Hillary says the families of the Benghazi dead are liars

Loading

hero of bosnia

 

It was nearly twenty years ago. William Safire had her pegged. He said Hillary Clinton was a “congenital liar.”

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.

2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton’s cronies.

Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be “hell to pay” if the furious First Lady’s desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary’s lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.

3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man’s office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary’s lie with jail terms.

In a recent Quinnipiac poll voters were asked to describe Hillary Clinton in a single word and the word they chose was “liar.” There were others, of course:

Of 1,563 voters surveyed by Quinnipiac University, 178 said “liar” was the first thing that popped into their heads in association with Clinton — followed by 123 who chose “dishonest” and 93 who said “untrustworthy.”

Even the loathsome Linda Stasi of the New York Daily News nailed Hillary:

Question: Is it worse for a news anchor to lie about being forced down by enemy fire in Iraq than it is for a perennial presidential candidate to lie about ducking sniper fire — with her young daughter, yet — in Bosnia?

Both are horrible, but it’s worse for Hillary Clinton, who expects to run the country, to lie about something like this than it is for a blow-dried TV anchor to lie.

The fact that Brian Williams and Clinton (inset with daughter) thought they’d get away with their outrageous war stories despite there being living, breathing witnesses, video and now social media, is bizarrely disturbing. The hubris of the famous in believing that they can get away with lying forever because they are above it all never fails to astound. And never fails to happen.

Via Legal Insurrection a useful video:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/8k1-PdKfKX0[/youtube]

 

Lists of Hillary Clinton lies can be found here and here.

She wanted to join the Marines.

She wanted to be an Astronaut.

Clinton has claimed that she got a letter from NASA Public Affairs that stated that the space agency was not taking women astronauts, a slap in the face of her girlhood ambitions to be an astronaut. Oberg, having researched the matter thoroughly, cannot find a copy of the letter or even an example of such a letter, which is to say that females need not apply.

But now she has sunk to a new low. She is accusing the families of the Benghazi dead of being liars.

Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: Hillary Clinton still insists she didn’t tell the grieving families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Islam video was to blame.

Yet family members say she said just that, three days after the attack, at the Sept. 14, 2012, ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base.

George Stephanopoulos asked her Sunday if she’d told the victims it was about the film. Clinton gave a flat “no.”

She added: “I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um . . .”

The families remember things differently.

Tyrone Woods’ father said he hugged Clinton and shook her hand. Then “she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son . . . She said ‘the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son.’ ”

Sean Smith’s mother said Hillary is “absolutely lying . . . She said it was because of the video.” Smith’s uncle backs her up.

Glen Doherty’s sister agreed: “When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”

It’s one thing to claim that at the age of six you were named after Sir Edmund Hillary. It’s quite another to call the grieving families of the dead liars.

Perhaps it’s no surprise coming from someone who sleeps through meetings, is often confused, can’t remember how many devices is more than one, and has suffered brain damage. She’s absolutely a liar. The question is, does she even understand that?

 

I told you it would be a problem.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
71 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Just love watching tbaggers twist and turn to slime Hillary with made up crap and long since stories put to rest.

@Reem:

and here we have the very flower of liberalism

Did you put your fingers in your ears and go “AYAYAYAYAYAYAAY” while you were typing that?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa

@Reem:

Because Obama said so?

LOL

@Reem:

Y’all stay classy now, y’hear? Moron.

the lies come out of the former sec. of slut clinton’s mouth faster than her lips can move. she and the whore dog husband moved 23 million in two vans, two days before they left the wipe house. she has a compulsive lying disorder which is treated with antidepressants , antipsychotics and extensive psychological counselling . part of this disorder includes low self esteem and delusional behaviour.
There is no real cure for this disoder

Here’s a politically incorrect question: Why should we automatically trust the accuracy of statements made by particular members of the families of Woods, Smith, or Doherty?

They’re not the only family members, are they? They’re not necessarily even the closest. They’re just the ones who have made politically exploitable statements, and, in some cases, political attack ads. They don’t speak for all family members, nor do they speak for the dead themselves.

One political attack ad goes so far as to have a voice-over speaking as Sean Smith, from beyond the grave: “I’d like to hear why you tried to silence the Benghazi whistleblower,” the ghost asks. Another voice speaks as Tyrone Woods: “I’d like to know why you lied saying the attack was a response to an Internet video.”

This level of dishonest political exploitation is utterly contemptible. It’s a disgrace. Here’s what a couple of close family members have said in response:

Reached by phone, Mary Commanday, (Ambassador) Stevens’ mother, was furious. “I think it’s a terrible idea and if I could sue him I would,” said Commanday, who lives near Oakland, Calif. She watched the debate but only learned of the commercial after a Post reporter described it to her. “It’s an insult to someone who is dead. I think it’s a wrong use for the reputation of my son.”

Barbara Doherty, 81, was equally irate. “It’s horrifying,” she said. “I am so upset they’d have my son talking from the grave, saying don’t vote for this person. He wasn’t political. He would never have done something like this.”

@Greg:

Why should we automatically trust the accuracy of statements made by particular members of the families of Woods, Smith, or Doherty?

I guess because they are the people that Hillary spoke to. Tell me this: when, as we know, it was decided that blaming the video was going to the the spin the White House and State Department was going to go with, and in fact, what Susan Rice went out and communicated on numerous Sunday news shows, why would Hillary tell these people the actual truth and undercut her and her boss’ strategy?

Why should anybody give a good g-dd-mn that the video was cited as a cause in early assessments of the Benghazi attack? During the same time frame, the video was a factor in demonstrations and violence centering on U.S. embassies all across the Islamic world. It was a logical assumption.

All of this followed a series of violent and sometimes deadly demonstrations and revenge attacks triggered by perceived insults to Islam. However crazy it might seem, such extremist responses are one fairly predictable result of deliberate provocations.

Admit the little lie to obfuscate the real scandal. Let’s all focus our attention on the finger pointing towards the sky and miss all that heavenly glory.

The video being cited as the cause early in investigation isn’t the issue. The issue is that’s what she said and is now denying it.

@Justin, #10:

The issue is that’s what she said and is now denying it.

According to three obviously hostile family members, who may or may not remember her exact words any better than she does.

The video idea has been so thoroughly debunked that it’s pathetic Clinton’s worshippers still refer to it.

Clinton and her boss–you know, the guy so broken up about the attack that the next day he flew off to a fundraiser–knew it wasn’t a video. In the 60 Minutes piece, she said she never said it, yet for YEARS now at least three people have said she DID say it–why would they make that up?

The fact is, Hillary SAID it was the video, but her own flippin’ e-mails say–that night–she told her daughter it wasn’t.

Why do her worshippers still say it was? Get your marching orders straight.

Hillary Clinton is a liar. This can be proven.

Joe Biden had to leave the presidential race many years ago because he lied about his background, stealing another politician’s life story to embellish his own.

Yet Hillary’s worshippers stand by her when she has lied more often, and about more important things.

Don’t you people have any standards beyond “She can beat the other guys”?

@Greg:

Because I remember Rhodes saying all should keep the focus on the video and not the failure of their policy.

Liars all

@Reem:

Are you really that stupid?

You have to realize there are indeed government agents on every single message board on the internet constantly doing damage control. That’s why what they say does not make sense and they ignore facts. It’s just to try and steer you away from repeating the issue.

@Reem: Sorry libturd the slime belongs to her, no twisting needed!!

@Greg:

What a low life you are. You disparage the families of those who sacrificed their blood in the defense of our nation for Hillary, and her lies.

Why should anybody give a good g-dd-mn that the video was cited as a cause in early assessments of the Benghazi attack?

Because it was an outright lie. Susan Rice pushed the video meme on five (COUNT THEM, GREGGIE GOEBBELS, F-I-V-E TV SHOWS). It was a lie then, and it’s still a lie.

During the same time frame, the video was a factor in demonstrations and violence centering on U.S. embassies all across the Islamic world. It was a logical assumption.

Really? What demonstrations? Benghazi? Nope. Cairo? Nope. A CNN reporter interviewed the leaders of the Cairo protests and those leaders stated, without equivocation, that they were protesting for the release of the Blink Sheik, not some obscure internet video.

What a sad, pathetic little man you are.

@retire05:

This page needs a ‘like’ button. Well said.

@Greg:

Why should anybody give a good g-dd-mn that the video was cited as a cause in early assessments of the Benghazi attack?

Well, I know why YOU don’t… because it is a liberal lie and the means always justifies the ends, the ends in this case being winning an election despite ignoring security threats to our national security and lying about the predictable results.

However, some others feel that when a national leader shows incompetence and ineptitude, then lies to cover it up it disqualifies them from consideration for office. In this case, it goes for both Obama and Hillary. Again, you don’t care about liars because you trust they are always lying to and about someone else, but liars lie for a reason and that reason is usually corruption of some kind. That certainly holds true in this case.

According to three obviously hostile family members, who may or may not remember her exact words any better than she does.

You know why they are now hostile? They WEREN’T hostile at the funeral… why did they become hostile, Greg?

Because they learned, as we all have (those that CAN learn) that Hillary got their loved ones killed needlessly, then lied to them about her failure TO THEIR FACES, at the FUNERAL. I’m kind of hostile about it, too.

Hillary is a despicable human being and she barely qualifies as a human.

@retire05, #21:

What a low life you are. You disparage the families of those who sacrificed their blood in the defense of our nation for Hillary, and her lies.

Don’t waste your twisted, pseudo-patriotic propaganda spin that it’s the left that’s showing disregard for the feelings of their families on me. Save it for those in the right-wing peanut gallery. The right has crassly exploited the Benghazi dead for three straight years, now going so far as to display images of their faces while other voices co-opt their identities and presume to speak their thoughts. Their closest family members have clearly stated that the views expressed would in no way represent those who were lost, and have just as clearly stated that they are insulted and horrified by this exploitation. (Refer to the same article for confirmation of this fact.)

Are you OK with this?

Really? What demonstrations? Benghazi? Nope. Cairo? Nope. A CNN reporter interviewed the leaders of the Cairo protests and those leaders stated, without equivocation, that they were protesting for the release of the Blind Sheik, not some obscure internet video.

Anybody with a brain knows the video was relevant. The man the CNN reporter was talking to was the Blind Sheik’s brother. That’s what his own primary interest in the demonstration was about. What would you expect him to say? He led the reporter to the area that was his own group’s staging point for the march. Where would you expect him to lead the reporter? The right-wing echo chamber immediately fixated on the goofy meme that the entire Cairo demonstration—as well as dozens of other violent and deadly demonstrations that erupted across the Muslim world— was about the Blind Sheik, because they needed to diminish the relevance of The Innocence of Muslims to fit their bullshit Benghazi narrative.

You’re surely aware that there had already been a series of high-profile incidents where anti-Islamic provocations had triggered mob violence. Given the fact that the video—originally released in English on YouTube in July, 2012—had been dubbed into Arabic and distributed on Arabic-language media outlets in early September, it’s obvious that purposeful calculation was involved. Anyone who doesn’t grasp so simple a thing is almost certainly clueless about a lot more.

@Greg:

The right has crassly exploited the Benghazi dead for three straight years, The right has crassly exploited the Benghazi dead for three straight years, now going so far as to display images of their faces while other voices co-opt their identities and presume to speak their thoughts.

No, the left, who caused their deaths, have sh*t on their graves to cover their own worthless careers.

The video was NOT relevant. Even Hillary stated as much in private. However, it made for a good excuse as to why terrorists that were supposed to be defeated, decimated and on the run had just sacked a consulate on 9/11 (who’d a thought THAT date would have relevance?)… for idiots. However, a few people don’t believe spontaneous protesters carry GPS targeted mortars pre-sighted in on a CIA safe house. Hillary is a liar that lied. Even worse, you KNOW it and yet you still defend he sorry, sagging ass.

No, the left, who caused their deaths, have sh*t on their graves to cover their own worthless careers.

That’s not what their closest family members are saying, is it? But that inconvenient fact is ignored entirely. Just like the relevance of the video.

@DrJohn: Maybe you would be a little hostile too if one of your family members requested more security multiple times and was ignored and that family member ended up dead. Why do you think they are hostile ?
More than 600 security requests related to Libya and Benghazi that came in in 2012 before the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack none ever reached her desk. No one was fired

@Greg:

Don’t waste your twisted, pseudo-patriotic propaganda spin that it’s the left that’s showing disregard for the feelings of their families on me.

For Hillary to trash the families of those slaughtered in Benghazi is lower than despicable, and for you to continue to defend her, show how despicable you are. Even if Hillary never said that to the families of the slaughtered, you can’t rewind the history of Susan Rice going on 5 (note, FIVE) Sunday talk shows claiming the video was responsible for the attack. Rice was speaking for this Administration.

pseudo-patriotic propaganda?

Do you even know what that means? You read that somewhere and thought it would make you sound intelligent. Major fail on your part.

Hillary is a low life. She recently said that women who claim rape should be believed. What about the women her husband raped? Did she believe them, or did she do her damn level best to destroy those women?

And being the moron you are, you link to a video that clearly states that it shows that the protest was NOT due to some obscure video. Do you even read what you link? But thanks for that. It proves what I initially said.

You continually defend the indefensible, i.e. this Administration and its actions. I can only assume you have destroyed your brain with too many illicit drugs.

@retire05, #28:

pseudo-patriotic propaganda?

Do you even know what that means? You read that somewhere and thought it would make you sound intelligent.

Yes. I know exactly what that statement means, although you’re evidently unable to figure the criticism out:

“You disparage the families of those who sacrificed their blood in the defense of our nation for Hillary, and her lies.”

It means that you’re attempting to cast the Benghazi dead as patriotic right-wing martyrs who have become the victims of your political opponents. In order to do this, words and opinions are being identified with the dead that their closest family members unequivocally state they never would have spoken and never actually held.

@Greg: A mother and a father are pretty close. The State has not replaced parents YET, Greg.

They obviously do not speak for all Benghazi family members. They speak only for themselves. It’s not right to suggest otherwise.

Pretending that the dead endorse partisan views is reprehensible. They’re being shamelessly exploited.

LOL I love how one ad represents The Right, and that’s the end of the debate because The Right made this stupid ad (which I for one never saw or heard of before now, so I guess I’m not part of The Right).

@Reem: just remember the things that hillary and obama do and have done affect ALL parties. Don’t be so ignorant. hillary’s servers were hacked by China, Russia and Iran. What other country has information that was highly classified (SI compartmented) that places our nation’s security at risk. Perhaps the only way it will convince people like you is if a tragedy happens in your neighborhood or to your family or friends. horrific to say, however sometimes it take reality close to home for people to realize.

As far as Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens was left to die by hillary with the approval of obama. Stevens was running guns (now in the hands of ISIS) and he was going to testify before Congress. They needed to silence him before the election and this was just perfect.

Our country is in dire straits. We are sinking very fast.

@Greg: Ah. The parents don’t speak for them. I think a Mother is the ultimate voice to be heard. I guess you and Hillary are waging a War on Mothers that have lost children to Obama’s and Hillary’s negligence.

Interesting view there, Greg. If the PARENTS don’t comport themselves to the liberal talking points, they don’t get an opinion on the needless deaths of their children. Like Cindy Sheehan… right?

No, the victims of Obama’s and Hillary’s lack of interest don’t have a voice in the matter. They’re DEAD. I bet, if they could speak for themselves, they would recommend a rescue mission had tried to save their lives.

Too funny. look at all the loony tbaggers twisting and tuning in their narrative of lies and conjecture.

@Bill, #33:

Ah. The parents don’t speak for them. I think a Mother is the ultimate voice to be heard.

I guess you’re entirely free to go ahead and pretend that Mary Commanday, Ambassador Chris Steven’s mother, doesn’t exist, or didn’t recently say what she said.

You can also continue to ignore what his father, Jan Stevens, wrote in June 2013, less than a year after the attack:

“Chris was not willing to be the kind of diplomat who would strut around in fortified compounds. He amazed and impressed the Libyans by walking the streets with the lightest of escorts, sitting in sidewalk cafes, chatting with passers-by. There was a risk to being accessible. He knew it, and he accepted it.

“What Chris never would have accepted was the idea that his death would be used for political purposes. There were security shortcomings, no doubt. Both internal and outside investigations have identified and publicly disclosed them. Steps are being taken to prevent their recurrence.

“Chris would not have wanted to be remembered as a victim. Chris knew, and accepted, that he was working under dangerous circumstances. He did so — just as so many of our diplomatic and development professionals do every day — because he believed the work was vitally important.”

@Greg:

It means that you’re attempting to cast the Benghazi dead as patriotic right-wing martyrs who have become the victims of your political opponents. In order to do this, words and opinions are being identified with the dead that their closest family members unequivocally state they never would have spoken and never actually held.

No, it means that the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton in particular, allowed those men to die when all indicators are there was help available but golly gee, Obama, who ran on being a peace time president, had another election to win. The fact that you would claim the right is politicizing the deaths of those four men for political expediency is just another example of the hypocrite you are. Anyone with two brain cells bumping together knew that Obama could not afford to tell the truth about Benghazi without risking his reelection.

The ad which you refer to, and which I never saw, was objected to by the families but not for the reason you want to portray. They were never consulted. THAT is what they objected to. Read your own links, moron.

You keep referring to Ambassador Stevens parents. What about Pat Smith? Do you discount her because she can’t even get the respect from the Obama administration she deserves? I wonder how they felt when Hillary touted their son as such a good friend, but then she never again spoke to him once she installed him as Ambassador. Perhaps you liberals think you can call someone a friend you never have any contact with. You do have so strange ideas. That’s what makes you a liberal.

You are a terrible person, Greggie Goebbels. Your only purpose here is to parrot DNC talking points. But I read Saul Alinsky long ago and I know what you’re up to. And it stinks, just like Hillary’s lies.

No, my words meant precisely what I told you they mean. I would know that better than you, owing to the fact that I’m the one who wrote them.

You can put words in the mouths of people who can’t disclaim them, the dead being in no position to defend themselves, but you don’t get away with that with me.

@Greg:

I guess you’re entirely free to go ahead and pretend that Mary Commanday, Ambassador Chris Steven’s mother, doesn’t exist, or didn’t recently say what she said.

Just as you choose to ignore what the others said about Hillary lying to their faces? No, I don’t ignore what she said, but that is her opinion of what Romney was doing. What we are talking about is what a current (not long past) candidate for President of the United States said and is saying. Romney was not LYING, Greg. Hillary LIED. Obama LIED. And they did it to shed responsibility.

By the way, didn’t Obama, a person you feel cannot misstate, make a mistake or utter a falsehood, someone you worship as a god on earth, say that some issues SHOULD be exploited? IF Romney actually did that, was he not doing only what Obama later said was OK? Or, is that only OK to you when a liberal does it, like using the IRS as a political weapon or kicking sick people off their insurance despite promising NOT to?

Perhaps Stevens did not shirk duty in dangerous locations. But, he wasn’t stupid. HE paid attention to the threat analysis and had concerns.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/docs-show-amb-stevens-asked-for-more-security/

Hillary, of course, ignored those calls. Or, more specifically, didn’t bother to give Stevens her number or her secret email address. As a result, he is now dead, along with three others. Then, Hillary lied about it.

Hillary now says we should try love and understanding to defeat terrorism. She didn’t show those four guys much love… she hung them out there to swing because withdrawing or protecting them did not fit well into the political narrative of the time. This is who you are defending, Greg. Give it some thought.

@retire05:

You keep referring to Ambassador Stevens parents. What about Pat Smith? Do you discount her because she can’t even get the respect from the Obama administration she deserves?

Greg and Hillary discount Ms. Smith as a despicable liar that will not accept the sacrifice of her son so that Obama and Hillary can carry out their political careers. I mean…. priorities.

@Bill, #39:

Just as you choose to ignore what the others said about Hillary lying to their faces? No, I don’t ignore what she said, but that is her opinion of what Romney was doing. What we are talking about is what a current (not long past) candidate for President of the United States said and is saying.

The comment is current. It was made by Ambassador Smith’s mother only a month ago, in response to the content of a Stop Hillary paid political attack ad broadcast on October 13, 2015 during the Democratic presidential debate. It was shoved straight into the faces of the audience most likely to be offended by it.

The statement from Barbara Doherty, the mother of Glen Doherty, dates from the same period.

The scheduling of Clinton’s subpoenaed testimony before Congress a few days later was clearly intended to be part of a combination knock-out punch. Unfortunately Clinton was still seething about the attack ad, and pretty much beat the crap out of the idiots on national television during the course of the 11-hour match. What happened was the Republican’s own fault. They put their own crassness, opportunism, and stupidity squarely in the spotlight. Late in the day, as realization was finally setting in, ringmaster Trent Gowdy was sweating his makeup off. They thought they’d mob and roll over Clinton, but instead she rolled over them like a Sherman tank. I could almost hope for a Trump nomination, just to see what might be revealed during a one-on-one debate.

@Greg: It is indeed unfortunate that Benghazi is one of the examples of Hillary’s incompetence and dishonesty, but it is. And, to keep her from having the opportunity to cause even more needless deaths due to her ignorance, corruption and lack of concern for lives, this example must be made clear to the American voter.

It is also important that she be held responsible for her failure as Secretary of State. Should she get elected (or even nominated) as President, she would have escaped that responsibility.

Since she is a liberal, you obviously don’t care about her poor judgement, politicizing of national security, her responsibility for the deaths of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods or the lies she has told to attempt to escape responsibility.

I can understand why the GOP hopes to engage in successful character assassination, since they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election any other way. I think they’ve got an insurmountable Trump problem on their hands. They’ll either have to embrace his extremism and unpredictability—which I doubt a majority of all American voters are willing to do do—or deal with a third party spoiler.

Character assassination = Talking about what Hillary Clinton has said and done.

@Greg: Think o this Greg how many Dems would switch from the lying old bag to Trump if he broke from the GOP He could actually win.

@JSW: One would have to have some character to assassinate for their to be assassination.

@Greg: My God! Are you that mendacious, Machiavellian, or simply weapons-grade stupid? I am leaning toward the latter.

At the time of the attack upon our consulate in Benghazi, hardly anyone had seen the video that according to the current administration had incited so much violence.

Pray tell Mr. Greg Beclownishpants, for what purpose was the diplomatic consulate placed in Benghazi? Why were requests for additional security measures and/or personnel unheeded? What was their diplomatic mission? Why were military assets told to stand down when they clearly could have reached the situation in time to help the people on the ground? Why do all of the family members of the fallen tell a similar tale of their interaction with Madame Secretary, and why do you and she now cast them as liars? Why do you continually piss on our legs and tell us it is raining?

@Greg: Anybody with a brain knows the video was relevant.

Like you know what it means to have ever been burdened with a brain!

No numbnuts, the video that at the time of the consular attack virtually no one had watched had next to nothing to do with the ensuing attack. Madame Secretary emailed her own daughter as much the night it occurred.

I guess I should give you credit for a nice try, but I find your idiotic parroting of DNC talking points too obviously, provably, and in all other ways wrong as to discredit any and all of your fulminations.

@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, your integrity when it comes to character assassination is more smelly than a pile of crap in the middle of the sewer!! You attempted to assassinate Romeny’s character relevant to his tax returns with NO proof, you accused Bush of lying relevant to Iraq with NO proof, you support a failed President who lied about his healthcare plan and even admitted it and yet you could not bring yourself to agree that he lied, you support a President who stated Al Qaeda is on their heels, you supported a President who said we have a stable Iraq, you supported a President who said ISIS was a jv team of teachers and farmers, and you support a President who said ISIS was contained!! Now you support Hilldabeast when the evidence points directly to her lies!! The blood of Benghazi is on her hands you idiotic libturd MORON!!

You’re an idiot!

http://louderwithcrowder.com/caught-top-5-hillary-clinton-lies/

@Reem:

You’re an idiot!

http://louderwithcrowder.com/caught-top-5-hillary-clinton-lies/