Patterico's Pontifications


Michael Walsh: Hillary’s Million Little Lies

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:03 pm

I guess we’re supposed to remain silent about this stuff because much of it is old — but she’s been lying her whole life:

To hear Hillary Clinton tell it, she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the conqueror of Mount Everest — even though she was already 6 years old when he made his famous ascent.

On a visit to war-torn Bosnia in 1996, she claimed she and her entourage landed under sniper fire and had to run “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base” — although videos of her arrival show her waltzing serenely across the tarmac, waving to the crowd.

She blamed the 2012 attack on American diplomatic and intelligence-gathering installations in Benghazi on “a disgusting video” when she knew almost from the first moment that it was a jihadist assault that took the lives of four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya.

No wonder the late William Safire, writing in The New York Times in 1996, at the height of the Whitewater investigation, called her a “congenital liar.” Said Safire: “She is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

Good stuff. Read it all.

33 Responses to “Michael Walsh: Hillary’s Million Little Lies”

  1. Lying liar she is, and water still wet is!

    Yoda (feee21)

  2. “I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is.” – this is why Wall Street has showered Hillary with campaign monies she says

    have you been down there lately? all the crude barriers and all the listless popos make for a very very ugly place really

    it’s almost 15 years on and they haven’t refashioned the area with any kind of aesthetic other than “neo-post-modern failmerican police state”

    and Hillary takes credit for this?

    very sad

    happyfeet (831175)

  3. But what’s important is the Carly Fiorina gave an imprecise description of a video she saw.

    Charlie Davis (3b4769)

  4. Calling Hillary a lying liar what tells lies is an understatement a would really diminish the meaning of the word lie. To the degree that Hillary abuses honesty, lie is a completely insufficient term. Saying Hillary lies is like saying Steph Curry plays basketball, or Usain Bolt jogs.

    JD (baf72f)

  5. So it turns out islamic state’s facilitator in libya, wissam bin hamid is the same who met with ambassador stephens two says before benghazi, this branch is who abbaoud responded to.

    narciso (c338bc)

  6. It’s not an exaggeration to say her dishonesty is pathological and nutty.

    Even if her political philosophy and biases were staunchly conservative, I’d still think there was something innately defective and unacceptable about her. I have a hunch a far higher percentage of people of the right would feel the same way and deal with a Republican counterpart to a Hillary in a manner opposite of the way far too many liberals have been treating the actual — their own — Hillary. That’s why I don’t think it’s pure sarcasm to claim that liberalism is a form of mental illness.

    Mark (f713e4)

  7. Hillary touts her deep and abiding concern for women’s rights right up to the point one of them goes public with accusations of sexual abuse by Hillary’s husband, the well known liar (under oath) cocaine addict, and serial sexual abuser of vulnerable women.

    Then, Hillary shows her true colors. She attacks the woman’s credibility, bakes cookies and stands by her obviously guilty husband, sends out a trained pack of aids and supporters acting like rabid wolves to smear the victim’s integrity, looks, weight, hair style, past sexual history, credit score, overdue library books. She unleashes the IRS to initiate their particularly cruel and exhausting audit procedures, and then she sics the FBI on the victim to follow her around, talk to her neighbors, co-workers, parents, and friends. And if that doesn’t intimidate the victim into silence – dead cats start appearing on the front porch.

    Yeah, little Miss Vicious is more than just a garden variety liar, she’s a domestic terrorist.

    ropelight (da38ff)

  8. This old crone has been lying since at least the time she served- and was eventually fired from (for lying) on the impeachment proceedings against Nixon. She was likely an accomplished liar by the time she got to Wellesley. It’s all she’s ever known. The truth is a foreign concept to her. The Presidency would simply give her an opportunity to speak the “Lie So Big It’s Believable” lie. Small wonder staying with Billy Jeff comes so easily for her. She’s even able to lie to herself with incredible ease.

    Bill H (2a858c)

  9. Pathological lying by Al Gore in the 2000 election is one of the things that made me start paying attention to politics, until then I had more or less cynical, thinking it didn’t really matter who was elected.
    Seeing Gore lie to make himself look better than he needed to after Bush complemented him said to me some people are just too unstable to be in charge. There is a difference between a lying manipulative sob that is rational,
    and someone who is irrational, as well as dishonest and manipulative.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  10. OT
    via PowerLine, did you see this:

    I mentioned before the need for some to have a way to save face before they will change an opinion. So, some global warming folk are going to say, “Well, isn’t it wonderful that the problem is turning out not as bad as we thought, that some of the models were slightly off…”
    So, they can find a way to stop demanding irrational and impossible actions by society and government without admitting how dishonest much of it was to begin with.
    We’ll see.
    If this is the tactic, some will need to decide if they want to let it ride as the push for illogical actions will stop,
    or whether pursuit of more truth is necessary to try to minimize the possibility of the next manipulation.
    Of course, minimizing the chances of another science/policy fraud and preventing one are two different things.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  11. The Pantsuited Pantload…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  12. they bury the guts of the story, at the end, al anbari mentioned therein was part of the Salafi cell in the Iraqi Army, before the invasion,

    narciso (732bc0)

  13. So in a sense, events in Paris, tie straight to Red Queen,

    TRAC analysts last pinpointed Abaaoud in Syria in October 2014, fighting with a Libyan group named Katiba al Bittar, Opperman told AP. But his major focus reportedly lay elsewhere. French officials said he is believed to have links to two terrorist acts in their country earlier this year that were thwarted, one against a Thalys-high speed train, the other apparently targeting a church in suburban Paris.

    narciso (732bc0)

  14. I think she believed the first two “lies”, since if not, she would know the record would instantly disprove them — as it did, so that she would gain nothing and look foolish.

    The third one is different: there was short-term gain, and she could not know that the record would eventually prove she was lying; and even that record only came out after the very short period her potential supporters decided constituted the statute of limitations.

    LTEC (9c117a)

  15. HF-

    The “Stegasaurus” WTC subway rail station i is ugly as sin, way over budget, not yet open and already rusting. Saw maintenance crews painting over the rust of the Steg spikes a few weeks back. Looks as if it was designed without ever considering maintenance at all.

    Bugg (fa64ec)

  16. yes yes yes that thing’s not even done and it’s already needing a new coat of rustoleum

    and we talked about this before but the tourist mausoleum was so badly designed they have open air rope lines stretching out into the plaza where the fat pasty terror tourists bake shiver or get soaked it’s so gross to look at them

    the good thing is the pedway will be nice for people who work at the wtc bldgs across western and it’ll be good for brookfield

    but if this is all those people have to show for 14 years it’s pretty pathetic

    happyfeet (831175)

  17. across *west* i mean i’m getting chicago and ny confuzzled

    happyfeet (831175)

  18. White Dead Rabbit

    One lie makes you wary
    And two lies make you kvetch
    But the thousands Clinton tells you
    Will surely make you retch
    She’s all malice
    And she’s full of sh*t

    And if you go voting Democrat
    As some fools do in the Fall
    Tell ’em a carpet-munching caterwauler
    Is the donkey in their stall
    Not Bernie… his chances were small

    When the men in the Beltway get up and tell you how to vote
    But you know the truth ’bout Benghazi
    And you think she’s just a joke
    Don’t vote Hillary
    You know she blows

    When logic and common sense
    Have fallen sloppy dead
    And Obama is talking backwards
    Let the Red Queen lose her head
    Remember what teh Limbaugh said

    Vote for red
    Vote for red

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  19. The only thing wrong with that is taht Hillary Clinton did NOT blame the 2012 attack on American diplomatic and intelligence-gathering installations in Benghazi on “a disgusting video” and never has.

    She didn’t CONTRADICT that.

    She let other people say that.

    She didn’t FIGHT anybody ekse in the government who wanted to say that.

    She took no steps to stop it. Stopping claims that the state department was warned by the CIA, yes. Stopping the CIA from calling the building in Benghazi a consulate? Yes. But saying there was no demonstration prior to the attack? That didn’t happen.

    But she never said it herself.

    She claimed some people had tried to JUSTIFY the attack because of the video.

    That was a choice of words that doesn’t even make sense.

    And it’s also true that AFTER Benhgazi all overthe Islamic world demonstrations were being rganized against the United states over the video. But that was part of te cover-up.

    Now here is something incredible everybody missed.

    On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Congressman Adam Schiff, the Ranking Minority Member of the he House Intelligence Committee, and also a member of the Select Committee on Benghazi, was on the CBS Sunday interview show Face the Nation and said that had Hillary Clinton told the truth about Benghazi that week, she would have been justly criticized:

    And we did an investigation, that Devin was a part of that, in the intelligence committee, that looked at, frankly, each of these conflicting streams of intelligence as they came in. The early claims by Ansar al-Sharia responsibility that were very quickly followed with human intelligence, signals intelligence, open source reporting, that there was a protest. It wasn’t until about eight to ten days after the events where we actually got the tapes from the compound that we could see quite demonstrably on those tapes that there had been no protests. But it was the — the considered judgment, the assessment of the intelligence experts for that week until we got those tapes, that there had been a protest. And that turned out to be wrong.

    But to criticize Secretary Clinton for relying on the best of intelligence that we had at the time seemed to be wholly inappropriate. Had she had spoken, frankly, in contradiction of what our intelligence agencies were telling her, that might be something to criticize. But the fact that, as she related, and as Ambassador Rice and others related, the information at the time, it was the best information we had. And the fact that that was wrong initially doesn’t change the fact that they were reflecting the best that we knew at the time.

    Who do you beleive? The intelligence agencies or what you know from your own people?

    That was, of course, not the BEST INFORMATION but the MOST HIGHLY RATED information – which is not the same thing.

    And I say again, what Adam Schiff is talking about is mostly SOOPER SEKRIT intelligence. It was disinformation.

    Something was, and probably still is, hugely wrong at the CIA, and some other places too, maybe..

    Sammy Finkelman (4d9cfa)

  20. She has yet to be seriously confronted about the $55K bribe she laundered as successful trade in cattle futures.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  21. that’s petty cash, spectre couldn’t accomodate all the pelf, from the Gulenists in Turkey to Russian nuclear peddler,

    narciso (732bc0)

  22. Thanks, Colonel, it’s pretty darn good.

    ropelight (da38ff)

  23. Oh come on… y’all are making a mountain out of a molehill. All of these have perfectly reasonable explanations!

    Hillary said she’s named for Sir Edmund Hillary, who was unknown before Everest (for which he was knighted). So, are we really so cold-hearted as to utterly dismiss the most plausible innocent explanation (time travel)?

    Landing under sniper fire… records do indicate that there had been sniper activity in Bosnia during WWII. Thus, this is perfectly reasonable; she merely misremembered and thus innocently confused her trip there in WWII to the more recent one. As for those who will claim she couldn’t have landed in Bosnia under sniper fire during WWII due to not having been born yet, haters!


    Arizona CJ (331a26)

  24. she’s about as much of a new yorker as my pennis is

    happyfeet (831175)

  25. on her its a haggis

    steveg (fed1c9)

  26. and i’m sure it’s a stout one

    happyfeet (831175)

  27. I guess we’re supposed to remain silent about this stuff because much of it is old — but she’s been lying her whole life:

    And she ain’t gonna stop now. We have a whole new treasure trove of her emails demonstrating she lied to the Benghazi committee during her recent testimony:

    …Emails sent the night of the attack indicate Clinton did indeed receive updates about the unfolding violence in Benghazi via her private, unsecured email network, contrary to her testimony in an Oct. 22 hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

    Clinton argued last month that she had conducted the majority of her work outside of email and that she had been receiving live updates about the attack in person, not on her private server.

    …Clinton claimed in the select committee hearing last month that she was unaware most of the memos Blumenthal sent her were actually written by Tyler Drumheller, a former intelligence official. However, an email released Monday indicates Clinton received emails about Libya directly from Drumheller, including one the day after the Benghazi attack.

    There’s an infuriating exchange between Hillary! and her aid Sullivan:

    A new batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails made public Monday by the State Department indicate the former secretary of state was worried about whether she had overplayed the administration’s Benghazi narrative, blaming the attack on a demonstration over a YouTube clip, less than two weeks after four Americans at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi were killed.

    …Jake Sullivan, a top Clinton aide, assured the former secretary of state on Sept. 24, 2012 that she had not misled the public on the impetus of the terror attacks nearly two weeks earlier.

    “You never said spontaneous or characterized the motives,” Sullivan wrote in an email to Clinton. “In fact you were careful in your first statement to say we were assessing motive and method. The way you treated the video in the Libya context was to say that some sought to *justify* the attack on that basis.”…

    So Hillary! was concerned she went too far in support of the administration lie, which was to explicitly blame the video for the attack. And her aid tells her that her carefully parsed statements didn’t explicitly blame the video.

    Need I say at the very least that meets the definition of misleading. To carefully word one’s statements to support an out-and-out lie.

    But I’m not that charitable. Obama had Rice and Carney lie by commission. And then Hillary! went along with the administration lie and lied by omission. And if the families are to be believed, and I don’t see why we wouldn’t take their words over this brazen liar who has been publicly insulting our collective intelligence since 1992, she did in fact blame the video maker when she met the caskets at Andrews.

    The FBI must be having a field day with this. Their brief isn’t to investigate Benghazi, but they’re going to be watching to see if she’s forthcoming (hah!), or more realistically how she keeps trying to explain her constantly evolving story and how much she thinks she can get away with.

    And if she clearly perjured herself while testifying about Benghazi, the FBI can build a case about that.

    Steve57 (a13395)

  28. Speaking of the FBI…

    the department released more than 5,000 additional messages and deemed at least 6 percent of them to contain information that had to be kept from the public.

    All told, some 325 messages in the new batch of emails were deemed “classified,” and one was deemed “secret.” Most of the classified messages were exchanged with fellow State Department employees, but a few of them were between Mrs. Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and others involved Sidney Blumenthal, a controversial confidante of the Clintons.

    Tony Blair is the only one who comes out looking clean in this. Hillary! involved him in the DoS’s religious obsession about the Israeli-Pali conflict being the be-all-and-end-all of Muslim upset with the West. Solve that and it will all be beer and skittles. So she asked him to be her envoy essentially to Bibi. He agreed. When he responded via email to report his results he was the only one I’ve seen in all the exchanges I’ve read who had the good sense to insist on only discussing those results on a secure line.

    There may be a reason to believe that Tony Blair retained a security clearance as a former British PM, but when Hillary! sent classified to Blumenthal she was clearly violating the espionage act.

    The classified documents are routinely marked as relating to information derived from a foreign government or concerning a foreign power’s activities, which would cover messages such as Mr. Blair’s.

    Well, technically the classification category of Foreign Government Information (FGI) wouldn’t cover the Tony Blair’s activities because he was then a private citizen. The information would have been categorized as FGI, and thus at lease CONFIDENTIAL, because he was relaying Israeli government information.

    If Hillary! is going to claim that she didn’t know FGI was classified because it wasn’t marked classified, then she is the first SecState in the history of the United States too stupid to know that.

    Steve57 (a13395)

  29. she was clearly violating the espionage act.

    Unless she had 0bama’s permission. Never forget that by definition a president can’t leak, because if he authorises it then it’s not leaking. So 0bama has the power to save her bacon — at a price. Such as pulling out of the race and handing her delegates to Michelle.

    Milhouse (85b46e)

  30. Milhouse, a President can declassify and disclose any classified information that isn’t classified by statute. For instance, the identity of a CIA NOC (non-official cover) agent is classified by statute. Not even a President can disclose that information without breaking the law. But very little information is classified by statute. Most information is classified by executive orders, which provide general guidance, designate certain cabinet secretaries and agency heads as original classification authorities, and delegates the actual day-to-day working of the classification system to the DNI. Who then produces a series of Director National Intelligence Directives to provide more detailed guidance.

    Since the President can declassify and disclose most information he can “leak” most classified information. But when a President authorizes selective leaks to favored reporters it’s not without consequence. It violates the integrity of the classification system. By that I mean by leaking the President has technically declassified and disclosed that information. I.E. the President has authorized that information for public release. Yet secretly and selectively. So the original sources of the classified information aren’t available to the general public. Those sources were made available to only one member of the public, the reporter, as a conduit. If those sources are declassified and disclosed to one member of the public they should be disclosed to all, not just one favored individual. Any other member of the public, such as another reporter, might be prosecuted for gaining access to the very same information because no one except the President and his inner circle know he declassified it already. Unless the President owns up.

    On the flip side an intel professionals could and no doubt would still be prosecuted for releasing that very same information even though by leaking the President has already declassified and disclosed that very same information information to the public. You can’t declassify and disclose information to the public, then pretend you can reclassify that very same information and insist it still must be protected from public disclosure any more than you can put toothpaste back into the tube.

    So yes the President can leak. It is legal. But it’s not above board; a President really should just declassify and disclose openly. I submit if a President were to allow the DoJ to prosecute any other individual for disclosing or gaining access to the very same information he’d be violating the equal protection clause. After all the favored reporter can’t be prosecuted because the President declassified and disclosed the information to that one reporter. So it wasn’t a crime for that reporter to disclose the information to the public because the President had declassified it first. The President has the power to declassify and disclose but not the power to make something no longer a crime under the Espionage Act but only for one person in America. Or for one select person at a time depending how many leaks he authorizes over the course of his presidency.

    But that’s neither here nor there when it comes to Hillary! First, I can’t imagine any President, not even this one, authorizing his Secretary of State to disclose all FGI sight unseen that passes through the State Department during that Secretary’s entire term in office.

    Second, no President could ever admit it. Can you imagine the firestorm if Obama were to tell the world that he authorized Hillary! not to keep a single secret from any government on the planet for four entire years?

    Third, this President despises Sid Vicious. That’s why he told Hillary! that she was forbidden from letting Blumenthal having any role at the DoS. So she had to have released that classified information to Blumenthal without his authorization.

    But he still holds her fate in his hands as he can still pardon her. He might for a price, but I can also see Prom Queen letting the DoJ fry Hillary! just because she let Sid Vicious play a role at State after he told her no way was that to happen.

    Steve57 (a13395)

  31. Steve, does 0bama strike you as the sort of president who cares whether something is above board, or about the integrity of the classification system, or the propriety of what I’m proposing?! Of course it would be completely improper, but that’s not going to keep him up at night, or even disturb an afternoon nap.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  32. Initially I was speaking about presidential powers in general.

    It was with the paragraph beginning with the words “But that’s neither here nor there..” where I shifted to this administration in particular.

    Steve57 (a13395)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2229 secs.