This is nonsense. Most of the things you listed can be easily refuted in 15 seconds -- a list like that can be endless when it has zero credibility. Clinton was willing to lose a presidential election because she wouldn't deviate a step from the vote she cast on the war in Iraq, that (the entire Congress was lied to); saying she lied about it is just moronic.



I'll take this opportunity to give them some credit for their coverage this year specifically because I've been hard on CNN in the past. They've been absolute dogshit in the past, including last year when, on a daily basis, they aired Trump events uninterrupted with no commentary over the top which amounted to billions of dollars in free media. They've at least been more skeptical this year and have not just accepted his campaign's talking points willingly and then regurgitated them for him, though hiring his disgraced former campaign manager remains the worst hire in the history of journalism.

What made them bad in the past was that they were the absolute worst offender in false equivalence coverage, which is the biggest problem in American journalism. They've been better about not doing that this year, which is important because this is the year when we've needed people to understand the most that one of these candidates is not like the other.

hahahahhahaha hey buddy!!!!! refute these:

we landed under sniper fire
i fully cooperated with the fbi
colin powell told me to have a private server
i only used one device
all those 33k+ emails were about yoga and chelsea's wedding planning
i was not secretary of state when obama made his line comment
honest abe lincoln is the reason why i have differing public and private positions on the same topic

I'm not sure how anyone could classify any one of those items as anything but blatant lies unless they are being extremely dishonest with themselves.

I've long said that the Bosnia reference is the one public comment she's made over a ~30 year history of public service that we actually know constitutes a lie. As far as the others, those are easy:

• Do you have some sort of evidence to suggest that she didn't cooperate with the FBI? What's the rationale for claiming she didn't?
  
• Colin Powell did make that suggestion to her based on the intricacies of our government system; we just got to read the very email where that happened and have on-the-record confirmations of additional conversations that speak to that.
  
• She did only use one device, and she replaced it when it malfunctioned.
  
• Her staff went through the exact same correspondence self-sorting process that we allow all of our officials to go through; there's nothing atypical about that, and unlike in literally every other case we've actually gotten to READ her official correspondence.
  
• Clinton was not in fact Secretary of State in 9/13 went we had actual evidence that Syria used chemical weapons.
  
• We know from the actual email that was hacked and release that that was exactly what Clinton was referencing with respect to negotiating with Congress.
  

In reality, he's actually lying with his various characterizations of those things.

good thing we have our resident 0-3 buddy to break it down for us





didn't hand over all the e-mails = not fully cooperating
colin powell said use private email and she went full blown bathroom server
more clintonesque nuance that's again wrong - she used multiple ipads and blackberries https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/hillary-clinton-ipad-email-blackberry
right her staff deleted 33k emails about yoga and wedding planning only. gotcha gruberite
the line comment was made 08/12 - Cinton SoS then. even politihack debunks her point.
so her wall street transcripts are legit and she blamed honest abe lincoln for having two positions for two groups - one with lots of power money and one with limited of both



This post was edited by excellence on Oct 10 2016 04:15pm

Why is hiring Lewandowski a bad thing? He's just another Trump surrogate. Why is that different than CNN hiring Paul Begala, Patti Solis Doyle, etc?

You're lying again, and you're awkwardly lurching onto other tangents (from tangents themselves) because you're not comfortable in a discussion grounded in fact. Clinton used one "homebrew" server and one email account to discuss both official and personal correspondence, that's one device. And yes, her staff underwent the exact same record-keeping procedure that we let all of our officials (their staffs, really) do and they did it the same way. There's no getting around that; pretending that there's something atypical about the nature of it is just blatantly disingenuous.

It doesn't matter when the comment itself was made, Trump was trying to claim that somehow Syria's transgression re: crossing the red line is evidence against Clinton's judgment, but we clearly didn't have evidence that they engaged in that practice when she was Secretary of State: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/10/clinton-was-not-secretary-of-state-when-syria-crossed-the-red-line-229491

Your characterization of the comments she made in the speech is just moronic; that's not even remotely the context of the comments. These aren't Clinton lies, you're the only one lying here.

"your characterization of actual events doesn't fit my spin cycle so i am going to call you a liar"

hey buddy do you see how you fail to even read: i was not secretary of state when obama made his line comment did clinton resign from SoS in 2012? no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! keep taking stuff out of context and characterizing things wrong!!!!!!

nice job there buddy!!!!!!!

obligatory: thanks for another fucking laugh!!!!!

I guess he really is a reptilian. Alex Jones was right again.