Clinton Press Conference Counter

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
Terrific.

I'm not sure why we need to keep beating this horse to death, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Maybe because she keeps telling the same lie?
Click to expand...

You understand that that's a mark in her favor?

If all she has is the one lie, that's not too shabby. Compare to Trump? LOL!!!
 
Good lord, even as I was typing she was lying, CNN just ran this:

"I was pointing out in both of those instances, that Director Comey had said that my answers in my FBI interview were truthful. That really is the bottom line here," she said. "What I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. I may have short-circuited and for that I will try to clarify."

Clinton went on to repeat that she "never sent or received" classified information on her private email server -- a statement that is inconsistent with Comey's testimony on Capitol Hill."

...

Brian Fallon, her national press secretary, has routinely said that Clinton "oftentimes" will end the day with a media availability where she will "literally stand there for 15, 20 minutes and answer questions from her traveling press corps, including the embeds from the various networks."

But Clinton has not once taken questions for 15 to 20 minutes in 2016. The growing frustration among reporters and the criticism about the lack of accessibility has irked some Clinton's campaign officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/hillary-clinton-attacks-donald-trump-journalism/index.html

How many lies in this one article alone? Two by Clinton and one by her press secretary.
 
Fudbucker said:
Good lord, even as I was typing she was lying, CNN just ran this:

"I was pointing out in both of those instances, that Director Comey had said that my answers in my FBI interview were truthful. That really is the bottom line here," she said. "What I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. I may have short-circuited and for that I will try to clarify."

Clinton went on to repeat that she "never sent or received" classified information on her private email server -- a statement that is inconsistent with Comey's testimony on Capitol Hill."
Click to expand...

I watched it live. As she was asked specifically about the markings, she went on to talk about the markings, and the 3 documents that partial markings, 2 of which should not have been marked at all, and that none of the emails were properly marked as classified.
if is a full transcript somewhere, not just CNNs partial, you can read it for yourself. That's why "never sent or received" is the only part in quotation marks.

Technically accurate, none of the emails were properly marked as classified. So she feels she can still say that. She also went on to mention those that were later marked as classified.

As the talking head on MSNBC put it - it's the legalistic, lawyer clinton that she reverts to sometimes when answering these questions that gets her in trouble.

She's never going to just say "Sure, I sent emails that were classified at the time" and I don't know why you expect her to. :boggled:
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I watched it live. As she was asked specifically about the markings, she went on to talk about the markings, and the 3 documents that partial markings, 2 of which should not have been marked at all, and that none of the emails were properly marked as classified.
if is a full transcript somewhere, not just CNNs partial, you can read it for yourself. That's why "never sent or received" is the only part in quotation marks.

Technically accurate, none of the emails were properly marked as classified. So she feels she can still say that. She also went on to mention those that were later marked as classified.

As the talking head on MSNBC put it - it's the legalistic, lawyer clinton that she reverts to sometimes when answering these questions that gets her in trouble.

She's never going to just say "Sure, I sent emails that were classified at the time" and I don't know why you expect her to. :boggled:
Click to expand...

CNN's usually pretty objective. Do you have a link to the transcript?
 
Crossbow said:
In case you did not notice, Bush was the President at that time, whereas Clinton is not currently the President.
Click to expand...

I was going to pre-empt this comment, but I thought no one would be stupid enough to raise it. If the president is expected to regularly give press conferences, then it's not unreasonable for people to demand the same from those running for the position.

Should President Clinton decide not to give press conferences, I'm sure Democrats will take her to task with the same tenacity they did Republican predecessors.
 
Cain said:
I was going to pre-empt this comment, but I thought no one would be stupid enough to raise it. If the president is expected to regularly give press conferences, then it's not unreasonable for people to demand the same from those running for the position.

Should President Clinton decide not to give press conferences, I'm sure Democrats will take her to task with the same tenacity they did Republican predecessors.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I really do not think that is the same thing.

When a person is actually the President (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise), then that person has a constitutional requirement to keep the public informed accordingly.

On the other hand, when a person is a Presidential candidate and that person has enough personal wealth so that they do not have a job of any sort (like Hillary Clinton), then that person simply does not have such obligations since they are not public servants.

Now then, if a person does not like the fact that Hillary Clinton rarely talks to the press, then that person is at liberty not to vote for her and that is about it since she cannot be held to the same standard as a sitting President.
 
Crossbow said:
Sorry, but I really do not think that is the same thing.

When a person is actually the President (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise), then that person has a constitutional requirement to keep the public informed accordingly.
Click to expand...

Where is that in the Constitution? The President has to provide Congress an update on the "State of the Union" (which, historically, has not been a speech personally delivered to both chambers of Congress), but I highly doubt there's any language in Article II requiring the President to "keep the public informed accordingly." Hopefully there's nothing there about the POTUS preserving their e-mails.

On the other hand, when a person is a Presidential candidate and that person has enough personal wealth so that they do not have a job of any sort (like Hillary Clinton), then that person simply does not have such obligations since they are not public servants.
Click to expand...

Except certain traditions are arguably more important than the law. There's a constitutional requirement that the president must be at least 35 years of age. Silly. There's no law that says nominees must show ten years worth of tax returns, but it's an excellent tradition (and threatens to cease as a tradition since the Republican candidate has twice in a row shunned the practice).

I'm not sure what the tradition is on press conferences except President Bush was criticized for not giving enough of them, and Obama more or less continued the practice. Of course, Democrats cared when Bush refused to answer the press, and outrage flipped during Obama's tenure.

Now then, if a person does not like the fact that Hillary Clinton rarely talks to the press, then that person is at liberty not to vote for her and that is about it since she cannot be held to the same standard as a sitting President.
Click to expand...

Except the same can be said for the President since s/he is not required to give press conferences. A person is "at liberty" not to vote for Clinton because of her wardrobe choices.
 
Fudbucker said:
CNN's usually pretty objective. Do you have a link to the transcript?
Click to expand...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...l-what-i-told-fbi-consistent-what-i-have-said

Is the one inconsistency though that you said that you never sent or received classified material, and he did say there were three emails that were marked classified at the time. Is that an inconsistency?” Welker asked.

“Here are the facts behind that as well. You know that I sent over 30,000 emails to the State Department that were work-related emails. Director Comey said that only three out of 30,000 had anything resembling classified markers. What does that mean?” Clinton said.

“Well usually if any of you have ever served in the government, a classified document has a big heading on the top, which makes very clear what the classification is,” Clinton added.

“And in questioning, Director Comey made the point that the three emails out of the 30,000 did not have the appropriate markings, and it was therefore reasonable to conclude that anyone, including myself, would have not suspected that they were classified,” she said.

“And in fact, I think that has been discussed by others who have said two out of those three were later explained by the State Department not to have been in any way confidential at the time that they were delivered, so that leaves the 100 out of 30,000 emails that Director Comey testified contained classified information, but again, he acknowledged there were no markings on those 100 emails, and so what we have here is pretty much what I have been saying throughout this whole year, and that is that I never sent or received anything that was marked classified,” she added.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...l-what-i-told-fbi-consistent-what-i-have-said

Is the one inconsistency though that you said that you never sent or received classified material, and he did say there were three emails that were marked classified at the time. Is that an inconsistency?” Welker asked.

“Here are the facts behind that as well. You know that I sent over 30,000 emails to the State Department that were work-related emails. Director Comey said that only three out of 30,000 had anything resembling classified markers. What does that mean?” Clinton said.

“Well usually if any of you have ever served in the government, a classified document has a big heading on the top, which makes very clear what the classification is,” Clinton added.

“And in questioning, Director Comey made the point that the three emails out of the 30,000 did not have the appropriate markings, and it was therefore reasonable to conclude that anyone, including myself, would have not suspected that they were classified,” she said.

“And in fact, I think that has been discussed by others who have said two out of those three were later explained by the State Department not to have been in any way confidential at the time that they were delivered, so that leaves the 100 out of 30,000 emails that Director Comey testified contained classified information, but again, he acknowledged there were no markings on those 100 emails, and so what we have here is pretty much what I have been saying throughout this whole year, and that is that I never sent or received anything that was marked classified,” she added.
Click to expand...

Notice how Clinton pivots away from that question to the more specific one of sending/receiving classified marked info? Because she knows the FBI ruled over 100 emails were classified at the time, but only three had any markings.

But pivoting is fair in politics. And CNN mischaracterized the interview. That doesn't happen very often. I have to give you credit for catching that.

Clinton is also backpedaling away from the strong claim that Comey said her public statements were true to simply saying that her statements to the FBI were true. Comey actually never said that. He said he couldn't conclude she was lying, which doesn't equate to "true", but it's a distinction without a difference, unless Comey jumps into this, which he probably won't.

Any halfway competent opponent would have made an issue out of Clinton earning 4 pinocchios and "pants on fire" from factchecking sites, but it's Trump, so no damage done, other than to her reputation.
 
Fudbucker said:
Notice how Clinton pivots away from that question to the more specific one of sending/receiving classified marked info? Because she knows the FBI ruled over 100 emails were classified at the time, but only three had any markings.

But pivoting is fair in politics. And CNN mischaracterized the interview. That doesn't happen very often. I have to give you credit for catching that.

Clinton is also backpedaling away from the strong claim that Comey said her public statements were true to simply saying that her statements to the FBI were true. Comey actually never said that. He said he couldn't conclude she was lying, which doesn't equate to "true", but it's a distinction without a difference, unless Comey jumps into this, which he probably won't.

Any halfway competent opponent would have made an issue out of Clinton earning 4 pinocchios and "pants on fire" from factchecking sites, but it's Trump, so no damage done, other than to her reputation.
Click to expand...


To say that there isn't a difference between saying something that is false and lying is totally wrong and you know it.

For example, I said yesterday that Rosanna Rosanna Danna was famous for saying "never mind". That is false. It was Emily Littela. But I didn't lie about it. Lying suggests a deliberate attempt to deceive. You not only must know what your saying to be false, you must be tryino to deceive others.
 
acbytesla said:
To say that there isn't a difference between saying something that is false and lying is totally wrong and you know it.

For example, I said yesterday that Rosanna Rosanna Danna was famous for saying "never mind". That is false. It was Emily Littela. But I didn't lie about it. Lying suggests a deliberate attempt to deceive. You not only must know what your saying to be false, you must be tryino to deceive others.
Click to expand...

I agree. Reread:
He said he couldn't conclude she was lying, which doesn't equate to "true", but it's a distinction without a difference
Click to expand...
 
Fudbucker said:
Notice how Clinton pivots away from that question to the more specific one of sending/receiving classified marked info? Because she knows the FBI ruled over 100 emails were classified at the time, but only three had any markings.

But pivoting is fair in politics. And CNN mischaracterized the interview. That doesn't happen very often. I have to give you credit for catching that.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's only because I happened to watch her complete answer, so I didn't have to rely on someone else "summary"
 
They learned their lesson in the 2008 election. The more people actually see of Hillary Clinton, the less appealing she is.

Except it is a lot worse now because on a weekly basis we are treated to the steady drip of new emails she lied about, deaths of whistleblowers, terrorist attacks by people both the republicans and democrats armed and funded in order to overthrow governments we didn't like in the Middle East, the Clinton Foundation money laundering operation, etc. Blowback. Corruption. Dead informants like the nuclear scientist in Iran, mentioned by name in her emails anyone with a computer could hack.

The evasion is good for her in the short run but she is totally unprepared for hard questions by Trump in the debates. Your athlete has to compete to stay on top. Trump has faced relentless pressure from the establishment press since the day his candidacy started. Hillary is walking into these debates having mostly comfy pillows and softball questions from friends.

It is telling that the usual chorus of "idiot, racist, sexist, insane..." is absent here, and some very lame excuse-making is in its place. That tells us even her own cult members recognize this as a very important weakness: their candidate fears answering questions.
 
Mader Levap said:
You are in wrong part of forum. Conspiracy Theories are that way. --->
Click to expand...

Conspiracy Theories seem to be the only thing the Trump Worshippers have left........

And his saying the more people see of Hilary the less they like her seems bizarre when you look at the polls.

And ABP "I am so not a Trump supporter" meme is not being taken seriously by anybody.
 
Last edited:
Whoo!

261 days since Hillary held a press conference!

Don't know what she is afraid of but there is little doubt she is afraid.

Absolutely the least transparant candidate in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom