Hillary's lies

[ag-man]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/judge-rocks-hillarys-testimony-serious-legal-trouble/

Obviously a very conservative source, but can anyone rebuttal former judge Napolitano ?

 

[3Rfan]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/judge-rocks-hillarys-testimony-serious-legal-trouble/

Obviously a very conservative source, but can anyone rebuttal former judge Napolitano ?

There was a guy who was president one time that had no memory of the Iran-Contra deal. Just saying he didn't recall seemed to relieve him of any legal accountability. I have no idea what she did or did not know about this deal but I can't say I've ever heard of it myself.

 

[Neutron Monster]

The most obvious rebuttal is that she was telling the truth.

 

[wcowherd]

It only helps Hillary if republicans continue on with Benghazi.

 

[ag-man]

So......I guess the answer is no.

 

[Neutron Monster]

What you mean is no one gave a rebuttal you wanted instead of the very obvious rebuttal.

For one, I don't know why I really care about this issue when Clinton would very clearly not have been the decision maker on this topic. The Sec. State is not responsible for supplying arms to foreign parties, that is a CIA/DoD question under the guidance of the White House (Obama.) Two, the entirety of the debate seems to be about some form filled out by some guy. There is no way the Sec of State is reviewing that level of detail. And, third, it is quite possible weapons were moved without her knowledge, especially without her knowing all of the specifics, such as the name of some random guy. The CIA/DoD really shouldn't want the names of their key resources floating around.

If there is something here, it is a question of Obama's foreign policy and the decisions they made to turn Libya into a failed state (something that is woefully underdiscussed because we don't want to admit that most of our military actions in the Arab world have produced poor results for the last decade.) It's not really a question of Clinton's participation in arms; it is a reminder that she has supported foreign policy decisions that really haven't turned out well.

 

[ag-man]

What you mean is no one gave a rebuttal you wanted instead of the very obvious rebuttal.

For one, I don't know why I really care about this issue when Clinton would very clearly not have been the decision maker on this topic. The Sec. State is not responsible for supplying arms to foreign parties, that is a CIA/DoD question under the guidance of the White House (Obama.) Two, the entirety of the debate seems to be about some form filled out by some guy. There is no way the Sec of State is reviewing that level of detail. And, third, it is quite possible weapons were moved without her knowledge, especially without her knowing all of the specifics, such as the name of some random guy. The CIA/DoD really shouldn't want the names of their key resources floating around.

If there is something here, it is a question of Obama's foreign policy and the decisions they made to turn Libya into a failed state (something that is woefully underdiscussed because we don't want to admit that most of our military actions in the Arab world have produced poor results for the last decade.) It's not really a question of Clinton's participation in arms; it is a reminder that she has supported foreign policy decisions that really haven't turned out well.

So you are saying former Superior Court Judge and constitutional law professor Andrew Napolitano is incorrect when he states Clinton authorized the shipment of arms to Libya ?

You think she is telling the truth ?

 

[wcowherd]

So you are saying former Superior Court Judge and constitutional law professor Andrew Napolitano is incorrect when he states Clinton authorized the shipment of arms to Libya ?

You think she is telling the truth ?

Why would a superior court judge and law professor be an expert on arms dealing?

 

[vbsideout]

So you are saying former Superior Court Judge and constitutional law professor Andrew Napolitano is incorrect when he states Clinton authorized the shipment of arms to Libya ?

You think she is telling the truth ?

Nappy is a liar. See how easy that is Aggie!!!

 

[ag-man]

Why would a superior court judge and law professor be an expert on arms dealing?

I didn't say he was an expert at arms dealing. Just mentioned his credentials as he is probably not someone who throws accusations of perjury lightly.

Again, I see nobody that is disputing his claim.


Except VB

 

[vbsideout]

I didn't say he was an expert at arms dealing. Just mentioned his credentials as he is probably not someone who throws accusations of perjury lightly.

Again, I see nobody that is disputing his claim.


Except VB

I didn't say he was an expert at arms dealing. Just mentioned his credentials as he is probably not someone who throws accusations of perjury lightly.

Again, I see nobody that is disputing his claim.


Except VB

Clinton is a liar!!!

 

[wcowherd]

I didn't say he was an expert at arms dealing. Just mentioned his credentials as he is probably not someone who throws accusations of perjury lightly.

Again, I see nobody that is disputing his claim.


Except VB

Actually, he's a partisan hack, so it's totally expected out of him.

 

[ag-man]

Actually, he's a partisan hack, so it's totally expected out of him.

Awwwee... brush it off to partisanship...........Clinton is as pure as the driven snow..

 

[Scout 4u]

Awwwee... brush it off to partisanship...........Clinton is as pure as the driven snow..

The Clinton's and Bush's are not going anywhere, why not try Plan B?

Take over control at the State level. Ignore the Feds demands, "Obama Care Exchanges", one example.
Sue the US Government so that any legislation that your State disagrees with will be held up in court for decades.
Refuse any Federal money that has strings attached. Rewrite your own State's Constitution so it coincides with State Law rather than Federal Law.
Prosecute Federal Laws already in the books, "Imigration" as an example, then turn around and take the Feds to court for ignoring their own legislation.
Elect State Representives that will do all of the above and more...

Ted Cruz...
One example..

 

[Duck_walk]

The Clinton's and Bush's are not going anywhere, why not try Plan B?

Take over control at the State level. Ignore the Feds demands, "Obama Care Exchanges", one example.
Sue the US Government so that any legislation that your State disagrees with will be held up in court for decades.
Refuse any Federal money that has strings attached. Rewrite your own State's Constitution so it coincides with State Law rather than Federal Law.
Prosecute Federal Laws already in the books, "Imigration" as an example, then turn around and take the Feds to court for ignoring their own legislation.
Elect State Representives that will do all of the above and more...

Ted Cruz...
One example..

You have a vivid imagination.
Punishing your own state's citizens to show
your stubbornness is hardest on the poor. Congrats.

 

[Scout 4u]

You have a vivid imagination.
Punishing your own state's citizens to show
your stubbornness is hardest on the poor. Congrats.

I remember a few years back when folks on this board were saying that we were not serious about turning down Federal handouts.

They were wrong...

 

[Neutron Monster]

I remember a few years back when folks on this board were saying that we were not serious about turning down Federal handouts.

They were wrong...

For once a policy is in place where blue states are getting some of their tax revenue back from red states.

More states will expand Medicaid once Obama is gone.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Awwwee... brush it off to partisanship...........Clinton is as pure as the driven snow..

There are plenty of good criticisms of Hillary but that doesn't mean all criticisms of her are good.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Why would a superior court judge and law professor be an expert on arms dealing?

He's certainly not an expert at understanding how this sort of program would work, which is why his argument isn't terribly meaningful. It would mean a lot more from someone like dick armitage who knows what a sec state does on a daily basis. Also someone senior who has worked on this sort of program before, like a senior cia figure. Andrew napolitano knows no more than I do about how the U.S. would run guns to a foreign rebel force.

He presents no actual evidence that Hillary has done anything. Just that she could have committed perjury by saying yes or no to a question. You could say that about almost anything anyone says to congress.

the obvious answer here remains that she didn't commit perjury and he's just making stuff up for the lemmings.

 

[Duck_walk]

I remember a few years back when folks on this board were saying that we were not serious about turning down Federal handouts.

They were wrong...

So that makes it smart? No.

 

[ag-man]

There are plenty of good criticisms of Hillary but that doesn't mean all criticisms of her are good.

I agree,

And I am still waiting for someone to show me Andrew was wrong.

Please do, and I might change my opinion of her.

 

[Neutron Monster]

I agree,

And I am still waiting for someone to show me Andrew was wrong.

Please do, and I might change my opinion of her.

He presented no actual evidence that she lied. The onus should be on him to do so before you take him seriously.

It's a lot harder to prove you didn't do something than for someone to prove you did something here. Keep that in mind. People deserve the benefit of the doubt in that sort of case. I can't prove to you that I don't know mike Turi or whatever his name is that is mentioned in the article. That doesn't mean you should believe someone if they say I know him.

 

[ag-man]

He's certainly not an expert at understanding how this sort of program would work, which is why his argument isn't terribly meaningful. It would mean a lot more from someone like dick armitage who knows what a sec state does on a daily basis. Also someone senior who has worked on this sort of program before, like a senior cia figure. Andrew napolitano knows no more than I do about how the U.S. would run guns to a foreign rebel force.

He presents no actual evidence that Hillary has done anything. Just that she could have committed perjury by saying yes or no to a question. You could say that about almost anything anyone says to congress.

the obvious answer here remains that she didn't commit perjury and he's just making stuff up for the lemmings.

Prove him wrong

 

[ag-man]

He presented no actual evidence that she lied. The onus should be on him to do so before you take him seriously.

Please explain why I should believe her, instead of him.

 

[Neutron Monster]

[QUOTE="Neutron Monster, post: 97682, member: 4318]
It's a lot harder to prove you didn't do something than for someone to prove you did something here. Keep that in mind. People deserve the benefit of the doubt in that sort of case. I can't prove to you that I don't know mike Turi or whatever his name is that is mentioned in the article. That doesn't mean you should believe someone if they say I know him.[/QUOTE]

This. Your standard here is absurd. It's like the articles insinuating Renee elmers and kevin McCarthy were having an affair. No one presented any actual evidence. You should continue to ignore them until they make an actual case.

There is almost nothing napolitano says that you can provide wrong because he doesn't actually say anything specific. He presents no evidence that Hillary knew anything. There is nothing to rebut.

 

[Neutron Monster]

The reason you should believe Hillary is she was under oath and napolitano was writing an article full of maybes for right wing conspiracy theorists. Which one had an incentive to tell the truth???

There is zero evidence presented that rebuts her testimony. None.

 

[Duck_walk]

Hillary has flip flopped on Keystone Pipeline, TPP, DOMA, Wall Street Regs, Bankruptcy restrictions, etc. etc.

So I don't believe much of anything she says.
If it's her and Trump or Bush I won't be voting.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Hillary has flip flopped on Keystone Pipeline, TPP, DOMA, Wall Street Regs, Bankruptcy restrictions, etc. etc.

So I don't believe much of anything she says.
I'd it's her and Trump or Bush I won't be voting.

There's a difference between someone's campaign statements and what they say under oath about a factual question that is answered yes or no.

You don't have to believe that other stuff to believe she told the truth here. I don't believe a large percentage of what a lot of these candidates say on the stump

 

[Expect2Win]

What are we supposed to prove false? His speculation on the incident? What he thinks she may have lied about. He doesn't give any hard evidence to support her lying.

 

[Neutron Monster]

What are we supposed to prove false? His speculation on the incident? What he thinks she may have lied about. He doesn't give any hard evidence to support her lying.

Exactly! This isn't some sourced, fact checked document with specific accusations.

 

[Duck_walk]

There's a difference between someone's campaign statements and what they say under oath about a factual question that is answered yes or no.

You don't have to believe that other stuff to believe she told the truth here. I don't believe a large percentage of what a lot of these candidates say on the stump

You are talking about the common politicians.

There is an uncommon man in the race who has been true to his supporters. He has been on what my kind call the "right side of history" on most important votes for the past 15 years and hasn't changed to run for president.

I would believe his testimony. Bill and Hillary--don't believe a word.

 

[ag-man]

The reason you should believe Hillary is she was under oath and napolitano was writing an article full of maybes for right wing conspiracy theorists. Which one had an incentive to tell the truth???

There is zero evidence presented that rebuts her testimony. None.

Napolitano is far from a Republican, you know this NM, he has no reason to lie. He is accomplished enough not to write falsities for a story. I expect Hillary to continue to implode. She is a despicable human being.

I asked someone to change my mind..........didn't happen.

 

[vbsideout]

Doesn't matter what any of them say. Money talks period. Follow the money and you will find your answers. Ducky you could always right me in.

 

[3Rfan]

The Clinton's and Bush's are not going anywhere, why not try Plan B?

Take over control at the State level. Ignore the Feds demands, "Obama Care Exchanges", one example.
Sue the US Government so that any legislation that your State disagrees with will be held up in court for decades.
Refuse any Federal money that has strings attached. Rewrite your own State's Constitution so it coincides with State Law rather than Federal Law.
Prosecute Federal Laws already in the books, "Imigration" as an example, then turn around and take the Feds to court for ignoring their own legislation.
Elect State Representives that will do all of the above and more...

Ted Cruz...
One example..

Last time I checked Ted Cruz was a U.S. senator, not a state representative. What piece of legislation has he proposed that was passed in the senate? I'll bet that 'sue the U.S government' thang has saved states a lot of money.

 

[vbsideout]

Napolitano is far from a Republican, you know this NM, he has no reason to lie. He is accomplished enough not to write falsities for a story. I expect Hillary to continue to implode. She is a despicable human being.

I asked someone to change my mind..........didn't happen.

If there was an ounce of truth to this (evidence) it would have been presented at the hearing and there would be dancing in the streets, but neither of these things happened. Hillary seems to be doing just fine and it looks like some in the other party were and are ready to implode. Some minds can't be changed no matter what.

 

[ag-man]

If there was an ounce of truth to this (evidence) it would have been presented at the hearing and there would be dancing in the streets, but neither of these things happened. Hillary seems to be doing just fine and it looks like some in the other party were and are ready to implode. Some minds can't be changed no matter what.

We will see. Hillary is too dirty, something will stick.

I don't particularly like a lot of Bernie's stances, but he is way better than her.

 

[Scout 4u]

We will see. Hillary is too dirty, something will stick.

Are you sure your not talking about Bill?

 

[Neutron Monster]

You are talking about the common politicians.

There is an uncommon man in the race who has been true to his supporters. He has been on what my kind call the "right side of history" on most important votes for the past 15 years and hasn't changed to run for president.

I would believe his testimony. Bill and Hillary--don't believe a word.

There are a subset of candidates who are more honest than others. They have no chance to be elected, partly because they are too honest.

Sanders reminds me a lot of Kucinich in that regard.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Napolitano is far from a Republican, you know this NM, he has no reason to lie. He is accomplished enough not to write falsities for a story. I expect Hillary to continue to implode. She is a despicable human being.

I asked someone to change my mind..........didn't happen.

he doesn't have to lie. He's not making a specific accusation. It's hard to lie when you don't make any real factual claims.

Absolutely he has an incentive to stretch the truth here - look at your posts! You believe what he wrote without regard to the quality of his work. And he got paid for doing so.

Your decision to not change your mind is because you've already made your mind up on Clinton not because of anything in that article.

 

[ag-man]

he doesn't have to lie. He's not making a specific accusation. It's hard to lie when you don't make any real factual claims.

Absolutely he has an incentive to stretch the truth here - look at your posts! You believe what he wrote without regard to the quality of his work. And he got paid for doing so.

Your decision to not change your mind is because you've already made your mind up on Clinton not because of anything in that article.

He said she authorized the sale of guns to Libya.

She said she didn't.

He accuses her of perjury........to me, that is a specific accusation.

I guess we will have to wait and see who is correct.

As far as my mind being made up, as of now, I think Hillary is a despicable human being. Now if someone could prove Napolitano wrong, or show where Hillary has any positive attributes, I might "evolve" my opinion of her. So far, that hasn't happened.