Tell the truth? Hillary aint got no time for that.

Tell the truth? Hillary aint got no time for that. | I DON'T ALWAYS LIE OH WAIT, YES I DO | image tagged in hillary clinton,hillary,memes,funny memes,bernie sanders,the most interesting man in the world | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Philosoraptor Meme | IF HILLARY CLINTON SAYS "I ALWAYS LIE," IS THAT A LIE, TOO? | image tagged in memes,philosoraptor | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
:)
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Maury Lie Detector Meme | HILLARY CLINTON SAID "I ALWAYS LIE" THE LIE DETECTOR TEST MALFUNCTIONED | image tagged in memes,maury lie detector | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up
BACH | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up
liars paradox
reply
1 up
Abra-Hill Clinton I'll TRY not to lie! 2016 | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up
Brian Williams: The Most Interesting Man In The World | I DON'T ALWAYS LIE, BUT WHEN I DO, AT LEAST I'M NOT HILLARY. | image tagged in brian williams the most interesting man in the world | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
(Brian Williams)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Grumpy Cat Meme | THIS SHOULD OFFEND THE HILLARY HATERS. | image tagged in memes,grumpy cat | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
If someone lies about Hillary lying, you believe it because it's what you want to believer.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
No, Hillary has admitted many of her lies publicly, google is your friend. lol
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
She lied about sending and receiving classified government emails on her unsecure private home server. (according to the law, it doesn't matter if the documents were *marked* classified or not, it only matters that the info could be used to damage national security. Obama's own State Department has confirmed that 22 of the emails cannot even be made public because they would cause "exceptionally grave damage to America's national security if disclosed.") She lied about the Benghazi attack, public record, look it up. She admitted lying about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, public record, look it up. She lied when discussing immigrant stories, she said all of her grandparents were immigrants when clearly only one of them was, public record, look it up. She lied and said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary who became famous for climbing Mount Everest, the only problem is, he didn't become famous until she was 6 years old, public record, look it up. LOL! She has lied about her opponent's voting record, public record, look it up. She has lied about her own voting record, public record, look it up.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 2 replies
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
But of course, glad you asked. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Okay, that establishes that you are using Poltifact's rulings as your basis.. now compare that to the other candidates and see who the actual massive liars are (Hint: she comes in as roughly tied for most honest).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/fact-checking-2016-gop-presidential-candidates/
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Here's her percentages to compare to the 3 GOP candidates-- she and Kasich are the honest ones:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Why da fuq are you telling me about the republican candidates? I already know they are corrupt. I'm not a republican. And to make the argument that Hillary should get a pass because she, "only lies just as frequently as these other guys," is a profoundly ridiculous defense.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
No, read again, the point is she DOESN'T lie as frequently as the other candidates. When they all lie, calling the one who lies the least the liar is just ridiculous.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You just said, "She comes in as roughly tied for most honest." LOL All you did was compare her to the GOP. Compare her to Bernie and she is clearly a center-right oligarch/kleptocrat.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
False:
Poltifact percentages--
Sanders "Half True" or above--70%
Clinton "Half True" or above-- 72%

basically, exactly what I said.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Look at the types* of things Hillary is lying about and you will see there is a BIG difference. LOL
reply
0 ups
And that gets us full circle back to the start... name one of these "egregious lies"... ones that are so different and worse than those of the other candidates.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_S9JQIdVUk
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Sir or ma'am, with all due respect, Hillary lies all the f**king time. Those politifact examples are just a small sample. And no, it's not just "right wing" propaganda, if you would have actually watched the youtube video you would have seen that even the fake liberal media outlets like CNN that are VERY COZY with Hillary are reporting that she did have classified info. It makes no difference if it is *MARKED* classified or not, the *TYPE OF INFO* determines if it is classified regardless of whether or not it is stamped "classified." LOL The case is still ongoing, so you really have no idea what the result will be or what crimes she may have committed. FBI will decide if she should be indicted, and there are already agents saying that if she isn't recommended for an indictment they will go public. LOL
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Wow, just wow. LOL Where to start... I guess you are unaware that the dude who set up Hillary's email server has now been granted immunity. Sooooooo you know what that means, something illegal was going on and he is about to spill the beans! :D You obviously don't have a clue as to how the law about classified information works, so I suggest you watch the youtube video I posted, it will make it all very clear for you. As I already said, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THE INFORMATION WAS ***MARKED*** CLASSIFIED OR NOT. THE SENSITIVITY OF THE INFORMATION ON THE DOCUMENTS IS THE BENCHMARK FOR WHETHER OR NOT IT IS DEEMED "CLASSIFIED", ***REGARDLESS*** OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ACTUALLY ***MARKED*** CLASSIFIED. LOL There was PLENTY of classified information found, actually, there was information that was ABOVE classified, "top secret" etc. This is reported by mainstream media outlets such as CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc. For you to suggest that I have "rightwing political beliefs" is f**king hilarious. I have been a registered democrat my entire life and have never voted for a republican. I WISH THEY WOULD investigate Bush, Cheney, and all the rest of them. They should all be tried for war crimes, and Hillary has the exact same blood on her hands for voting for the Iraq war.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
No, at this point its clear YOU don't have any idea about classified information.
One more time:
None.Of.The.Emails.Was.Classified.At.That.Time.
It doesn't matter how many are retroactively classified (hint: by other agencies), none of it was classified at that time, end of story. It's not that hard to understand, let ygo of the rightwwing propaganda and read up on the facts.

And you sure are lapping up the rightwing propaganda and blathering about "fake liberal media outlets" for someone who claims to be a lifelong Democrat, lol.
PS-- the fellow who set up her server was granted immunity to protect him from nitpicking technical rules-- again, Clinton has wanted him to testify from the start
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The fact that you didn't review the information I provided tells me you just aren't interested in having a real discussion at all. CNN, New York Times, FOX, MSNBC, everyone reporting the same thing, that Clinton did send and recieve classified information, and that according to the law, it makes no difference if the documents were *marked* classified or not. Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of gaining her security clearance which CLEARLY STATES that sensitive information should be CONSIDERED AND HANDLED AS CLASSIFIED, *EVEN IF NOT MARKED AS SUCH*. Since you refuse to do your own due diligence, here's Joe Scarborough spelling it out for you on MSNBC, "The State Department Inspectors Generals say they found classified material sent TO and FROM Clinton's Chappaqua home banked server, even though they only had acces to a small sample of 40 emails. Of those, they found that 4 contained government secrets. That is, information that if exposed, could potentially harm national security. It's information that is meant to be transferred and stored *exclusively* on secure computer networks with special safeguards. Put in perspective, Hillary Clinton turned in over 30,000 emails she said were 'work related.' Hillary Clinton now claims the documents weren't classified quote "at the time," but again, the inspectors general say they were, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T MARKED CLASSIFIED. The Obama administration inspectors generals looked at the information in the emails Clinton provided and made a preliminary finding that she WAS AND IS WRONG. They say the information, some from the CIA and some from the NSA was *CLEARLY* CLASSIFIED WHEN IT WAS SENT, AND IT'S CLASSIFIED NOW, AND IT'S *ALWAYS* BEEN CLASSIFIED!!!" What you don't seem to understand is that the information is classified not because it's marked, but because of WHAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINS. The marking is put on BECAUSE IT'S CLASSIFIED, it's not classified BECAUSE OF THE MARKING. Does that make any sense???

New York Times Headline: 22 Clinton Emails Deemed Too Classified To Be Made Public.

You also clearly misinterpreted my comment about "fake liberal media outlets." I wasn't saying they are bad for being liberal, I was saying they *pretend* to be liberal but really aren't. Why do you think they are biased towards Hillary and against Bernie Sanders? She is a republican posing as a democrat. Bernie is a real liberal, certified civil rights activist while Hillary was campaigning for Barry Goldwater.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Your sources are 6-8 months stale, biased (lol, Joe Scarborough, Republican ex-Congressman, really?), and not looking at the actual laws and regulations-- you clearly did not read the Washington Post link I provided which also links to the LEGAL rundown of the actual laws (see below). Whether it was classified at the time DOES matter and was one of SEVERAL known elements that shows there can be no indictment of her. She will not be indicted because she broke no laws-- in fact SHE as the final arbiter of what was classified or not while she was the Secretary, so, again... None.Of.The.Emails.Were.Classified. Another hint: she RECEIVED THEM. If the FBI would look at ANYONE for charges, it is the senders. Every single person who EVER sent or received emails in the State Department, DOD, White House, etc., could be "indicted" by the argument you are makling that noted classification at the time does not matter, lol.
Your continued imagining that she could be indicted is due to your continued lapping up of OLD propaganda -- if not radical right, you are a radical left Bernie fan desperate for something to keep her from her inevetible nomination.

Here is the bit from the link below that bears reading until understood:
"What determines whether information is classified?

Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority

Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “[i]f there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made."

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis
reply
0 ups
LOL Bruh, I'm sorry but you are in denial. To reject an objective news report simply because it comes from a republican ex-congressman is beyond imprudent. Of course the source is 8 months old, that's when the information CAME OUT! LOL! Every single other news outlet is reporting THE EXACT SAME THING, so your ridiculous knee-jerk argument that this is all partisan rhetoric has been thoroughly debunked. We know for an absolute fact that AT LEAST 22 OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE TOO SENSITIVE TO EVEN BE MADE PUBLIC! New York Times! LOL! There is material that is ABOVE CLASSIFIED! (TOP SECRET etc!) LOL! This is not Joe Scarborough saying the emails were classified, this is the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION INSPECTORS GENERALS! LOL! Man, you are so stuck on this 'not marked "classified'" argument that you are failing to understand THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE! The regulation you cited is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! LOL! Those are simply regulations that deal with how information is originally *marked* classified, which if you do your homework, you will know, HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL LAW! LOL! If you read statue that is ACTUALLY APPLICABLE in this case, 18 USC 793, you will see that IT DOES NOT EVEN MENTION THE WORD "CLASSIFIED." LOL! The focus is on “INFORMATION RESPECTING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” LOL! The following is from the Inspectors Generals report: "These emails were not retro­actively classified by the State Department, rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” *INSPECTORS GENERALS REPORT!* LOL! NOT SOME REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN! The FBI is going after her as we speak! Why do you think she just hired a lawyer? There have also been recent leaks that they are investigating shady Clinton Foundation deals as well! Are you aware that another federal judge has just granted a motion for discovery into her server, citing INDICATIONS OF WRONGDOING AND BAD FAITH? Shit is getting DEEP! LOL!
reply
1 up, 2 replies
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/03/what-everyone-with-a-top-secret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/
If you point a gun at a guy and then claim you thought the gun wasn't loaded, you'll still get in trouble for it. Hillary didn't treat sensitive information (regarding national security issues) as if it were classified. Such information is required to be assumed classified, much like guns should be considered ready to fire, regardless of whether or not they truly are. Hillary also didn't use a classified system for the information, which is something she was required to do.
I don't know why you can't see that someone who doesn't protect our country's information should be put behind bars.
reply
0 ups
Because it wasn't classified. It's as simple as that. Her server was likely set up to not allow classified headers through. Classifying it in hindsight is interagency politics.
We're talking stuff like "Secretary Clinton will be speaking at the UN today"-- stuff that was put out in press releases it was so unclassified.

Your analogy is false, a more correct one would be handing someone a gift wrapped box that has been through metal detectors to prevent guns because the person receiving the gift specifically has stated she does not want guns, and then charging the her for the 3D printed plastic gun barrel in the box, even though it might also just be a plumbing pipe.

It's just radical right propaganda, endlessly repeated, because that is their only basis to attack her-- they lose if they debate the issues.

Again, ZERO of the emails were classified at the time.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Ps-- that blog you cite is over 8 months old and full of false and bad ideas with respect to the law (the author is not an attorney) and this situation. Here is a more current run down of the laws:
http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis
reply
0 ups
Here is the bit that bears reading until understood:
"What determines whether information is classified?

Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority

Standards for classifying information and procedures to be followed are found in EO 15326 and elaborated on in later regulations. The regulations provide that information “may be originally classified” only if classified by an “original classification authority” and if certain conditions relating to the source of the information and the need to protect it are met. The regulations also provide that “[i]f there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Within the State Department, Secretary Clinton was the original classification authority and those in the department who had original classification authority had it only by virtue of a delegation from her. As the font of their authority Clinton could legally override any classification determination a subordinate made."
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I DON'T ALWAYS LIE; OH WAIT, YES I DO
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback