the strangest, most illogical things, and they aren't 'lying' when they express those irrational beliefs. They really believe them to be true, even when they obviously contradict other things they have said. The only acceptable response to what appears to be a lie from a fellow poster is to present evidence or argument to contradict what your fellow poster has said.

Now I am not suggesting that HRC is covered under TFT TOU - far from it. You are free to call her a liar all you want. But the problem with calling someone a liar is that you need to show evidence of "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth". You haven't, and I doubt you can.

That doesn't make me a "partisan hack" - quite the opposite. In the absence of evidence of "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth", I will maintain that - with only 3 emails out of almost 4,000 over 4 years, and those three containing only the little (c) notations (portion markings) somewhere in their body and no emails containing any type of classified notation in the header - it is more reasonable to believe that she is simply mistaken. Either she never realized until now that any of the nearly 4,000 emails had classified markings, or forgot about these three with "portion markings" somewhere in their body.

But please, feel free to continue to name call HRC. There is no rule against it. (There is, however, a TOU rule against calling me names such as "partisan hack")

Is it still a lie if the liar thinks it's the truth?
 
No, a lie requires knowledge that your statement is false. If you think it's the truth but are wrong, the word to describe it is "mistaken".
 
what if Clinton did not know for sure that she sent no (at the time) classified emails, but she claimed that she knew FOR SURE that she did NOT send any classified emails?

Is that a lie?
 
what if Clinton did not know for sure that she sent no (at the time) classified emails, but she claimed that she knew FOR SURE that she did NOT send any classified emails?

Is that a lie?

Only if she were aware of it. If I say that I know for sure that I left my keys on the counter, but it turns out I'd actually left them in the bedroom, I didn't lie about leaving them on the counter, I simply used a figure of speech.

She's actually a human being and not a straw man in a debating contest.
 
Back
Top Bottom