Politically Motivated Benghazi Committee flings some more poo against the wall

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,357
4,492
136
Geezus Christ. Not a single real living person cares about Benghazi or emails. For fucks sake GOP stop talking about it.

Lots of people do care.

It doesn't matter if the e-mails were "marked " or not. It was still classified and she should have known what is or is not classified.

Many years ago when I had a top secret clearance in the nuclear weapons programs. We used to read things that were published in readers digest etc that was classified. We still were not allowed to discuss it. Because it is classified information, not because it was marked or unmarked.

It is part of her job to know. She failed.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Let's see what you know and then apply your post to it. Can you tell us what sort of classified info was found in the emails? And yes, I'd like a link to your source.
This is explored in another thread in P&N as well as being extensively written up in the news. Don't ask me to waste my time with things you should already know.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
Your defense is basically that Hillary is a mindless idiot who doesn't realize that classified information directly from the people who produce classified information is actually classified information. Nice. Have to admit though that at least this is more straightforward than pretending it's classified now but it wasn't when she sent it. I especially like the touch where you accuse literally everyone of doing the same thing. Usually when people claim "everybody does it!" they aren't referring to literally everybody.

Have you ever worked with classified information? If not, on what are you basing your opinion that she should have known that particular information was classified? Be specific.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Of course you can. I get the impression that you've never worked with classified information, but generally it is quite clearly marked. It is 100%, undeniably possible for you to knowingly send classified information. Right now if you wanted to. For example, most of the information that Snowden leaked is in fact classified. Plenty of other things that have come out to wikileaks were classified. You can access much of this right now if you want to. There are likely excerpts from these that you have read that contain classified information, and you may have spoken or written about that to other people. That's all the transmission of classified information right there.

There is no arguing this, it's just a fact.

Yes, it's a fact that you are wrong. The examples you provide are examples of unkowingly transmitting classified information. If I read something on wiki and talk about it, I might suspect that it is classified, I might believe it to be, but it is impossible for me to know for a fact that it is classified. I have no way of knowing or verifying whether something is or is not actually classified information.

Just quit with this ridiculous "everyone does it!" nonsense. She was the SoS, it is obvious to anyone not saying "rah rah rah goooooooo democrats!" that the SoS has more access to classified info and thus needs to be smarter about handling it than the average person on the street.

In addition, people with access to classified information don't have some way to magically know if any particular random piece of information that comes by is classified or not.

So you're now falling back on the "she's a completely incompetent idiot who has no way to figure out what is and what isn't classified, and so sending classified info on her private server is perfectly fine". Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:

If you have any information she knew it was classified, then please share it. Otherwise the circumstances present indicate she wouldn't have known. (nor would anyone else who wasn't directly involved with that info)

In her denials, she didn't say she didn't know stuff she sent was classified, she said she did not send classified information -- which is obviously not true. You can argue about whether she knew (or should have known) it was classified, but she did send classified info, that's undeniable.

Those are only simple yes/no questions if you don't understand how this information works.

No, they are just simple yes and no questions to anyone who isn't trying to obfuscate or deflect. You don't need to know anything about how the information works to answer those.

You've actually clearly shown here that you didn't even realize that in your life you very well may have transmitted or improperly stowed classified information in your life.

Wrong. Reading comprehension fail. Obviously anyone may have transmitted classified info, but not knowingly so, unless they have access to know what is classified to begin with.

I would fully expect you to answer 'no' to that question as well. According to your standard you'd likely be a liar. (or if not you, plenty of other people in the US)

Not at all. The answer to "have you knowingly transmitted classified information?" for me would be an unequivocal "no". Is it possible something I transmitted could have contained classified info? Of course, I have no way of knowing the answer to that.

That in no way means that the accusation here isn't hilarious bullsh*t. Why not accept that Hillary screwed up and may have lied about it and that Gowdy is most likely lying to you too?

Can you point to anything Gowdy said that is a lie? What specifically is a lie?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Have you ever worked with classified information? If not, on what are you basing your opinion that she should have known that particular information was classified? Be specific.
Go back to the other thread. Some of what she received and transmitted was SigInt that is inherently classified because of its sources. More to the point, how could a SecState reasonably expect to do her job without ever encountering classified and sensitive information? To argue that she never handled classified info on her ONLY email account requires believing that this is a reasonable assumption.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
Go back to the other thread. Some of what she received and transmitted was SigInt that is inherently classified because of its sources. More to the point, how could a SecState reasonably expect to do her job without ever encountering classified and sensitive information? To argue that she never handled classified info on her ONLY email account requires believing that this is a reasonable assumption.

Whatever you are talking about, link it.

As for the rest of your inference, the answer seems to be 'because I say so'.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
Yes, it's a fact that you are wrong. The examples you provide are examples of unkowingly transmitting classified information. If I read something on wiki and talk about it, I might suspect that it is classified, I might believe it to be, but it is impossible for me to know for a fact that it is classified. I have no way of knowing or verifying whether something is or is not actually classified information.

Just quit with this ridiculous "everyone does it!" nonsense. She was the SoS, it is obvious to anyone not saying "rah rah rah goooooooo democrats!" that the SoS has more access to classified info and thus needs to be smarter about handling it than the average person on the street.

You keep jumping back and forth between standards. Apparently for you, it only matters if you knowingly transmit classified information, but for Hillary she has to know whether all information she transmits is classified.

From this my guess is that you've never dealt with classified information. Having the sort of knowledge you claim Hillary should have is literally impossible. She could have known if specific DOCUMENTS were classified or not, but just pieces of information not part of them? Absolutely not.

Think about it: how would that even work? Would you have some sort of Google where she searched for groups of terms? It's a ridiculous idea.

So you're now falling back on the "she's a completely incompetent idiot who has no way to figure out what is and what isn't classified, and so sending classified info on her private server is perfectly fine". Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I'm actually saying you are incompetent for making an impossible request.

In her denials, she didn't say she didn't know stuff she sent was classified, she said she did not send classified information -- which is obviously not true. You can argue about whether she knew (or should have known) it was classified, but she did send classified info, that's undeniable.

And if she had said 'I never knowingly sent classified info' you would be having a field day with her clintonesque parsing of words. By your standard 'I never sent classified info' is something no one should ever say, making the question useless.

No, they are just simple yes and no questions to anyone who isn't trying to obfuscate or deflect. You don't need to know anything about how the information works to answer those.

They are simple if you don't think about it, or if the questioner is trying to obfuscate, I agree. They are not simple yes or noes if you know what you're talking about.

Wrong. Reading comprehension fail. Obviously anyone may have transmitted classified info, but not knowingly so, unless they have access to know what is classified to begin with.

Double standards again. Also, you realize that no one other than the president and maybe the DNI have access to all classified information, right? Even then for reasons I said above they could unknowingly transmit classified information.

Not at all. The answer to "have you knowingly transmitted classified information?" for me would be an unequivocal "no". Is it possible something I transmitted could have contained classified info? Of course, I have no way of knowing the answer to that.

So in other words that would be your answer to a completely different question. How is that relevant?

Can you point to anything Gowdy said that is a lie? What specifically is a lie?

He is deceiving you, which is different. Again, try to separate the partisanship from this and look at Gowdy's behavior. Does that seem like someone who is being honest with you?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Whatever you are talking about, link it.

As for the rest of your inference, the answer seems to be 'because I say so'.
Sorry, your gyrations, while amusing, are not sufficiently so for me to waste my time. This was adequately covered in the first thread and as there is absolutely no way you won't find some nonsensical way to be okay with whatever Hillary wishes to do, I see no point in rehashing it. Let's just assume that I posted a link, you went through your habitual spin as to how that information might have come from Google Earth or Wikipedia, asserted that everybody posts classified information, and told me my position is insane and gross. This is what you do in every thread in defense of everything progressives do, so let's not pretend that anything anyone could post could ever change your predetermined response.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
Sorry, your gyrations, while amusing, are not sufficiently so for me to waste my time. This was adequately covered in the first thread and as there is absolutely no way you won't find some nonsensical way to be okay with whatever Hillary wishes to do, I see no point in rehashing it. Let's just assume that I posted a link, you went through your habitual spin as to how that information might have come from Google Earth or Wikipedia, asserted that everybody posts classified information, and told me my position is insane and gross. This is what you do in every thread in defense of everything progressives do, so let's not pretend that anything anyone could post could ever change your predetermined response.

Ahh, so 'because I said so x2'.

If you turned out to have said something stupid again I'm sure it would have been because you were the victim of yet another conspiracy anyway, so maybe it's best for you this way.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
You keep jumping back and forth between standards. Apparently for you, it only matters if you knowingly transmit classified information, but for Hillary she has to know whether all information she transmits is classified.

To be clear, it's not my standards at all, I'm using HER words. She specifically said in her press conference "Most importantly I never sent classified material on my email". Her words, not mine. We know that classified information was sent on her email.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...s-she-did-not-send-or-receive-emails-material

From this my guess is that you've never dealt with classified information.

Correct, I have never had clearance nor have I knowingly handled classified information.

Having the sort of knowledge you claim Hillary should have is literally impossible. She could have known if specific DOCUMENTS were classified or not, but just pieces of information not part of them? Absolutely not.

The sort of knowledge she should have? Huh? What knowledge does someone need to have to not us a private server for a position that will obviously require a lot of communication of material that can be (or become) classified? No knowledge at all, just a willingness to be transparent and not trying to avoid FOIA and retention requirements.

And if she had said 'I never knowingly sent classified info' you would be having a field day with her clintonesque parsing of words.

Of course I would, as should everyone. The entire thing would not be an issue if she hadn't insisted on using her private server for everything. She tried for months to deflect, deny, lie etc, her hubris not allowing her to admit she screwed up until the polls forced her to.

They are simple if you don't think about it, or if the questioner is trying to obfuscate, I agree.

That's where spinmeisters like you try to pretend it's all clouded in complexity and there are no easy answers. There are very easy answers. Yes, there was classified material on the server. Yes, she sent and received classified information. Nothing complicated about that. It only gets complicated when you try to come up with some political spin or weasel your way out of the inescapable conclusions.

They are not simple yes or noes if you know what you're talking about.

Yes, they very much are. In fact, that's the main thing the public holds against her. She has a very hard time every providing simple truthful answers to anything, not just the email issue.

He is deceiving you, which is different. Again, try to separate the partisanship from this and look at Gowdy's behavior.

Ahem. Your words: "and that Gowdy is most likely lying to you too? " . If he's most likely lying to me, can you point out his supposed lie(s)? Not some baloney interpretation or implications.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Are Republicans going to reimburse taxpayers for the money they are wasting on this committee? If it's solely to serve their political goals, why should taxpayers have to pay for it?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
Are Republicans going to reimburse taxpayers for the money they are wasting on this committee? If it's solely to serve their political goals, why should taxpayers have to pay for it?

I think it's time to investigate the committee given Kevin McCarthy's comments and the concerns they raise about the misappropriation of federal money. Let's start with the committee chair and examine all his emails.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,273
33,549
136
Since McCarthy let the cat out of the bag in full view of the public the only people with interest in this now are the hardcore Republicans who weren't exactly lining up to vote for her anyway. The Select Committee on Benghazi is looking more and more like a joke as the days go by. As far as "finding out the truth" goes the House Intel Committee's investigation cleared the administration and intel agencies of any wrongdoing years ago.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
If it's not investigating Benghazi or improving embassy security, why are we, the taxpayers, paying for it? Does GOP think that taxpayer money is a slush fund for them to use for political PR?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
To be clear, it's not my standards at all, I'm using HER words. She specifically said in her press conference "Most importantly I never sent classified material on my email". Her words, not mine. We know that classified information was sent on her email.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...s-she-did-not-send-or-receive-emails-material

Yet you don't apply those standards to yourself. You think it's ok for you to pass on classified information so long as you don't know it's classified, but then think that Hillary should somehow know if any and/or all information is classified.

Correct, I have never had clearance nor have I knowingly handled classified information.

Okay, then you might want to accept the fact that you have little knowledge as to how classified information is handled or how someone might determine if information is classified, right? If that's the case then you should probably avoid making strong statements about it like you have here.

What you've said, that she should know what information is classified or not, is complete bullshit. If she knowingly transmitted something that was marked as classified or something she was notified was classified that's one thing. I have seen no evidence of that at all.

The sort of knowledge she should have? Huh? What knowledge does someone need to have to not us a private server for a position that will obviously require a lot of communication of material that can be (or become) classified? No knowledge at all, just a willingness to be transparent and not trying to avoid FOIA and retention requirements.

Now you're moving the goalposts.

Of course I would, as should everyone. The entire thing would not be an issue if she hadn't insisted on using her private server for everything. She tried for months to deflect, deny, lie etc, her hubris not allowing her to admit she screwed up until the polls forced her to.

So in other words you're actually uninterested in how accurate what she was saying is, you would have attacked her for her statements either way.

That's where spinmeisters like you try to pretend it's all clouded in complexity and there are no easy answers. There are very easy answers. Yes, there was classified material on the server. Yes, she sent and received classified information. Nothing complicated about that. It only gets complicated when you try to come up with some political spin or weasel your way out of the inescapable conclusions.

Like I said before, you don't know what you're talking about. If she said 'yes, I sent classified information on that server because probably every email server in history has sent classified information', that would have been seized upon people like you and Gowdy as some sort of wrongdoing despite that happening to probably almost every email server in history.

Instead she used the same standard that, ironically, you have chosen to apply to yourself. Apparently it's good enough for everyone but the 'Hildabeast', haha.

Yes, they very much are. In fact, that's the main thing the public holds against her. She has a very hard time every providing simple truthful answers to anything, not just the email issue.

Again, not if you actually know what you're talking about. This Dilbert comic encapsulates it perfectly:

dilbert-boss.gif


Ahem. Your words: "and that Gowdy is most likely lying to you too? " . If he's most likely lying to me, can you point out his supposed lie(s)? Not some baloney interpretation or implications.

That's what I've been doing for this thread. You may not have noticed because you swallowed the dishonesty hook, line, and sinker. Also, did you already forget about the bogus 'leaked emails' that came out of the committee that were selectively edited, etc? I guess you could say that Gowdy's fellow committee members or their staff were lying instead of him, but I hardly see the difference.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Ahh, so 'because I said so x2'.

If you turned out to have said something stupid again I'm sure it would have been because you were the victim of yet another conspiracy anyway, so maybe it's best for you this way.
lol Spin away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/u...ation-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821
For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

Again, we both know there is absolutely nothing Hillary could do that you won't defend, but your attempts to spin are always amusing. I particularly like the dual track of "Hillary didn't do it!" and "Everybody does it!". Coupled with your attempts at claiming credibility, you've achieved the trifecta of stupidity intersecting with dishonesty.

Strap magnets to your ass and we'd have clean, free energy for the whole nation, the way you spin.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
lol Spin away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/u...ation-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

Again, we both know there is absolutely nothing Hillary could do that you won't defend, but your attempts to spin are always amusing. I particularly like the dual track of "Hillary didn't do it!" and "Everybody does it!". Coupled with your attempts at claiming credibility, you've achieved the trifecta of stupidity intersecting with dishonesty.

Oh, that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/

We’ve noticed several Republican candidates claiming that Clinton negligently handled classified information. But they’re jumping the gun. There isn’t enough evidence to prove that. Some evidence suggests Clinton and her team went to some trouble to keep classified information out the email system.

This is not to say Clinton’s email setup was allowed or appropriate -- for example, it skirted open records laws and presents challenges to archivists. And subsequent investigations may yield surprises or other unexpected evidence. But because of the way classification works and because of the incomplete record of her emails, we continue to reserve judgment.

It's possible that some of what was sent violated classification requirements, but it's certainly not clear cut like you said in any way. What have I said about the issue? It's possible that she did something wrong, but it's not clear from the information. If you can put your pride aside long enough to look at the issue rationally, I imagine you'd come to the same conclusion. I won't hold my breath.

As to your regular playbook where you respond to people calling you out for saying dumb things with a flurry of personal attacks (then moving on to conspiracy theories)...It's important to remind you again that just because you are a serial liar doesn't mean that everyone else is: your perception that others are is probably one of those things where nobody has as many locks on their door as a burglar does. You lie whenever you feel threatened or inconvenienced, so you think everyone else behaves like you do.

Serious question: do you think you lie on here never, sometimes, or often? I don't mean be mistaken, but lie. I'm genuinely interested in how you view yourself.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Oh, that.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/

It's possible that some of what was sent violated classification requirements, but it's certainly not clear cut like you said in any way. What have I said about the issue? It's possible that she did something wrong, but it's not clear from the information. If you can put your pride aside long enough to look at the issue rationally, I imagine you'd come to the same conclusion. I won't hold my breath.

As to your regular playbook where you respond to people calling you out for saying dumb things with a flurry of personal attacks (then moving on to conspiracy theories)...It's important to remind you again that just because you are a serial liar doesn't mean that everyone else is: your perception that others are is probably one of those things where nobody has as many locks on their door as a burglar does. You lie whenever you feel threatened or inconvenienced, so you think everyone else behaves like you do.

Serious question: do you think you lie on here never, sometimes, or often? I don't mean be mistaken, but lie. I'm genuinely interested in how you view yourself.
I never lie. It's amusing that you believe I do, and yet many times I've admitted I am wrong, that something I prefer philosophically or ideologically is not practical, that the other side of any issue has some good points, and that the side I dislike the least is absolutely morally wrong on a number of issues.

On the other hand, you never admit you are wrong, never admit that your far left ideological preferences are anything but the absolute best (indeed, only) solution to every problem, never admit that the other side ever has a valid point, and never admit that your chosen party is not morally correct (or at the very least, less morally incorrect) on every single issue. Two possibilities here: Either you and your far left ideology are literally perfect in every way and for every possible situation, or you are serially dishonest and yet not quite bright enough to even occasionally throw in a mea culpa to give the appearance of merely being at the human limits of perfection. Everyone here can make up her own mind about the likeliness of that.

It's worth pointing out that unless you are perfect, than the accusations you just leveled at me work quite well for you. Strange, that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
I never lie. It's amusing that you believe I do, and yet many times I've admitted I am wrong, that something I prefer philosophically or ideologically is not practical, that the other side of any issue has some good points, and that the side I dislike the least is absolutely morally wrong on a number of issues.

Occasionally admitting you're wrong and being a liar are in no way mutually exclusive conditions, as we're about to see here. :) You sometimes admit that you're wrong, and often lie when you feel threatened.

On the other hand, you never admit you are wrong, never admit that your far left ideological preferences are anything but the absolute best (indeed, only) solution to every problem, never admit that the other side ever has a valid point, and never admit that your chosen party is not morally correct (or at the very least, less morally incorrect) on every single issue. Two possibilities here: Either you and your far left ideology are literally perfect in every way and for every possible situation, or you are serially dishonest and yet not quite bright enough to even occasionally throw in a mea culpa to give the appearance of merely being at the human limits of perfection. Everyone here can make up her own mind about the likeliness of that.

This is absolutely hilarious considering you just claimed that you never lie, considering I admitted that I was wrong about how I characterized one of your statements in a recent thread that you participated in. Did you suddenly (and conveniently) forget? If not, will you be admitting that you just lied? (fat chance.)

Just a few days back it was pretty awesome for you to reveal yourself as a massive hypocrite within two pages of the same thread. Now you're exposing yourself as a liar within a single post, and the thing you're lying about is... not lying.

Too perfect. lol.

It's worth pointing out that unless you are perfect, than the accusations you just leveled at me work quite well for you. Strange, that.

I'm definitely not even remotely close to perfect, I can just spot someone like you a mile away.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,569
7,013
136
Select Committee on Benghazi: A flogged to death Frankenstein of a horse that got defibrillated back to life eight times only to be flogged to death again, and again, and again, and again....until the next juicy opportunity to slap together another artificial life form takes it's place.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Yet you don't apply those standards to yourself.

As soon as I'm the SoS or in a position where I'm supposed to handle classified information, I'll apply those standards to me as well. As a regular person not privy to any of that, then obviously no. Not too hard to understand. Note that I'm not saying it's a legal requirement. I don't know if she broke laws or not, but we know she lied and screwed up.

If that's the case then you should probably avoid making strong statements about it like you have here.

Not at all. Do you have to be an expert in meteorology to know that rain is falling? There is plenty right now to make conclusions that she screwed up and she lied about it. What we don't know yet is if she also committed crimes in the process.

If she knowingly transmitted something that was marked as classified or something she was notified was classified that's one thing. I have seen no evidence of that at all.

She didn't say knowingly, she said categorically that no classified information was on her server or sent from her server.

So in other words you're actually uninterested in how accurate what she was saying is, you would have attacked her for her statements either way.

Not attacked her statements, but attacker her actions. Her statements merely reflect the arrogance and hubris that drives her actions.

Instead she used the same standard that, ironically, you have chosen to apply to yourself.

If you think the same standards of dealing with sensitive information apply to someone who has access to classified information as someone who doesn't, then there's little help for you. Of course there are different standards. Duh. Water is also wet, in case you were wondering.

That's what I've been doing for this thread.

No, you've just been spinning and blathering. What specifically did Gowdy say that was a lie? You said he was lying to me, so surely you can point to specific lies? Not your drivel interpretations or implications, his statements.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Occasionally admitting you're wrong and being a liar are in no way mutually exclusive conditions, as we're about to see here. :) You sometimes admit that you're wrong, and often lie when you feel threatened.

This is absolutely hilarious considering you just claimed that you never lie, considering I admitted that I was wrong about how I characterized one of your statements in a recent thread that you participated in. Did you suddenly (and conveniently) forget? If not, will you be admitting that you just lied? (fat chance.)

Just a few days back it was pretty awesome for you to reveal yourself as a massive hypocrite within two pages of the same thread. Now you're exposing yourself as a liar within a single post, and the thing you're lying about is... not lying.

Too perfect. lol.

I'm definitely not even remotely close to perfect, I can just spot someone like you a mile away.
My bad, you are correct. I totally missed where you admitted you were wrong and just noticed the part where you insisted you are still correct even though you were arguing against a different point.

You're right you didn't say revenues, you said money spent. My mistake! I'm not sure why you wanted to bring this up again though, because your fundamental point is still really stupid and really wrong.

That's still subject to the same problem of a bias towards expensive services and it in no way speaks to their priorities. If you were trying to show how they spent their grant money or how much money they spent subsidizing various procedures that would make perfect sense, but you've provided no evidence they are subsidizing abortion. Instead you're just seeing a high cost procedure and saying that because the procedure is expensive that must be their priority. That is illogical.
In my amusement at your insisting that handing out a brochure is totally as significant as performing an abortion, I failed to notice that you conceded my point before once again arguing that I was wrong - just now in a different way.

"Bias toward expensive services" - that's a classic!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,427
136
Haha, that was just the most recent example. There are more, but what's the point?

You were caught red handed in a lie and now you're trying to lie your way out of it, all while insisting you never lie. When I remind you in the future that you are a fundamentally dishonest person, it's because of things like this.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Zork be realistic your rhetoric implies Hillary had hidden cameras around the embassy and sat at her desk watching with some popcorn.
I agree as a society we need to know what went wrong at Benghazi but it needs to be an honest look and we all need to understand that no person may be responsible its possible that it was a breakdown of processes like:
Why did the diplomat insist he didn't need more guards or keep the embassy open in a dangerous spot
What impact did Congresses filibuster for a bill to fortify many embassies years earlier
What does Hillary's server have about Benghazi
What intelligence was available on Benghazi and who had it
What process allowed nobody to question if keeping that embassy open was a good idea
How long should the investigation go/how do we know its done

We both know its impossible to get a non partisan investigation in today's Government
The known record is that the embassy called for extra security before the attack. These were escalated to Hillary, and she failed to act.

After the attack, she covered up that it was a terrorist attack, and blamed the attack on a youtube video.

This is someone you would like to be President of the United States of America?

John
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
On the email server, she has now admitted to a "mistake," after countless lies and who knows what sensitive information has been compromised.

This is someone you would like to be President of the United States of America?

-John