Baxter Parp Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 For anybody having problems distinguishing between Clinton and Trump: Hillary Clinton (D) 1. Poor email server management Donald J. Trump (R) 1. Said he would force the military to commit war crimes 2. Said about women, “You have to treat ’em like shit” 3. Proposed to create a database system to track Muslims in the U.S. 4. Said a U.S.-born judge couldn’t be impartial because of his “Mexican heritage” 5. Advocated assassinating terrorists’ families 6. Advocated waterboarding as punishment even if it doesn’t help gain information, because “they deserve it anyway” 7. Said women should be punished for having abortions 8. Urged supporters to beat up protesters at his rallies 9. Made fun of a reporter’s physical disability 10. Promised to deport U.S. citizens whose parents immigrated illegally, in violation of the 14th Amendment 11. Advocated shutting down mosques 12. Called for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. 13. Described global warming as a hoax perpetrated by “the Chinese” for competitive reasons 14. Suggested the U.S. should reduce its debts by partially defaulting on them 15. Responded to the murder of 49 people at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub with “Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism” 16. Fraternizes with avowed white supremacists on Twitter 17. Called Mexican immigrants rapists 18. Endorsed torture 19. Refuses to sell any of his more than 500 businesses if he’s elected, potentially creating unprecedented conflicts of interest 20. Disparaged Sen. John McCain’s military service because he was captured by the North Vietnamese 21. Defended FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans 22. Refused to release his tax returns during the campaign 23. Retweeted bogus crime statistics that wildly inflated the rate at which blacks kill whites 24. Suggested that supporters who attacked a homeless Hispanic man were “very passionate” and “love their country” 25. Blamed sexual assault in the military on “put[ting] men and women together” 26. Referred to Tiananmen Square demonstrations as a riot and said the Chinese government’s response “shows you the power of strength” 27. Repeatedly suggested that President Obama might be a Muslim 28. Claimed he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attacks 29. Doesn’t know how many articles are in the Constitution 30. Called an attorney who requested a break to pump breast milk “disgusting” 31. Doesn’t pay his bills 32. Proposed to change libel laws to make it easier to sue media organizations 33. Barred reporters from campaign events for unfavorable coverage 34. Praised North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un 35. Described Fox debate moderator Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her wherever” 36. Questioned President Obama’s American citizenship, bringing the “birther” campaign into the mainstream 37. Said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose voters” 38. Named and threatened former students who criticized Trump University 39. Didn’t immediately disavow an endorsement from KKK leader David Duke 40. Bragged about the size of his penis during a primary debate 41. Claimed he’s donated $1 million to veterans’ groups, although none received any money until reporters began investigating 42. Didn’t know the meaning of the term “Brexit” less than a month before the U.K. referendum on leaving the EU 43. Posted a link to Facebook promoting the conspiracy theory that the Obama administration actively supported al-Qaida in Iraq 44. Called Elizabeth Warren “the Indian” and “Pocahontas” 45. Founded Trump University, which a salesman called “a fraudulent scheme [that] preyed upon the elderly and uneducated” 46. Advocated plundering oil from Iraq, Libya, and other oil-rich countries invaded by the U.S., in violation of the Geneva Conventions 47. Said, “It doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass” 48. Named himself as his primary consultant on foreign policy 49. Refused to take care of his children, saying that husbands who change diapers are “acting like the wife” 50. Refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against ISIS 51. Claimed he’s donated $102 million to charity, although journalists have been unable to find evidence of any substantial donations 52. Said of Carly Fiorina, “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” 53. Approvingly repeated a tall tale about a U.S. commander ordering the execution of Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pig’s blood 54. Refused to condemn anti-Semitic attacks on journalists 55. Paid campaign money to family members and his own businesses 56. Advocated withholding free public education from insufficiently studious kids 57. Suggested that he might refuse to serve as president if elected 58. Told a female contestant on Celebrity Apprentice, “That must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees” 59. Proposed to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants 60. Speculated about his 1-year-old daughter’s future breasts 61. Said, “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her” 62. Has repeatedly done business with figures linked to organized crime 63. Hired a suspicious number of advisers who have done work on behalf of Vladimir Putin 64. Claimed that American Muslims knew about the Orlando nightclub shooter and San Bernardino terrorists before the attacks 65. Didn’t understand the phrase “nuclear triad” during a primary debate 66. Pointed out a black supporter and said, “Oh, look at my African American over here” 67. Kept a collection of Adolf Hitler’s collected speeches in a cabinet by his bed 68. Said that “maybe” his employees should feel they have to return quickly from maternity leave or risk being replaced 69. Suggested the U.S. won’t come to NATO allies’ military aid 70. Proposed to compel Mexico to pay for a border wall 71. Praised Saddam Hussein for being good at killing terrorists 72. Threatened Amazon as payback for negative coverage in the Washington Post 73. Called for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, five teenagers later exonerated of rape and assault 74. Praised the U.K.’s vote to leave the EU because a falling pound would be good for his Scottish golf course 75. Suggested that Sen. Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy 76. Tweeted an image that originated on a white-supremacist account containing a star of David over a background of money 77. Read out Sen. Lindsey Graham’s personal phone number in a campaign speech 78. Subjected his then-wife Ivana to what she described in a deposition as rape, although she later said she didn’t mean the word literally 79. Quoted in a 1991 book as telling a colleague that “laziness is a trait in blacks” 80. Said that the U.S. military should withdraw from Japan and South Korea and allow those countries to defend themselves with nuclear weapons 81. Called for the construction of a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent immigration 82. Tweeted: “Our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!” 83. Has been a plaintiff in at least 1,900 lawsuits and a defendant in 1,450 more 84. Suggested that Bill and Hillary Clinton conspired to murder aide Vince Foster 85. Believes the world would be “100 percent” better if Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi were still in power 86. Directed a female employee not to take lunch orders when visitors came to Trump Tower because he found her insufficiently attractive 87. Reportedly asked national security advisers why the U.S. can’t use nuclear weapons 88. Told his security team to confiscate protesters’ coats and “throw them out into the cold” 89. Publicly shamed a Miss Universe winner for gaining weight 90. Repeatedly claimed, falsely, to have opposed the Iraq war 91. Included the head of the white nationalist American Freedom Party on a list of California delegates 92. Sold Trump University and Trump Institute courses that relied on plagiarized materials 93. Earned millions from failing casinos by shifting the debt burden to investors 94. Filed for corporate bankruptcy four times 95. Compared his “sacrifices” as a businessman with those of parents whose son was killed in war 96. Claimed there’s “no real assimilation” of “second- and third-generation” families from the Middle East 97. Tried to set up an investment partnership with Muammar Qaddafi 98. Argued that the massacre at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub could have been prevented if patrons had been armed 99. Claimed, falsely, that President Obama “issued a statement for Kwanzaa but failed to issue one for Christmas” 100. Wished for a housing-market crash 101. Took out advertisements alleging that the “Mohawk Indian record of criminal activity is well documented” to fight competition for his casino business 102. Has insulted 239 candidates, journalists, organizations, countries, sitting politicians, and celebrities on Twitter 103. Used contributions to the Trump Foundation to buy a helmet and jersey signed by Tim Tebow for $12,000 at a charity auction 104. Said, “Refugees are trying to take over our children” by telling them “how wonderful Islam is” 105. Called the decision to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill “pure political correctness” 106. Said that Black Lives Matter activists are “looking for trouble” 107. Called Rosie O’Donnell a “big, fat pig” 108. Proposed a 35 percent tax on Mexican-made cars and trucks, in violation of NAFTA 109. Greeted a Miss Universe contestant with a kiss on the lips, which she called “gross” and “inappropriate” 110. Proposed to abolish gun-free zones 111. Falsely claimed there have been calls for a moment of silence for Dallas shooter Micah Johnson 112. Defended then–campaign manager Corey Lewandowski after he physically grabbed a female reporter 113. Falsely claimed that Ferguson, Missouri, and Oakland, California, were “among the most dangerous [places] in the world” 114. Proposed to have China assassinate Kim Jong-un 115. Claimed that “the birther movement was started by Hillary Clinton in 2008” 116. Threatened to “spill the beans” about an unspecified scandal concerning Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi 117. Attempted to court Jewish voters with anti-Semitic stereotypes about money, influence, and dealmaking 118. Pre-emptively questioned the legitimacy of the election 119. Attempted to seize and bulldoze the home of an Atlantic City, New Jersey, widow under eminent domain 120. Said that Hillary Clinton “got schlonged” by Obama in 2008 121. Tweeted “The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!” 122. Claimed a federal spending bill “funds ISIS” 123. Pretended to be his own publicist 124. Proposed to appoint himself U.S. trade representative 125. Accused Hillary Clinton of “playing the woman card” 126. Called Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine “so smart” 127. Believes that he would “get along very well” with Vladimir Putin 128. Included two anti-Sharia cranks on a list of five foreign-policy advisers 129. According to Chris Christie, he would seek to purge Obama-era civil service hires 130. Said, “If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS … the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president” 131. Repeated a supporter who called Ted Cruz a pussy 132. Said, “I think Islam hates us” 133. Praised conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, telling him, “I will not let you down” 134. Tried to entice Ohio Gov. John Kasich to be his vice presidential candidate by saying he’d let him control domestic and foreign policy 135. Kept journalists in restrictive “press pens” on the campaign trail 136. Said he “can relate” to victims of racism because “even against me the system is rigged.” 137. Said he doesn’t “have the time” to read books 138. Proposed to charge American allies for military defense 139. Suggested that Gold Star mother and Muslim Ghazala Khan remained silent because she “wasn’t allowed to have anything to say” 140. Said Mitt Romney would have “dropped to his knees” for an endorsement 141. Referred to 9/11 as 7-Eleven 142. Joked about Second Amendment advocates shooting his opponent or her judicial appointees 143. Proposed a 45 percent tariff on Chinese exports 144. Praised Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s brutal response to an attempted coup, giving “great credit to him for turning it around” 145. Likened the killing of a 21-year-old woman by a drunk-driving undocumented immigrant to ritualistic child sacrifice 146. Falsely claimed he “100 percent” owns “the largest winery on the East Coast” 147. Claimed he saw nonexistent footage of money airlifted from the U.S. to Iran 148. Said Khizr Khan “has no right to claim I have never read the Constitution” 149. Claimed that the U.S. is being “ripped off” by its fellow members of NATO 150. Employed a butler who said President Obama should be “hung for treason” 151. Called sexual harassment allegations against Roger Ailes “totally unfounded” 152. Picked convention speakers who called for his general-election opponent to be imprisoned 153. Questioned Hillary Clinton’s religion 154. Launched at least 15 business ventures that went on to fail 155. Said Gold Star father Khizr Khan attacked him for being tough on terrorism 156. Falsely accused Clinton of rigging the general election debate schedule 157. Called Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS 158. Said women who are sexually harassed at work should “find another career” 159. His wife, Melania, plagiarized her convention speech from Michelle Obama, then campaign operatives lied about it 160. Praised an adviser who called for Clinton to be executed 161. Questioned Ben Carson’s Seventh-day Adventism 162. Sued a former campaign aide for $10 million for breaching a confidentiality agreement 163. Characterized the theme of his administration as “America First” 164. Appeared not to know about Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea 165. Questioned Ted Cruz’s evangelical faith 166. Entrusted his health to a doctor who described his test results as “astonishingly excellent” 167. Proposed to deport his opponent, an American citizen 168. Asked advisers if he could get out of picking Mike Pence as his vice presidential candidate after he’d offered Pence the job 169. Proposed to try U.S. citizens in Guantanamo Bay military tribunals 170. Urged supporters to patrol polling places to combat “election fraud” 171. Hired the editor of white-nationalist website Breitbart as his campaign chief 172. Said he’s “starting to agree” that his opponent should be imprisoned 173. Responded to a murder with: “Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!” 174. Doesn’t allow contributors to cancel recurring donations on his website 175. Ejected a baby from a rally 176. Called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails 177. Told black voters, “You’re living in poverty; your schools are no good; you have no jobs” 178. Falsely claimed San Bernardino neighbors saw “bombs all over the floor” but failed to act due to political correctness 179. Falsely claimed Chicago police brass told him crime could be ended if they were allowed to be “much tougher” 180. Boasted of “employee childcare programs” that are really for hotel guests 181. Ran a modeling agency that hired models working illegally in the U.S. 182. Repeatedly called a deaf actress “retarded” and sexually harassed her on the set of The Apprentice 183. Said he wanted to hit Democratic National Convention speakers who criticized him 184. Suggested a reporter who accused him of sexual assault wasn’t attractive enough to assault 185. Would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions on Russia 186. Named the person who made up “death panels” to his economic team 187. Falsely claimed his opponent wants to admit 620,000 Syrian refugees 188. Told two 14-year-old girls, “Wow! Just think—in a couple of years, I’ll be dating you.” 189. Threatened to pull the U.S. out of the World Trade Organization 190. Falsely claimed his opponent’s plan would provide Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants 191. Posted a tweet urging voters to “check out [a critic’s] sex tape,” then denied it during a debate 192. Screwed over the USA Freedom Kids, a group of preteen girls who performed at Trump events 193. Falsely claimed his opponent was “seen laughing on two occasions” at a 12-year-old rape victim 194. Employed campaign operatives who scrubbed language supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression from the GOP platform 195. Called his opponent “unhinged” and “unbalanced” 196. Falsely claimed the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency endorsed him 197. Falsely claimed the U.S. economy is experiencing its slowest growth since 1929 198. Threatened to fund a super PAC campaign against his defeated GOP primary rivals if they run again 199. Hired a former Christie staffer implicated in the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal 200. Confused Clinton’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, with Tom Kean, Republican governor of New Jersey in the 1980s 201. Falsely claimed he won “every poll” after the second presidential debate 202. Falsely claimed the Iran nuclear deal made Iran rich 203. Falsely claimed Bill Clinton “had to pay an $850,000 fine” to Paula Jones after she accused him of sexual assault 204. Said, “When you’re a star, [women] let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab them by the pussy.” 205. Said veterans who suffer from PTSD aren’t “strong” and “can’t handle it” 206. Said not paying income taxes “makes me smart” 207. Continuted to insist the Central Park Five are guilty of murder, despite DNA evidence exonerating them 208. Referred to a Hispanic Miss Universe as “Miss Housekeeping” and “Miss Piggy” 209. Said “we’re going to have to see” about whether he would accept a victory for his opponent as legitimate 210. Repeatedly sexually assaulted women 211. Promised to jail his opponent if elected 212. Illegally raised funds through his foundation without the proper license 213. Mocked his opponent stumbling leaving a 9/11 memorial event after she was diagnosed with pneumonia 214. Claimed government officials are letting illegal immigrants “pour into the country so they can go and vote” 215. Repeatedly walked in on pageant contestants, including teenagers, while they were changing 216. Accepted $150,000 in 9/11 recovery funds to “repair” a building that wasn’t damaged in the attacks 217. Spent $258,000 from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits related to his businesses 218. Illegally contributed $25,000 to the PAC of a prosecutor who was considering legal action against Trump University 219. Said of a 10-year-old girl, “I am going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?” 220. Spent $20,000 in contributions to the Trump Foundation on a 6-foot-tall painting of himself 221. Called poor people “morons” 222. Suggested his opponent cheated on her husband 223. Claimed the Commission on Presidential Debates “rigged” the debates 224. Vowed that Iranians who provoke U.S. sailors with “gestures” will be “shot out of the water” 225. Brought on alleged serial sexual harasser Roger Ailes as a campaign adviser 226. Said his opponent “could actually be crazy” 227. Took credit for giving away other people’s money 228. Claimed nearly $1 billion in business losses in a single year 229. Repeatedly cited false unemployment statistics 230. Claimed he “lost hundreds of friends” on 9/11 231. Repeatedly called a deaf actress “retarded” and sexually harassed her on the set of The Apprentice 232. Told two 14-year-old girls, “Wow! Just think—in a couple of years, I’ll be dating you.” 233. Suggested a reporter who accused him of sexual assault wasn’t attractive enough to assault 234. Falsely claimed Bill Clinton “had to pay an $850,000 fine” to Paula Jones after she accused him of sexual assault 235. Falsely claimed he won “every poll” after the second presidential debate 236. Falsely claimed the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency endorsed him 237. Falsely claimed the Iran nuclear deal made Iran rich 238. Falsely claimed the U.S. economy is experiencing its slowest growth since 1929 239. Posted a tweet urging voters to “check out [a critic’s] sex tape,” then denied it during a debate (Sources) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Re the emails: Here are some questions asked at the House hearing the day following Director Comey’s conclusion that Clinton had committed no indictable offense, together with FBI Director Comey’s answers: Q. “Did Hillary Clinton lie?” A. “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.” Q. “Did Secretary Clinton know her legal team deleted those emails? [The reference is to emails that should have been turned over to State.] A. “I don’t believe so.” Q. “Was the reason she set up her own private server because she wanted to shield communication from Congress and the public?” A. “I can’t say that. Our best information is that she set it up as a matter of convenience.” Q. “Did Secretary Clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate federal law?” A. “We did not develop clear evidence of that.” Q. “Was she evasive?” A. I don’t think the agents assessed she was evasive. Q. “So if Secretary Clinton was an expert at what’s classified and what’s not and were following the [classification] manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that these three documents [marked with a “C”] were not classified. Am I correct in that?” A. “That would be a reasonable inference.” Q. “Did [Clinton] lie to the FBI in that interview?” A. “I have no basis for concluding that she was untruthful with us.” http://prospect.org/article/no-hillary-clinton-does-not-lie-lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Could all play that game tbf...LIE #1: CLINTON PUBLICLY BLAMED A YOUTUBE VIDEO FOR THE BENGHAZI TERRORIST ATTACK, WHILE PRIVATELY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT “HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FILM”LIE #2: CLINTON HAS PUBLICLY TOUTED THE RUSSIAN “RESET” WHILE PRIVATELY ADMITTING IT WAS A FAILURELIE #3: CLINTON HAS TRIED TO REWRITE THE HISTORY OF HER POLICY TOWARDS SYRIALIE #4: CLINTON IS “UNCREDIBLE” WHEN IT COMES TO BASHAR AL-ASSADLIE #5: CLINTON FALSELY CLAIMED THAT EMAILS FROM SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL WERE “UNSOLICITED,” WHEN IN FACT, CLINTON TREATED HIM AS A SECRET, OFF-THE-BOOKS ADVISERLIE #6: CLINTON TRIED TO DOWNPLAY AND MISLEAD ABOUT HER VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE WAR IN IRAQLIE #7: CLINTON ADMITTED SHE VOTED AGAINST THE IRAQ SURGE PURELY FOR POLITICAL REASONSLIE #8: CLINTON’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS OUTSOURCING DEPENDS ON WHO IS LISTENINGLIE #9: BEYOND JUST HER CONFLICTING RHETORIC, CLINTON CONTRIBUTED TO THE OUTSOURCING OF AMERICAN JOBS HERSELFLIE #10: CLINTON HAS SHARPLY CRITICIZED SUPREME COURT CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULINGS BUT IS ACTIVELY USING THEM TO RAISE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARSLIE #11: CLINTON’S SUPER PAC HYPOCRISYLIE #12: CLINTON’S PAST RHETORIC ON PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING REFORM NEVER RECONCILED WITH HER RECORD IN THE SENATELIE #13: CLINTON HAS BEEN CALLED OUT FOR CREATING AN “ABSURD” CLAIM ABOUT HER OPPOSITION TO MIDDLE-CLASS TAXESLIE #14: CLINTON HAS INTRODUCED A NEW PLAN FOR THE ESTATE TAX WHICH CLOSES “LOOPHOLES,” BUT DOESN’T ADDRESS THE ONE HER FAMILY IS EXPLOITINGLIE #15: CLINTON BROKE BILL’S PLEDGE ABOUT NOT USING A “BROAD-BASED” TAX HIKE TO PAY FOR “HILLARYCARE”LIE #16: CLINTON WAS FOR FRACKING BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST ITLIE #17: CLINTON HAS IGNORED HER PAST SUPPORT OF OFFSHORE DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC TO BOLSTER HER ENVIRONMENTAL CREDENTIALSLIE #18: AS A CANDIDATE, CLINTON SAYS OPPOSES NEW DRILLING OFF AMERICA’S SHORES, BUT AS SECRETARY OF STATE HER ACTIONS SUPPORTED NEW DRILLINGLIE #19: CLINTON TAKES DIFFERENT POSITIONS ON QUESTIONING JUDICIAL NOMINEESLIE #20: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF NUMBER OF DEVICES SHE USEDLIE #21: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON TURNING OVER ALL OF HER WORK RELATED EMAILLIE #22: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON TRANSMITTING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF SENDING OR RECEIVINGLIE #23: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF WHETHER THERE WAS MARKED CLASSIFIED MATERIAL ON HER SERVERLIE #24: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF HER SECRET SERVER BEING VULNERABLE TO HACKERSLIE #25: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF SHE AND HER AIDES DELETING AND WIPING DEVICESLIE #26: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SET UP HER OWN SERVERLIE #27: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER SHE EMAILED PEOPLE WITHOUT A PROPER SECURITY CLEARANCELIE #28: LAST YEAR, CLINTON “DUSTED OFF” A CLAIM THAT SHE TRIED TO JOIN THE MARINES IN 1975, BUT WAS REJECTEDLIE #29: NOT EVEN A WEEK INTO HER CAMPAIGN KICKOFF, CLINTON WAS CAUGHT TELLING A FALSEHOOD ABOUT HER FAMILY HISTORY IN IOWALIE #30: PANDERING TO VOTERS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, CLINTON CLAIMED THE FIRST TIME SHE EVER CAMPAIGNED FOR ANYONE WAS IN THAT STATE IN 1991LIE #31: ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN TRAIL, CLINTON CLAIMED SHE CAME UNDER SNIPER FIRE IN BOSNIALIE #32: ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN TRAIL, CLINTON EMBELLISHED HER ROLE DURING NORTHERN IRELAND’S PEACE NEGOTIATIONSLIE #33: ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN TRAIL, CLINTON TOOK LIBERTIES WHEN DESCRIBING A TRIP TO MACEDONIA SHE MADE AS FIRST LADYLIE #34: ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN TRAIL, CLINTON OVERSTATED HER TRAVEL SCHEDULE AS FIRST LADY, IMPLYING SHE TRAVELED TO DANGEROUS AREASLIE #35: CLINTON HAS EVEN EMBELLISHED HER STORY OF THE BIN LADEN RAIDLIE #36: AS FIRST LADY, CLINTON CLAIMED SHE WAS NAMED AFTER EDMUND HILLARY, THE FIRST PERSON TO CLIMB MOUNT EVEREST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 7 minutes ago, THE KING said: Could all play that game tbf... Edited. You'll have to do better than Sean fucking Hannity, chum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 9 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: You'll have to do better than Sean fucking Hannity, chum. Well if youre going to quote the fucking loonball 'The Slate' I think Hannity is an apt retort...chum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Guys both candidates are dreadful with negative points length of their arm.It really is a total embarrassment that this is it for the champions of democracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 2 minutes ago, THE KING said: Well if youre going to quote the fucking loonball 'The Slate' I think Hannity is an apt retort...chum. LIE #20: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF NUMBER OF DEVICES SHE USED LIE #21: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON TURNING OVER ALL OF HER WORK RELATED EMAIL LIE #22: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON TRANSMITTING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF SENDING OR RECEIVING LIE #23: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF WHETHER THERE WAS MARKED CLASSIFIED MATERIAL ON HER SERVER LIE #24: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF HER SECRET SERVER BEING VULNERABLE TO HACKERS LIE #25: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE MATTER OF SHE AND HER AIDES DELETING AND WIPING DEVICES LIE #26: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SET UP HER OWN SERVER LIE #27: THE FBI EXPOSED CLINTON’S LIES ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER SHE EMAILED PEOPLE WITHOUT A PROPER SECURITY CLEARANCE Without even looking at the rest of it this bit is clearly pish as per Welshbairn's post above. The Slate is founded by an ex-Editor of the New Republic and owned by the Washington Post whereas Sean Hannity is Roger Ailes's lapdog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Refused by Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 7 minutes ago, THE KING said: Refused by Obama No, it wasn't. Here's the article written by the reporter who sent the email. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 1 hour ago, welshbairn said: Re the emails: Here are some questions asked at the House hearing the day following Director Comey’s conclusion that Clinton had committed no indictable offense, together with FBI Director Comey’s answers: Q. “Did Hillary Clinton lie?” A. “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.” Q. “Did Secretary Clinton know her legal team deleted those emails? [The reference is to emails that should have been turned over to State.] A. “I don’t believe so.” Q. “Was the reason she set up her own private server because she wanted to shield communication from Congress and the public?” A. “I can’t say that. Our best information is that she set it up as a matter of convenience.” Q. “Did Secretary Clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate federal law?” A. “We did not develop clear evidence of that.” Q. “Was she evasive?” A. I don’t think the agents assessed she was evasive. Q. “So if Secretary Clinton was an expert at what’s classified and what’s not and were following the [classification] manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that these three documents [marked with a “C”] were not classified. Am I correct in that?” A. “That would be a reasonable inference.” Q. “Did [Clinton] lie to the FBI in that interview?” A. “I have no basis for concluding that she was untruthful with us.” http://prospect.org/article/no-hillary-clinton-does-not-lie-lot Most of those answers are evasive or inconclusive. The link does not work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Most of those answers are evasive or inconclusive. The link does not work for me. That's as close to a black and statement of innocence a lawyer like Coney will ever make. Not sure why the link doesn't work any more, the article's a bit long: November 1, 2016 Donald Trump’s supporters seem to feel that you can tell that Hillary Clinton is lying just by seeing her lips move. While their view might be dismissed, many people who favor Clinton also believe she has problems with the truth. She certainly has an image problem. Fact checkers such as The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler have identified far more misstatements by Trump than by Clinton, and the proportion of Trump to Clinton misstatements grows larger if one only considers four Pinocchio whoppers. Opinion polls nonetheless indicate that voters think Clinton is as likely as Trump to lie or more likely. This election cycle, no allegation of lying has been more prevalent and done more to harm Clinton than the claim that she has repeatedly lied when discussing her email and, in particular, when denying or explaining away the presence of classified information on her server. The Post’s Kessler has given two of her statements four Pinocchios and accorded three Pinocchios to others. If Kessler meant to say that some of her statements were mistaken, he is correct. If he means to say her statements were lies, which is what that fourth Pinocchio implies, his judgments are at best unproven and in most cases wrong. Like other prominent fact checkers, he reports findings in ways that make it easy to confuse misstatements with lies. In evaluating a person’s honesty the distinction is fundamental. A misstatement is a statement made with no intent to deceive that turns out to be untrue. A lie is an untrue statement made with intent to deceive or, if one wants to stretch the definition, with such little concern for accuracy as to constitute reckless disregard of the truth. If Donald Trump, despite seeing Clinton’s long-form birth certificate, honestly believed that Obama had been born in Kenya, he would not be lying in the strict sense of the term, but he could be called a liar if we include in our definition statements made in reckless disregard of the truth. Misstatements are caused by knowledge gaps, faulty observations and memory problems. Lies bear on honesty. The reckless disregard of the truth, Trump's specialty, speaks not just to honesty but to integrity as well. Not only is there no convincing evidence that she has lied, but there is also considerable reason to believe that Clinton thought she was telling the truth. Clinton has made misstatements regarding the presence of classified information on her server. But did she lie? Not only is there no convincing evidence that she has lied, but there is also considerable reason to believe that Clinton thought she was telling the truth. I will use Glenn Kessler’s analyses to justify my point, but I could use claims by other fact checkers as well. Consider the earliest Clinton email statement that Kessler examined: “I did not mail classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material.” Clinton reiterated this claim later when attention was again focused on the issue, but soon after she said something a bit different: “I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified.” Kessler regards the latter claim as “careful and legalistic phrasing,” which “raises suspicions.” A more charitable view and a more accurate one is that her later qualification is the essence of honesty. Put yourself in Clinton’s shoes. Some three to seven years earlier you had as Secretary of State received more than 30,000 business-related emails. Thinking back over these emails, you would try to recall whether any of them had been marked classified. (Classified documents are supposed to scream out their status with “can’t miss” markings on the top and bottom of every page.) You might also, without recalling any specific messages, be certain that if you had received a document marked classified on an unsecured account you would have made certain that the message was properly handled, and you would have spoken to the person who sent it. Recalling neither seeing a message with classified markings nor doing what you know you would have done had you received a message marked classified, you might confidently assert, as Clinton did, that there was no classified information on your server. The next day, however, an aide might point out that you could not be sure that no message you received was classified. The most you could know is that to the best of your recollection no material you received was marked classified. If you were concerned with accuracy, you would correct the record by saying what you could be sure was true, namely, you “did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified.” Far from raising suspicions or being legalistic in a way that suggests deception, you have revised your statement to be sure that you say no more than you can honestly claim to know. Then a respected fact checker treats the revised statement as if it suggests dishonesty! Kessler’s analysis is wrong because he does not understand how the classification system works. (While working for the Department of Homeland Security, I was charged with working with DHS security to write our Division-specific classification manual.) The bulk of his column suggesting that Clinton was evasive or lying when she said there was no information marked classified on her server focuses on a message Clinton received from the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband reporting on what he learned on a trip he had recently made to Afghanistan. The message, sent from the Foreign Secretary’s own home email account through two aides indicated that it was meant for Clinton’s eyes only. One may suppose that the message contained classifiable information, and consistent with this State chose to classify the message after the fact. But contrary to Kessler’s impression, the message has no bearing on Clinton’s veracity when she said she had no classified email on her server. Miliband knew how to send a classified message between allies. He chose instead to send an unclassified missive. Kessler writes as if Miliband’s desire that only Clinton read the message is tantamount to classification. It is not. Suppose, for example, that a State Department investigator discovered that State had ignored an urgent request to upgrade the smoke filtration in the safe room of the American consulate in Benghazi, and that if the filtration had been upgraded, the American ambassador who took refuge in this room would have survived. She might well have relayed this information to Clinton in a message marked “for your eyes only.” But far from implying that the message should be classified, the message could not be classified after the fact. Obama’s executive order on classification expressly excludes classifying messages to save agencies from embarrassment. The only people who could have classified the message Miliband sent to Clinton, assuming no one else read the message, were Miliband and Clinton. Neither chose to do so. Moreover, when State later classified the message to preclude its release, it labeled it “confidential,” the government’s lowest classification level. Decisions on whether to classify information as confidential are often judgment calls, and errors tend to be in the direction of overclassification. Nevertheless, Kessler devoted most of his original analysis of Clinton’s truthfulness to discussing this message, although it tells us nothing about her veracity. While Clinton’s receipt of the Miliband message should not have gotten her any Pinocchios, Kessler used it, together with the other post-classified messages, as the basis for awarding two of the nosey guys. Kessler apparently thought Clinton should have treated some unclassified messages as classified given their contents, and from this mistaken perspective he saw her attempt to state accurately what she knew—namely that no messages on her server were marked classified—as “wordsmithing.” Later, he reconsidered, not to correct his error but to upgrade his Pinocchio rating from two to four following FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that Clinton would not be prosecuted. Kessler found in the Director’s testimony strong evidence that Clinton had lied. On his scale, four Pinocchios equates to a “whopper,” a common name for a big lie. Kessler’s decision to award four Pinocchios turned on two portions of Comey’s testimony. First Comey testified that 110 emails on Clinton’s server contained classified information. This contradicted Clinton’s initial claim that there was no confidential information on her computer. It provides, however, no reason to think Clinton was intending to deceive when she made that claim. Classified information is recognized by its markings or by other circumstances that make its classified status clear. Only three of about 30,000 documents even arguably had such markings. These form the second pillar that Kessler used to support his view that Clinton had told a whopper. The three “smoking gun” documents contained a “C,” a marking which indicates that a portion of a document is classified “confidential.” Yet their presence does nothing to call into question Clinton’s honesty when she said she did not recall seeing any documents marked classified. If any portion of a document page is classified, the page must be marked as it would be if everything on the page were classified. A “C” would be placed on a document to indicate that only the words or sentences so marked are confidential, and that other information on the page is either not classified or classified at a higher level. Without page markings and given the innocuous nature of what is often classified confidential even if Clinton had, the day after reading the documents, said she had seen no messages that were classified it would be unlikely to have reflected dishonesty. Not only does the suggestion of dishonesty disappear entirely when we are talking of three message in 30,000 recalled years after they were read, but in fact in two of the three cases “Cs” had been inadvertently left on declassified documents. Indeed, when Director Comey was asked whether Clinton should have realized that the “C” markings meant that a portion of a document was confidential, he replied that while he once might have thought that, he was no longer sure and didn’t find Clinton’s denial as incredible. If failing to recall that three of 30,000 messages on her server contained “Cs”, or failing to know that “C” stood for confidential, means that Clinton’s denial that information marked classified on her server is a “whopper,” one can only ask “Where is the beef?” It is, however, hard to see in Clinton’s statement any intent to mislead. The other email-related four Pinocchio award that Kessler gave Clinton was for her suggestion that FBI Director Comey had said her public comments on her email had been truthful. Comey did not say that. He said that the FBI had no reason to believe Clinton had lied when they interviewed her. It is, however, hard to see in Clinton’s statement any intent to mislead. As she later explained, and as is clear from Comey’s testimony before the House Committee that almost immediately challenged his decision to recommend against prosecution, the FBI interview covered the issues Clinton had addressed in her public statements and in talking to the FBI she reiterated what she had said to the public. If the FBI thought her statements to the agents who interviewed her were honest, then it is fair to suggest that the veracity of her public statements had been validated by the FBI even if her words were literally untrue. Here are some questions asked at the House hearing the day following Director Comey’s conclusion that Clinton had committed no indictable offense, together with Director Comey’s answers: Q. “Did Hillary Clinton lie?” A. “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.” Q. “Did Secretary Clinton know her legal team deleted those emails? [The reference is to emails that should have been turned over to State.] A. “I don’t believe so.” Q. “Was the reason she set up her own private server because she wanted to shield communication from Congress and the public?” A. “I can’t say that. Our best information is that she set it up as a matter of convenience.” Q. “Did Secretary Clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate federal law?” A. “We did not develop clear evidence of that.” Q. “Was she evasive?” A. I don’t think the agents assessed she was evasive.” Q. “So if Secretary Clinton was an expert at what’s classified and what’s not and were following the [classification] manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that these three documents [marked with a “C”] were not classified. Am I correct in that?” A. “That would be a reasonable inference.” Q. “Did [Clinton] lie to the FBI in that interview?” A. “I have no basis for concluding that she was untruthful with us.” The Post’s Glenn Kessler was quick to raise Clinton’s claim that she had no classified information on her server from two Pinocchios to four based on a brief statement by Director Comey, but he has not revised his judgment downward based on Comey’s more detailed comments. Indeed, his website still gives Clinton three Pinocchio’s for claiming that she set up her personal server as a matter of convenience, although this is the conclusion the FBI reached. I don’t mean to dump on Glenn Kessler. Other fact checkers have also found fault with Clinton’s statements regarding her email. Moreover, Kessler does a generally good job in ferreting out the truth and performs a public service. But I do think many people, Kessler apparently included, approach Clinton’s statements expecting they will find she lied. This colors their judgments. Also, too many people, fact checkers included, equate honest misstatements with dishonest lies. If we want to evaluate a candidate’s truthfulness, this distinction must be made. Calling misstatements Pinocchios makes for a misinformed rather than a better-informed public. I have discussed only a few evaluations of Clinton’s veracity on one narrow issue. She has, however, been accused of telling lies throughout her career. Consider Benghazi, Whitewater, and Vincent Foster’s suicide. Clinton has been accused of lying with respect to each of them. But each has been thoroughly investigated, and she has never been shown to have lied. Nevertheless, her image as a truth teller has been tarnished. Repeated charges, almost always by Republican opponents, have generated lots of smoke, and experience teaches us that if there is enough smoke, there must be a fire. Seldom do we realize that smudge pots can generate even more smoke than fire. Clinton would, no doubt, argue that her reputation for untrustworthiness is based almost entirely on smudge pot smoke, which I believe is a fair assessment. However, not every false Clinton statement reflects an opponent’s vendettas. She may be criticized for a number of “unforced errors.” But even these are likely to be misstatements and not lies. All memory is a reconstruction based on traces of what we have experienced. Memory is malleable; memories change over time and they can be implanted. Experiences may be confounded. In particular, we may confuse things we were told or experienced second hand with what actually happened. Because she has a reputation for lying and devious activities stoked by Republicans over the course of her career, people, including many journalists, are primed to attribute dishonesty to her when evidence is poorly understood or ambiguous. Clinton, like all politicians, tries to say things in ways that will most help her. This can involve taking things out of context, clever wordsmithing, dodging questions, unjustly harsh attacks and, on occasion, lying. It is how the game of politics is played in this country. But Clinton is at a disadvantage. Because she has a reputation for lying and devious activities stoked by Republicans over the course of her career, people, including many journalists, are primed to attribute dishonesty to her when evidence is poorly understood or ambiguous. We saw this recently when mainstream media reported on a document in which an FBI staffer seemed to suggest that representatives of the State Department and the FBI agent were treating a State Department request to declassify a document on Clinton’s server as a quid pro quo for approving the assignment of extra agents to a foreign embassy. The Washington Post’s headlined this story, “Hillary Clinton’s email problems just came roaring back.” This “Clinton is in trouble again” spin ignored some salient facts. The exchange occurred more than two years after Clinton had left the State Department; Clinton almost certainly did not know of the exchange, much less have input into it; Clinton had nothing to gain and may have had something to lose by declassifying the message and making its content public, declassifying one message would not have changed the narrative surrounding the presence of classified email on Clinton’s server, and if there was the suggestion of a quid pro quo it was the FBI that had requested it. Had a person other than Clinton been involved, a reporter might have noticed these facts. Rather than a front-page story, there would have been no story at all because there was no story there. A similar dynamic is at work in the readiness of the press and others to label Clinton’s misstatements “lies.” We see further evidence of how image colors perceptions in reactions to FBI Director Comey's letter informing Representative Chaffetz that the FBI had discovered messages traceable to Clinton’s private server in the course of an unrelated criminal investigation, and that the Bureau would examine them to see if they had any bearing on the FBI's inquiry into Clinton's use of a private server. Chaffetz immediately characterized this as a reopening of the investigation into Clinton's behavior, and the immediate media reaction was to accept and spread widely this interpretation. Trump went even further suggesting that Comey never would have written his letter had there not been substantial evidence that Clinton had committed a crime. Neither interpretation is correct, yet many people, including originally too many reporters, find at least the first and perhaps the second interpretation plausible. A fair reading of Comey's letter is that the most that can be said is that the FBI will examine the newly discovered email to see if there is any reason to revise its judgment about the innocence of Clinton's behavior. Moreover, Comey made clear that none of the emails had been examined, and that the FBI examination might show them to be of no significance. Yet with Clinton it seems to be guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty. Egged on by Republican politicians and the Trump campaign, many people seem willing to believe that this new email trove will contain as yet unrevealed classified information that will lead Comey to revise his decision not to recommend prosecution. The odds of this happening are, however, small. Even if previously unrevealed classified emails are found, unless they contain classification markings, nothing about them would change the basis for Comey's original judgment. There is no reason to believe that Clinton is less honest or trustworthy than most politicians, and she may well be more honest in what she tells voters than many of her more trusted peers. One can accuse Clinton of misstating facts, but among her misstatements honest errors appear far more common than intentional efforts to deceive. Indeed, the latter are hard to find. Clinton’s remarks have been closely scrutinized by her political enemies for at least 25 years. Any fact she has gotten wrong is likely to have been labeled a lie. How many have there been? And how many people would appear consistently trustworthy if their every public comment for a quarter of a century were closely scrutinized by their enemies, and any mistakes they made derided as lies? Few people would survive the endless investigations and scrutiny as well as Clinton has. And that’s the honest truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 That article is nonsense. Here's just one example. "Put yourself in Clinton’s shoes. Some three to seven years earlier you had as Secretary of State received more than 30,000 business-related emails. Thinking back over these emails, you would try to recall whether any of them had been marked classified. (Classified documents are supposed to scream out their status with “can’t miss” markings on the top and bottom of every page.) You might also, without recalling any specific messages, be certain that if you had received a document marked classified on an unsecured account you would have made certain that the message was properly handled, and you would have spoken to the person who sent it. Recalling neither seeing a message with classified markings nor doing what you know you would have done had you received a message marked classified, you might confidently assert, as Clinton did, that there was no classified information on your server." Clinton can confidently that NONE of the thousands of emails on her private were classified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Can't really see what's so wrong about Trump making this statement tbh: 85. Believes the world would be “100 percent” better if Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi were still in power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 1 hour ago, THE KING said: Refused by Obama I would refuse to answer because the thick fucker didn't put a question mark, and his name is hamburger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 29 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: That article is nonsense. Here's just one example. "Put yourself in Clinton’s shoes. Some three to seven years earlier you had as Secretary of State received more than 30,000 business-related emails. Thinking back over these emails, you would try to recall whether any of them had been marked classified. (Classified documents are supposed to scream out their status with “can’t miss” markings on the top and bottom of every page.) You might also, without recalling any specific messages, be certain that if you had received a document marked classified on an unsecured account you would have made certain that the message was properly handled, and you would have spoken to the person who sent it. Recalling neither seeing a message with classified markings nor doing what you know you would have done had you received a message marked classified, you might confidently assert, as Clinton did, that there was no classified information on your server." Clinton can confidently that NONE of the thousands of emails on her private were classified? "the emails apparently didn't contain any header or footer markings indicating that some information in the message was classified" http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-fbi-report-classified-markings-2016-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 57 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: "the emails apparently didn't contain any header or footer markings indicating that some information in the message was classified" http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-fbi-report-classified-markings-2016-9 So she can say, without any doubt, that none of the thousands of emails were not so marked? I find that hard to believe. "Apparently" is very different to "definitely" or "certainly". It's the classic way of caveating a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: So she can say, without any doubt, that none of the thousands of emails were not so marked? I find that hard to believe. "Apparently" is very different to "definitely" or "certainly". It's the classic way of caveating a statement. I'd imagine her staff could have searched for any emails marked with a "C" fairly quickly, and if there were any to check if they contained any that had content that had national security implications or were merely confidential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 FBI Director Comey getting it in the neck from both sides: http://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/chm_ltr_to_director_comey_response_to_fbi_28_oct_ltr_to_cmte--31_oct_16.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 7 minutes ago, welshbairn said: I'd imagine her staff could have searched for any emails marked with a "C" fairly quickly, and if there were any to check if they contained any that had content that had national security implications or were merely confidential. So Clinton's staff would have been authorised to look through all her emails on the private server, including those that could have been classified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 1 minute ago, Bishop Briggs said: So Clinton's staff would have been authorised to look through all her emails on the private server, including those that could have been classified? I've no idea, but as she thought that there were no state secrets on them and the FBI said there weren't any, it wouldn't have breached national security to take a peek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.