Patterico's Pontifications

6/1/2016

Obama Administration Lies About Dishonest Coverup of Admission of Lying

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:07 pm

That may sound complicated, but in fact, I’ve oversimplified things a bit in the headline. You’ll see.

Let’s review the chronology.

On May 5, the New York Times Magazine published an interview with Obama’s chief creative writer Ben Rhodes. The article said that the Obama administration’s story about beginning talks with Iran in 2013 was a bit of creative writing itself:

The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal.

Obama had wanted to do the deal since at least 2012, and indeed since 2009, sources said — but Rhodes did some creative writing and spun a narrative that started everything in 2013:

In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program.

But that was horseshit.

So: the Obama administration lied.

But hey, according to Rhodes, those reporters are young, ignorant, and therefore easy to fool. Rhodes is quoted in the article as saying:

The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.

Fox News reporter James Rosen read that article, and thought: hey! I remember asking State Department spokeshole Jen Psaki in 2013 whether it was the State Department policy to lie about stuff like the Iran negotiations. And she admitted they had lied! Here’s the exchange:

Rosen: Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation of the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?

Psaki: James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. I think this is a good example of that.

So: the Obama administration lied, and a spokesperson for the State Department admitted they lied.

So, earlier this month, in light of the Rhodes interview, Rosen went back to look for the video of that exchange. But when he found it . . . poof! the exchange was gone, replaced by a white flash.

So the Obama administration lied, and a spokesperson for the State Department admitted they lied, but then they deleted the video admitting they lied.

Upon Rosen’s discovery, Fox News contacted the State Department, which blamed the video edit on a “glitch”:

UPDATE, 3:00pm ET: The State Department blamed a “glitch” for Rosen’s questions being removed.

“There was a glitch in the State Department video,” spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said.

Nobody believed that.

So: the Obama administration lied, and a spokesperson for the State Department admitted they lied, but then they deleted the video admitting they lied, and then lied about deleting the video proving they lied.

With me so far? Good, because it gets better. And even more confusing.

Today, it was revealed that: 1) the State Department has admitted that they indeed did delete the video showing the admission of lying, but 2) the person who did the deletions supposedly doesn’t remember who told them to do it.

So, hey, nobody can really be held accountable, on account of forgetfulness and such.

Nobody believes that.

So: the Obama administration lied, and a spokesperson for the State Department admitted they lied, but then they deleted the video admitting they lied, and then lied about deleting the video proving they lied — and now they are admitting that they lied about the coverup of the earlier lie, but simultaneously lying about who ordered the video edit that covered up their admission that they had lied.

Is that confusing? I don’t see why. It’s perfectly clear to me!

And they say Trump is a huge liar! (And he is. So they’re telling the truth about that.) (Now that’s really confusing.)

62 Responses to “Obama Administration Lies About Dishonest Coverup of Admission of Lying”

  1. OK, I oversimplified things a lot in the headline.

    It’s a headline.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. Oh what a tangled web we weave
    When first we decide to bullshit everyone on behalf of Barack Obama.

    — Anon

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  3. Someone should contact Elizabeth Trudeau and ask her about this.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  4. There have to be at least one or two Washington journalists who hope that a Republican is elected President in November, if only so that they can go back to speaking truth to power or whatever that tired chestnut is.

    JVW (eabb2a)

  5. What difference does it make now?

    gahrie (12cc0f)

  6. Over 60 percent of the voters are perfectly okay with their chosen one lying straight to their faces. The only question is: Which liar will be chosen?

    John Hitchcock (dbb0d8)

  7. So, Trump may be more forthright that Obama mainly because his lies are actually transparent?

    I really hold out little hope for a Trump administration trying to defend against a press that actually calls them on it. Obama’s constant “I can’t remember if the dog ate my homework if I don’t read it in the newspaper” answer probably won’t cut it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  8. Somewhere Rosemary Woods is smiling.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  9. Do more of this and not trashing Trump. 96% or the MSM is doing that.Why add to them?

    dee (8151be)

  10. Do more of this and not trashing Trump. 96% or the MSM is doing that. Why add to them?

    dee (8151be) — 6/2/2016 @ 12:28 am

    Donald Trump is a con man. There’s no reason to believe that Trump’s State Department wouldn’t do something like that, or worse. And I DO mean that. Watch his personal attorney and the EVP of the Sea Organization Trump Organization in action here, if you doubt that.

    L.N. Smithee (e92da8)

  11. In a contentious interview on Tuesday, CNN’s Chris Cuomo exposed Donald Trump’s attacks on Hillary Clinton’s marriage as disingenuous opportunism that will make 2016 the worst election in American history.

    You must be joking. Have you had a cat scan lately, snuffy?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  12. Obama agent negotiations with Iran go back to 2004 with Jamie Gorelick https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/schlumberger-oilfield-holdings-ltd-agrees-plead-guilty-and-pay-over-2327-million-violating-us

    The NPA and fine for 6 years of wartime treason was ruse to build trust with the mullahs.

    Smitty (3ab3f9)

  13. You must be joking. Have you had a cat scan lately, snuffy?

    papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/2/2016 @ 1:40 am

    Is that all you’ve got?

    You didn’t watch the video. Here’s another chance. If you can’t watch it, here’s the transcript.

    Are you seriously going to pretend that Michael Cohen is any more believable than John Kirby, Jen Psaki, or Marie Harf?

    L.N. Smithee (e92da8)

  14. Smitty (3ab3f9) — 6/2/2016 @ 1:53 am

    Your link has nothing to do with either Obama nor Gorelick. What are you talking about?

    L.N. Smithee (e92da8)

  15. the State Department has admitted that they indeed did delete the video showing the admission of lying, but 2) the guy who did the deletions supposedly doesn’t remember who told him to do it.

    The ‘guy’ who did it was the female type of ‘guy’ who got the word second hand over the telephone from someone she can’t remember now. Nor did the State Department investigation (which is now concluded) question her about similar instructions to alter other public records.

    Speculation about ‘who done it’ includes the sinister influence long known to haunt the White House.

    ropelight (596f46)

  16. Fooling young reporters who only want to report the truth but are fooled by a corrupt administration. So, on top of everything else the administration covers for young reporters just reporting lies. Like young reporters don’t make stuff up. “Young” reporters like young dan rather and young katie couric?

    Jim (a9b7c7)

  17. After watching the obama administration, the clintons and their cronies perform I know I’ll pull a “Shultz” if I am ever questioned in a deposition. “I know nothing!” Or, a clinton “I don’t remember.” Good luck lawyers!

    Jim (a9b7c7)

  18. LN Smithee is provably right. After Donald Trump generously funded Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Hillary was nominated as Secretary of State. Trump went on the TV shows praising her before her confirmation hearings, telling us she would be a great Secretary of State. This was after Clinton ran for president, and her foreign policy views had been examined clearly.

    After Clinton left that office, after Benghazi, after the email scandal erupted, Trump defended her as a “great” secretary of state.

    Of course Trump is a well know serial con man. Of course when he ran in the GOP primary he became a caricature of a conservative blowhard. “Deport the all and make Mexico pay for the wall and ban the Muslims and be tough”. But that’s a lie. We know Trump’s heart is on the left, from all the times he took action to help the left with their soft and weak foreign policy. Actions speak louder than words, especially with those who break their promises all the time like Trump.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  19. You’d make a good client, Jim. Most criminals make their lawyer’s job difficult by talking too much. Just remember to practice a discreet silence at all times — not only when you’re being questioned. Something you let drop casually over a drink can and will be used against you if testified to by any person who heard it. And then, when you say “I don’t remember”, under oath or even to the FBI, Boom! Five years for perjury or obstruction of justice.

    Anyway, back to the topic: Why? Why would Obama want to release $150 billion dollars to Iran? What was in it for him?

    nk (dbc370)

  20. I’ll go with the liar who lied to con people out of milk money for stupid real estate classes.

    That is, over the liar who got four people killed in Benghazi, used an unsecured private server to do all of her SecState business, and a million other toxic lies.

    (Actually, I’ll probably vote fore neither IN CALIFORNIA, where I expect HilLIARy to win handily. I’ll vote for Trump only if it’s looking close out here.)

    Mitch (bfd5cd)

  21. I’ll go with the liar who lied to con people out of milk money for stupid real estate classes.

    That is, over the liar who got four people killed in Benghazi

    That’s a reasonable choice. I think it’s just complicated a bit by how Trump praised Clinton for her work at that time. And if you think a little more abstractly about it, a Clinton working with the GOP in the 1990s produced some results that are much better than what we have today. A better budget. The right was invigorated by fighting Clinton, and Hillary is particularly motivating that way.

    I try to think of Trump, whom we know to be dishonest and at heart a die hard lefty, running the GOP, and how that would work out, and I think the results are worse on two fronts. I think without any conservative influence in DC the results would be more liberal, and I think the GOP being so dominated by a New York democrat would politically hamper any hope of real reforms.

    But sure, Trump conning people out of money over and over doesn’t really compare to what Hillary did in office. Then again Trump has never held office or political power. He’s been as corrupt as can be with what he’s had so I don’t think we want to change that.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  22. This was along with his support for guiliani, and his bundling for maverick. We would have been better off with the former as nominee

    narciso (732bc0)

  23. How much money was involved in American business with Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?

    narciso (732bc0)

  24. Even future officials in the Roosevelt administration, dulles, forrestal, draper were deeply involved with the clients.

    narciso (732bc0)

  25. And Romney was fooled into hiring gruber, and maverick was a tool for soros’s speech crushing apparat.

    narciso (732bc0)

  26. Red queen is the Lillian bellman level an accomplice for much of Obama’s turn.

    narciso (732bc0)

  27. Npr working with the ploughsharesvfund, part of that apparat I spoke about.

    narciso (732bc0)

  28. The ‘guy’ who did it was the female type of ‘guy’ who got the word second hand over the telephone from someone she can’t remember now. Nor did the State Department investigation (which is now concluded) question her about similar instructions to alter other public records.

    I don’t know that to be the case. From reviewing the video of the portion of the presser addressing this, they do not appear to identify the sex of the editor. I did change “guy” to “person” just now, to reflect that I don’t know it was a male. If you have better information than I do, please specify it with a link and quote.

    Patterico (0c81af)

  29. Obama even has TOTUS c-c-c-c-c-crapping out on him now.

    Death to the Demoness Dowager Clinton and all who support her!!!!!!!

    Time to show some Real Leadership, Ted Cruz!!!

    Colonel Haiku (1b4b83)

  30. yeah what’s wrong with him why’s he being all weird and creeper

    happyfeet (831175)

  31. You really don’t get how far this goes ploughshares which funds j street that wages war on Israel?

    narciso (732bc0)

  32. Like the crump/Julian axis that formed the somelives matter movement.

    narciso (732bc0)

  33. And niac which also funded npr, you remember them.

    narciso (732bc0)

  34. I think it’s just complicated a bit by how Trump praised Clinton for her work at that time.

    Of course he did, Dustin. How do you think she amassed that multi million dollar fortune? It’s pay to play and Trump was a player. He could have taken an honorable stand and been visited by every federal agency known to man at every building site he had, all while he watched his competition get permits and loans he was denied. Or he could praise Hillary over the table and pay her under. They’re both crooked but Hillary was selling the public trust while The Donald was trying to earn a living and build buildings.

    I should have stopped at “They’re both crooked….”

    Rev. Hoagie© (734193)

  35. Yes wesaw what happened with vanderslip, adelson and engelbrechtalso Gibson guitar.

    narciso (732bc0)

  36. But hey, according to Rhodes, those reporters are young, ignorant, and therefore easy to fool.

    Can’t call bullshit on that one.

    JP (bd5dd9)

  37. And ace Greenberg under client no 9, and langone.

    narciso (732bc0)

  38. And Roger stone, was the one that helped uncover client no 9.

    narciso (732bc0)

  39. Barack’s always lying about lying.
    Here’s something everyone in conservative media ought to be saying; “WE’RE GOING TO FIND OUT WHO MADE THAT VIDEO (DISAPPEAR) SO WE CAN PUNISH THEM!” (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  40. Trump doesn’t plan to change how things work, Hoagie.

    You seem to think Trump goes along with corruption but opposes it, when he actually wants to be the one in charge. Trump has shown no fortitude or willingness to stand up to corruption. He wants power so he can get a bigger share and get even with the people who have what he wants.

    DRJ (15874d)

  41. I understand your familiarity with real estate and construction make you identify with Trump but he isn’t the guy to side with. He’s the guy that makes other builders look like shady salesmen.

    DRJ (15874d)

  42. Al Capone had to pay off the Cook County Sheriff and the mayors of Chicago and Cicero, too, if he did not want his gambling joints and speakeasies raided. Trumpkins!

    nk (dbc370)

  43. Hoagie, I’ve gone my whole life without bribing anyone.

    I wouldn’t say I’m proud of that meager accomplishment or anything. Trump had millions and decided to be corrupt to use government to get his way over other people. You act like this is good business. It’s actually not. It’s desperate business.

    Trump would be showing you his tax returns if he were successful. He can’t. He’s wasted his inheritance on schemes.

    At any rate, the man you would foist on my country has no character, and you admit it.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  44. Two false premises:
    1. You can’t be a builder if you’re not crooked.
    2. You can be a crooked builder and be President if you manage to stay out of prison.

    nk (dbc370)

  45. #28, Patterico, Admiral Kirby said it on FOX NEWS this morning about 7:30 – 8am EST.

    ropelight (596f46)

  46. Trump doesn’t plan to change how things work, Hoagie.

    You seem to think Trump goes along with corruption but opposes it, when he actually wants to be the one in charge. Trump has shown no fortitude or willingness to stand up to corruption. He wants power so he can get a bigger share and get even with the people who have what he wants.

    DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:29 am

    BINGO. Kills me how people seem to think that all Trump ever wanted was money, and now that he can’t (supposedly) earn as much money as President than as he could otherwise, his motives must be pure. Nonsense. Millions of people have built buildings in New York and around the world. Thousands of people have become billionaires. Only people like Trump use wealth and the influence it brings them as a bludgeon against everyone who pisses them off.

    If someone makes a point of it to destroy the lives of everyone who doesn’t love them,
    putting that person in charge of government is a VERY BAD IDEA.

    L.N. Smithee (e92da8)

  47. Someone (James Rosen?)should ask who came up with the lie that it was a “technical glitch”.
    That lie is the most recent of this cascading pyramid of lies, and occurred recently enough that memories ought to be fresh. Just kidding.

    So, now we have liars lying about lies about lies about lies. Or something like that.

    orcadrvr (3cc3b1)

  48. Two realities:

    You can’t build in NY City without the tacit approval of city and state politicians, and tacit approval is contingent on financial support in the form of campaign contributions and endorsements. It’s not as openly crooked as Chicago politics, but it’s the same game only subtlety played.

    Trump isn’t in any danger of going to prison, that’s Hillary’s whispering ghost.

    ropelight (596f46)

  49. A Trump-style lie: “No, I never said I’d build a wall!”

    A Clinton-style lie: “We’ve always been concerned about the southern border and this is why my administration will make every effort to shut down the unmonitored crossings going forward. The risk to women and children of crossing the border in wilderness locations is extreme, and we intend to shut that down completely. So, you can see we are strongly for increasing border security”

    An Obama-style lie: “Your honor, when we said that we were not processing these immigration-law waivers we were unaware that some elements of the immigration service were doing exactly that and had been for some time, but the people who did know about it were on vacation. And yes, they had repeatedly informed our office by letter, and those documents somehow did not get included in discovery, but that was accidental. It is not clear however, if a dog ate them, or if it was a dog, which dog it was, or if they were accidentally shredded. Government is tough.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  50. What gives Gruber and now Rhodes the confidence to impudently brag about their blatant dishonesty in spreading lies on behalf of policies promulgated by the Chicago gutter trash in the White House? What future benefit will they derive from self identifying as lying scum? Is there some secret prize to be awarded for appearing to deceive the half witted cretins employed by media to disseminate propaganda on behalf of Obama?

    Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s IT hack, doesn’t appear to share the same level of confidence as he utilizes the Fifth Amendment again today to avoid questioning. I suppose he will wait until after Clinton’s inauguration to claim his prize.

    Rick Ballard (7727d9)

  51. You can’t build in NY City without the tacit approval of city and state politicians, and tacit approval is contingent on financial support in the form of campaign contributions and endorsements. It’s not as openly crooked as Chicago politics, but it’s the same game only subtlety played.

    Granted. Now choose:
    1. Don’t build in New York City, stay honest, and run for President; or
    2. Build in New York City, become a crook, but don’t ask us to make you President.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. Do what you have to do in order to build in NYC and run for President if that’s what it takes to keep the most corrupt woman in America from destroying the nation.

    ropelight (596f46)

  53. I think this is ropelight’s link to the Kirby interview.

    I’m curious why can’t you find these things when requested, ropelight. Is it beyond your technical abilities, are you lazy, or is it part of your Trumpian attitude toward cooperating with others?

    DRJ (15874d)

  54. George H.W. Bush is a good man, but I sure wish Reagan had selected Jack Kemp as his VP in 1980. Whereas Bush was confused about the “vision thing,” Kemp would have advocated for free enterprise zones in the inner cities, and likely could have brought a percentage of blacks into the GOP tent in 1988. If we had a President Kemp running for re-election in 1992, I don’t think there would have been the vulnerability which Clinton took advantage of Bush being ‘out of touch’ and slightly too disinterested in the economic woes of blue-collar voters.
    Kemp was THE REPUBLICAN who best connected with blue-collar voters and minorities.

    If we could go back in time and tweak Reagan’s VP pick in 1980, we wouldn’t be dealing with Hillary in 2016.

    H.G. Wells, can we borrow your ‘Time Machine’?! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  55. #53, DRJ, yes, the clip at your link is exactly what I was referring to in my comment at #45. Thank you for finding it. I looked for it but couldn’t find it. Although I did look. Weather my failure to find it was beyond my abilities, or attributable to laziness, pique, or obstinance will be up to the preconceived notions of others to decide.

    However, it my defense please note the accuracy of my comment and my attempt to identify the source.

    ropelight (596f46)

  56. My headline would be “busted on lies and a cover-up”. Hillary is basically hitching her wagon to this dishonest and incompetent Obama administration, and Trump is a serial liar. All I can say is, go Johnson!

    WarrenPeese (1df851)

  57. In the March 4, 2016 Republican Prewdiential debate in Detroit, Ted Cruz argued that Donald Trump’s political contributions to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats showed what his true ideology was.
    Trump defended himself against that accusation by saying, in effect, no it was a bribe.

    Cruz argued no, there was no business reason for some of contributions, so it was ideological preference.

    Neither offered what could be a better explanation, like:

    1) It had something to do with advancing his possible future political career, and he didn’t know what party he would be in, or whose help he would want or

    2) It had to with helping the fundraiser, not the candidate.)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/transcript-of-the-republican-presidential-debate-in-detroit.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

    TRUMP: …I have been supporting people for many years. And these people have been politicians, and they’ve been on both sides, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives. I’ve supported everybody, because, until recently, I wasn’t a politician, and I hope maybe you don’t all consider me a politician right now. I hate the term politician.

    But I’ve been supporting politicians. A recent article somewhere said Donald Trump is a world-class businessman who goes out and he does get along with everybody. I’ve supported Democrats, and I’ve supported Republicans. And as a businessman, I owed that to my company, to my family, to my workers, to everybody to get along….

    CRUZ: ….you know, Donald mentioned a moment ago that he was just doing business when he was writing checks to liberal Democrats. But that’s not, in fact, the checks he was writing.

    Listen, we could all understand if you write a check to a city commission because you’re looking for a zoning waiver on building a building. That may be corrupt, but you could understand real estate developers doing that.

    CRUZ: That’s not what Donald Trump did. Donald Trump supported Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. Donald supported John Kerry over George W. Bush. If you don’t like Obamacare, Donald Trump funded Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi taking over Congress to pass Obamacare….

    CRUZ: …So I’d like to ask Donald, why did you write checks to Hillary Clinton to be president in 2008? It wasn’t for business. And how can you stand on a debate stage now with her and say you don’t think she should be president?

    (APPLAUSE)

    TRUMP: Actually, it was for business. It was. It was. It was for business. I pride myself, including outside of the United States. I’m doing almost 120 deals outside of the – which I hope to be able to stop very soon and let my children handle it – but we’re doing many, many deals outside of the United States. [?]

    I support politicians. In 2008, I supported Hillary Clinton. I supported many other people, by the way. And that was because of the fact that I’m in business. I did support very heavily Ronald Reagan. I also supported George Bush, by the way.

    Back in the August 6, 2015 debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Donald Trump, when pressed as to what he was bribing Hillary to do, said it was to attend his wedding!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-of-the-2015-gop-debate-9-pm

    TRUMP: Sounds good. Sounds good to me, Governor.

    I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give.

    And do you know what?

    When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what did you get?

    TRUMP: And that’s a broken system.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?

    TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding.

    You know why?

    She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. It was.

    But…

    (BUZZER NOISE)

    (CROSSTALK)

    BAIER: Hold on.

    We’re going to — we’re going to move on.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  58. An Obama-style lie: “Your honor, when we said that we were not processing these immigration-law waivers we were unaware that some elements of the immigration service were doing exactly that and had been for some time, but the people who did know about it were on vacation.

    No, the lie is:

    we were unaware that this was covered by the injunction.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  59. 50. Rick Ballard (7727d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:24 am

    What gives Gruber and now Rhodes the confidence to impudently brag about their blatant dishonesty in spreading lies

    The feeling, probably, that only people who plan to lie will remember this. He’s actually lying about the extent of his lying, or what the worth of his lies, were.

    Just consider this – Ben Rhodes tried to say he convinced people that negotiations started in 2015, yet here is James Rosen saying he knew about pre-2013 negotiations in 2013!

    It’s not clear in fact that Rhodes saying that the Obama Administration began “seriously” engaging in 2013 was a lie, since negotiations before weren’t going anywhere. The lie, maybe, is that he successfully lied. I mean, yes, he got talking points echoed. But did any, or most if it, matter?

    What future benefit will they derive from self identifying as lying scum? Is there some secret prize to be awarded for appearing to deceive the half witted cretins employed by media to disseminate propaganda on behalf of Obama?

    Somebody else not too connected to Obama, who wouldn’t learn about this by word of mouth, especially since some of his lies never actually happened or didn’t have much effect, might hire him after January 20.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  60. Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s IT hack, doesn’t appear to share the same level of confidence as he utilizes the Fifth Amendment again today to avoid questioning. I suppose he will wait until after Clinton’s inauguration to claim his prize. There, there is some real possible criminal liability, and not just in avoiding income reporting requirements.

    Everything he did was at the direction or instigation of Hillary – read Bill – Clinton and her aides, which probably means some criminal liabiliy belongs to Hillary as well. Pagliano’s lawyer also requested that his taking of the 5th amendment not be videotaped.

    The server was not in Chappaqua, by the way, but in Bill Clinton’s post-presidential office in Harlem – somebody did some sort of time analysis that showed the probability of that.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  61. updating the record,

    http://www.businessinsider.com/jake-tapper-state-department-edited-video-2016-6

    it began much earlier,

    narciso (732bc0)

  62. Whoever edited the video is going to be fired for doing it in a way that made it plain that something was blanked out.

    iowaan (91c663)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5167 secs.