Hillary

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Or so the partisan investgation limited to the House GOP via FOX News has told you? Interesting how the non-partisan group investigating the same thing came to a different conclusion.

-spence

Spence, wrong as usual...she said, under oath, that she never personally saw any requests for any extra security from the diplomats. There is physical, tangible proof that she lied through her teeth.

Sorry this comes from Fox. Not many other outlets are reporting on this, you see..

Darrell Issa: Hillary Clinton ?wrong? on Benghazi - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com

4 people are dead Spence. Fair to say that the administration bungled this from start to finish (denied the extra security, blamed the attack on a youtibe video, now doing everything to avoid talkingbaout it.

They'll rake her over the coals a bit, but it won't hurt her approval ratings much, there are too many people like you out there who don't care when a liberal is guilty of incompetence (which at least contributed to the deaths of 4 superb Americans) and perjury.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, wrong as usual...she said, under oath, that she never personally saw any requests for any extra security from the diplomats. There is physical, tangible proof that she lied through her teeth.

Where's the proof?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Where's the proof?

-spence

I assume you ignored my link.

(1) there is video of her saying, during testimony to Congress, that she didn't personally reject any requests for increased security from her employees in Libya.

(2) it is coming out that some in Congress have memos, signed by her, that rejected the requests for security.

I'll say this...if those congressmen (mostly conservatives) who say they have those documents are lying, they should be kicked out. If they are telling the truth, she should be charged with perjury.

There is no reason for them to lie about having documents signed by her...it's too easy to show that as a lie, and they would be attacked, justly, in the media. And if it matters, I haven't seen any liberals deny that those signed documents exist...rather, the liberals are just ignoring this.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I assume you ignored my link.

(1) there is video of her saying, during testimony to Congress, that she didn't personally reject any requests for increased security from her employees in Libya.

(2) it is coming out that some in Congress have memos, signed by her, that rejected the requests for security.

I'll say this...if those congressmen (mostly conservatives) who say they have those documents are lying, they should be kicked out. If they are telling the truth, she should be charged with perjury.

There is no reason for them to lie about having documents signed by her...it's too easy to show that as a lie, and they would be attacked, justly, in the media. And if it matters, I haven't seen any liberals deny that those signed documents exist...rather, the liberals are just ignoring this.

You should read this...

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You should read this...

Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it - The Washington Post

-spence

OK. So just because her signature is on something, doesn't mean she actually saw it, or was aware of it.

If that's true, she didn't perjure herself. If she signed those documents herself, it means she did perjure herself.

What's her history? Does she have a history of lying to our faces? I seem to remember her telling a fantasy tale of her falling under sniper fire on a trip overseas, which turned out to be 100% fabricated. Her excuse? She was "tired". Everyone who has ever had a baby has been tired. That exhaustion never led me to claim someone was shooting at me. Whhat's your take on that, Spence?

If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, that's your right. But this is someone who (along with her husband) has shown a willingness to look her constituents right in the face, and lie.

Am I wrong?

And your source, the Post, is as biased as it gets. That doesn't mean they are wrong...but they have an abvious bias.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK. So just because her signature is on something, doesn't mean she actually saw it, or was aware of it.

If that's true, she didn't perjure herself. If she signed those documents herself, it means she did perjure herself.

What's her history? Does she have a history of lying to our faces? I seem to remember her telling a fantasy tale of her falling under sniper fire on a trip overseas, which turned out to be 100% fabricated. Her excuse? She was "tired". Everyone who has ever had a baby has been tired. That exhaustion never led me to claim someone was shooting at me. Whhat's your take on that, Spence?

If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt, that's your right. But this is someone who (along with her husband) has shown a willingness to look her constituents right in the face, and lie.

Am I wrong?

And your source, the Post, is as biased as it gets. That doesn't mean they are wrong...but they have an abvious bias.

You didn't read the link.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You didn't read the link.

-spence

Sure I did. The link said that just because her signature is on the cable, doesn't mean she signed it. Fine. So let's invetsigate and see. Because as I correctly pointed out (and which you conveniently ignored) she has lied to our faces before, and she did it with a straight face.

The Post, a liberal rag, is willing to take her word. I'm not, as she is a liar.