No, it didn’t deny being complicit in violence at Trump rallies. As Stephen notes:
A lie is the default response from the Clinton Camp, and if pressed they will admit to only as much truth as they absolutely must.
This has been the Clinton’s SOP for more than 30 years, and the Democrat-operatives-with-bylines are usually all-too-happy to play along.
It’s worth noting in this context that Bill Clinton has never denied raping Juanita Broaddrick. But of course, no one will ask him about it.
[Update a while later]
The incestuous Left and those who provide cover for them:
Extensive evidence from Wikileaks, FOIA responses, and “human sources” of the incestuous and improper coordination between the media and the Democrats have been detailed by Sharyl Attkisson…
Wikileaks promises to unleash even more insider accounts of the Clinton campaign and DNC shenanigans this coming week and has said it has even more current information — material respecting serious wrongdoing by the DNC head Donna Brazile and Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate Timothy Kaine coming up next. James O’Keefe of Project Veritas says that on Monday he is releasing a video of Robert Creamer, shown as a vote fixer in previous videos, coordinating with Clinton and Brazile. “Anything happens to me, there’s a deadman’s switch on Part III, which will be released Monday. @HillaryClinton and @donnabrazile implicated.”
The video is up now.
That’s okay. As long as the voters get their share of the 20 trillion in debt, it doesn’t matter what she says.
Which reminds me of Sally in A Charlie Brown Christmas: “All I want is what’s coming to me.”
It’s worth noting in this context that Bill Clinton has never denied raping Juanita Broaddrick.
That isn’t true. His lawyer David Kendall issued the following statement on his behalf in 1999: “Any allegation that the president assaulted Mrs. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false. Beyond that, we’re not going to comment.”
According to a wikileaked email from Kendall to Podesta, about Broaddrick:
Bill Clinton has never publicly denied raping Juanita Broaddrick. How would David Kendall know? Was he there?
This is exactly the verbal subterfuge and parsing that is a hallmark of the lying Clinton crime gang.
“This is exactly the verbal subterfuge and parsing that is a hallmark of the lying Clinton crime gang.”
The term “Clintonian” was coined for this reason. But then it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
Sending your lawyer out to say that an allegation is “absolutely false” is publicly denying that allegation. There’s no subterfuge or parsing about it.
He sent his lawyer out to lie for him so that he didn’t have to lie himself. Again, how could David Kendall know whether or not Bill raped Broaddrick? What is the value of his statement?
The Clintons always find someone else to do their dirty work (like Hillary with the Trump disruption). The only reason he had to threaten and bribe people himself in the Jones case was because he couldn’t trust his minions to do it.
He sent his lawyer out to lie for him so that he didn’t have to lie himself.
I.e. you acknowledge that Kendall was speaking for Clinton, and that Clinton has denied assaulting Broaddrick.
What is the value of his statement?
The same as if Clinton had said it himself. The only difference is that Clinton did not want to embarrass himself and/or dignify the question with a personal response. So instead he denied the charge to his lawyer, and authorized his lawyer to make that denial public. If the denial was found to be false you would hold Clinton, not Kendall, responsible — just as if Clinton had uttered the words personally.
The Clintons always find someone else to do their dirty work
High level officials make official statements through spokespeople, and are held accountable for those statements, every day of the week. There’s nothing remarkable about either Clinton in that regard.
The fact remains that Clinton himself has never denied it. He just sent out a lawyer to pretend he did.
Or to put it a different way, if Clinton had come out and said (wagging his bony finger at us), “I did not have non-consensual sex with the woman, Ms. Broaddrick. Just ask my lawyer,” sane people would consider it something less than a full-throated denial.
If the denial was found to be false you would hold Clinton, not Kendall, responsible — just as if Clinton had uttered the words personally.
That is because Clinton is the one with responsibility and not the lawyer. Which is why the lawyer making a boilerplate statement is worthless. The lawyer can say literally anything without any concern to its validity.
Or to put it a different way, if Clinton had come out and said (wagging his bony finger at us), “I did not have non-consensual sex with the woman, Ms. Broaddrick. Just ask my lawyer,” sane people would consider it something less than a full-throated denial.
Why would he say “Just ask my lawyer”? His lawyer doesn’t know what happened any better than he does. Aside from that odd hypothetical post-script, what you’ve described is a straight-forward denial. You can choose to not believe it, but it is a denial, just as Kendall’s statement on Clinton’s behalf is a denial.
I don’t know where you got the crazy idea that Clinton had never denied Broaddrick’s allegation.
“The only difference is that Clinton did not want to embarrass himself and/or dignify the question with a personal response.”
Oh? So you know that precisely what was in Bill Clinton’s mind and why he sent out his lawyer?
Prove to us you know exactly why Bill Clinton did that.
“The only difference is that Clinton did not want to embarrass himself and/or dignify the question with a personal response.”
I’m waiting Jim…what proof do you have that this is what was in Clinton’s mind? How do you know?
Crickets…….
I’m also waiting on the proof that you have tat the Project Veritas tape was misleadingly edited….sort of difficult to prove give that by your own admission the full tape has not been published.
But you had NO PROBLEM asserting that.
So where’s the proof? Still waiting on that one too……..
Crickets….
Or you could admit that in both cases you have absolutely no proof and you just made it all up out of thin air. That would be the honorable thing to do.
I expect more crickets.
what proof do you have that this is what was in Clinton’s mind
None. You got me. I’m not actually a mind reader. I was just speculating. Clinton could have any number of reasons for releasing that statement through his lawyer. The main point was that he did release a statement denying Broaddrick’s charge.
I’m also waiting on the proof that you have tat the Project Veritas tape was misleadingly edited
I never said it was misleadingly edited, just that past PV tapes had been (e.g. the “pimp” tapes made it look as if O’Keefe went into Acorn offices dressed as a pimp, when he actually was wearing a business suit), and so I wanted PV to release its unedited tapes. Given PV’s track record, I’d say the burden is on them.
Broaddrick’s version of events is corroborated by others.
“That isn’t true. His lawyer David Kendall issued the following statement on his behalf in 1999: “Any allegation that the president assaulted Mrs. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false. Beyond that, we’re not going to comment.””
Ah ok so when a lawyer for bILL – a spokesperson for Bill and not bILL – says something you believe it instantly…..
But when Susan Rice – a spokesman for Obama, Hillary and the entire administration, says – as clear as a bell – that the violence in Benghazi occurred because of a video – not once but 5 times on 5 different shows….you come up with no end of dissembling, excuses and prevarications.
Pathetic.
I think if you actually looked at your responses to things clearly and honestly your head would explode.
I think if you actually looked at your responses to things clearly and honestly your head would explode.
I think it might, if my responses were the ones you imagine.
when a lawyer for bILL – a spokesperson for Bill and not bILL – says something you believe it instantly
I never said that I believed the statement. I believe that it’s a statement made on Clinton’s behalf, because … it’s a statement made on Clinton’s behalf.
But when Susan Rice – a spokesman for Obama, Hillary and the entire administration, says – as clear as a bell – that the violence in Benghazi occurred because of a video – not once but 5 times on 5 different shows….you come up with no end of dissembling, excuses and prevarications.
Rice’s “excuse” was that her statements reflected the then-current opinion of the CIA and U.S. intelligence community, as distilled into the infamous talking points. That’s a pretty good excuse! Her job was to present the administration’s view, and she did. If you have a problem with what she said your problem isn’t with Rice, it’s with the administration in general, and the CIA in particular.
“I think it might, if my responses were the ones you imagine.”
Your proven repetitive history of not reading the article, not watching the video, not reading the posts here, never being able to justify a declaration with your own thinking and fact finding and, instead, appealing to authority takes it out of the realm of imagination and into the realm of fact.
Your partisan analysis slip has shown so many times you might as well no longer wear the dress.
“Rice’s “excuse” was that her statements reflected the then-current opinion of the CIA and U.S. intelligence community, as distilled into the infamous talking points. That’s a pretty good excuse! ”
Except for the actual fact that we all knew it wasn’t true back then from day one – all except you. You bought into it like a babe after a bottle.
And we have your words to go by:
June 5, 2013 at 5:06 AM
Benghazi has already gone away. There was never anything there, and the GOP is too busy with other faux White House scandals.
Except that it hasn’t gone away and Wikileaks, Judicial Watch and others have the smoking guns – Hillary’s email to Chelsea for example.
You didn’t bother to dig..you just blew the whole thing off. You were told it wasn’t due to the video and you denied it and now there’s proof that:
A. It wasn’t due to a video and
B. Hillary (and Obama ) knew about it immediately.
You held onto that video view:
February 28, 2015 at 12:26 PM
Yet they spread this interesting narrative which all of the interested parties already knew was false.
Jim:
There’s no reason to think that they knew it was false. It might not have even been false.
But there’s no way anyone in the U.S. could be sure the next day that the video hadn’t played any part at all. We can’t be sure of that even today.
Except Jim we are sure aren’t we? And you swallowed it whole and were bamboozled by the people you support.
Want more of you being wrong, yet swallowing the administrations lies?
“3,000 Salafists attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on that same September 11. That timing would indicate to you that the inspiration was the original 9/11 attacks, but you’d be wrong: the attack was organized as a protest against the video.”
”
“No, we know that they presented a narrative that was consistent with the initial reports they got from the CIA. ”
We Kimo Sabe? No only you…..
More gulping by you on that same date:
Someone else:
Hillary’s aides knew within the first few minutes that it had nothing to do with the video:
Jim:
This summary demonstrates, in a nutshell, how crazy this scandal narrative is. Nobody but the terrorists themselves could possibly know within a few minutes that the attack had nothing to do with the video.
Except that we knew and it’s been shown Hillary knew immediately…..don’t we?
But not you…..
Nope, you have taken the notion of your partisan delusions into the realm of reality – all by yourself. And we have the history to prove it.
You lose.
Except for the actual fact that we all knew it wasn’t true back then from day one
To demand clarity on a question like this “from day one” is to believe in fairy tales.
the smoking guns – Hillary’s email to Chelsea for example
Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attacks, and Hillary Clinton relayed that assessment to Chelsea. Subsequently there were reports from eyewitnesses that the attack was motivated by the video and the protests against the video in other Arab countries. Still later, information from other eyewitnesses cast doubt on the idea that the attack had started as a protest. For weeks there were conflicting stories coming in from different sources, and the administration’s view of what had happened changed as they got more information.
Today we can be pretty sure that it was a pre-planned attack, and that there was no demonstration, but it remains possible that the video served as an impetus and/or additional motivation. It would be rather odd if it hadn’t.
Except that we knew and it’s been shown Hillary knew immediately…..don’t we?
No, we don’t. Based on her emails we can say that she thought various things at various times. As Keynes put it, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Clinton, and the administration in general, changed their minds in response to new facts. That’s good sense, not a scandal.
she thought various things at various times
Making her more dangerous an unqualified to serve than we even imagined. Awareness of facts is always in flux. People we can trust are those that zero in on the truth even in the absence of all the facts.
It’s even worse with Hillary. She might be forgiven if it was just bad judgement, but she is a proven liar causing deaths.
“To demand clarity on a question like this “from day one” is to believe in fairy tales.”
1. Clarity didn’t have to be demanded – it’s been proven Hillary KNEW minutes after the attack started that it wasn’t the video. Most definitely she knew after one day. Her emails prove it.
2. The facts were there for anyone to see – except you. And you were told.
To this day you seem to deny the facts. Which is why your head would explode if you allowed yourself to grasp the truth.
it’s been proven Hillary KNEW minutes after the attack started that it wasn’t the video
Her emails prove no such thing. As information came in, her view of what had happened (along with the view of people at the CIA, White House, etc.) changed. You seize on one of those views in the timeline to say “Aha! She knew it! Anytime she said anything differently afterwards she was lying!” But she was simply changing her mind in response to new information, as anyone should.
If at time t0 I believe X, and at time t1 I have new information that leads me to believe Y, and at time t2 even newer information leads me back to believing X again, it’s nonsense to argue that proves I was lying at time t1.
One thing that’s never made sense to me about this is why you, and the right in general, care so much about this question. There’s this notion that the administration was trying to help itself politically by blaming the video, but that doesn’t make any sense. They put Americans in harm’s way and failed to adequately protect them. Their failure was the same whether the attack grew out of a protest or was planned in advance, whether the attackers were motivated by the video or weren’t. Any of those possibilities reflect badly on the administration, because they all have the same bottom line: a controversial intervention in an unstable country, a misjudged security situation, and 4 dead Americans. But instead of focusing on those very real failures, the right has focused all of its energies on two bogus allegations: that there was a stand down order that contributed to the loss of life, and that in the aftermath the administration purposefully lied for a couple of weeks about what it believed about the nature of the attack. The first charge lives on among the ignorant even after having been disproved by a GOP House committee. The second charge is unsupported by the evidence and doesn’t make sense. So why is the right so fixated on it?
Forget Hillary for a moment Jim. Do you know what Benghazi was?
“Her emails prove no such thing. As information came in, her view of what had happened (along with the view of people at the CIA, White House, etc.) changed. You seize on one of those views in the timeline to say …”
Jim I “seize” on her email to Chelsea which was sent the night of the attack saying it was a terrorist attack by an Al-Qaeda group:
“Hillary Clinton sent an email to her daughter Chelsea the night of the Benghazi attacks in which she claimed an ‘Al-Qaeda-like group’ carried out the assault, it has been revealed.
In the emails, she told Chelsea, under the alias Diane Reynolds, that two officers had been killed, and attributed the attack to an Al-Qaeda group rather than a spontaneous protest at the Obama Administration later described it. ”
Washington Post.
You lose.
I imagine that Bill had his lawyer issue a denial because it looks like an independent affirmation that Bill is innocent. But there is one more reason he would have done it.
The day after Vince Foster’s body was discovered in Fort Marcy Park, then President Clinton was asked for comment. At that time, I had been neck deep in my career, and had paid little or no attention to politics. I didn’t know about “bimbo eruptions” or anything else. But I watched Bill giving his comments on Vince Foster, and was startled to see that he was lying his ass off. And I couldn’t imagine why that would be.
My first impressions about people are almost always right, and I have ignored them (or rather, given the benefit of the doubt) to my peril and detriment far too often. I’ve met Bill Clinton since then. I’ve been at several speeches he’s given. He has the gift of making himself sound likable no matter what he is saying, and of making every person in a huge crowd (myself included) feel like he was talking only to them. At a speech at Cal State Northridge, he made some of the most un-American statements I have ever heard, but I felt like he was a really nice guy.
He’s a sociopath, and a classic psychopath. Anyone who has seen one would know it viscerally, immediately. He hides nothing from anyone who has been burned once. I’ve been literally roasted, and I now know the type by heart. I was married to one.
He didn’t deny it himself because he knew he would not be believed. Absolutely no one believed his denial of the Lewinsky affair, though the Left didn’t care. But he couldn’t take a chance with a rape charge.
This is one way in which Bill and Hillary differ. Everything she says is a lie (I have personal experience with that), but Bill only lies occasionally. He isn’t as good at hiding it. She might randomly tell the truth, but it’s impossible to tell.
Having that insight is rare. Thanks.
The thing that can’t be understood is why the Clintons are not held accountable for their lies? The lies, when proven, are always followed by another ‘plausible’ lie that then needs to be shown it is also a lie which is then immediately followed by another fall back ‘plausible’ lie.
Then when things cool off they go right back to their first lie (as long as it isn’t in the context of perjury. Lies to the public through the media don’t count.)
They are not held accountable for their lies for two reasons:
1. The media cover for them – do not pound them with stories
2. The DOJ is in their pocket.
How do we explain the media lying with them? Can they all be bought and paid for? Do they all lack basic reasoning ability?
You would think truth to be important to a ‘journalist?’ I realize many are under 30 so aren’t acquainted with truth but that can’t explain them all. Also, how can they not see the difference in importance and magnitude in their stories?
Well Ken there’s tremendous power and wealth available to those tho take the Queen’s coin and move to the dark side.
And remember if they do not know why this country is so successful (and they never learned) then they have no problem thinking their way is better.
No doubt Gregg, but that still leaves the adults responsible.
Our friends to the left have been living under hypernormalization for a long long time. They don’t know what is true because their leaders don’t let them know reality. This is true for all of the wars they have us in and for how their own party operates.
“They don’t know what is true because their leaders don’t let them know reality.”
I don’t buy that. Anyone who wants to know the reality can find it out if they really wanted to.
Instead, they start from the conclusion they have to – or want to – believe in and work backwards to construct a fantasy world that supports that conclusion.
And when faced with an absolute unassailable counter to their fantasy world they twist reality….
the best example I’ve seen personally was one I mentioned a few weeks back:
person concludes that the Baltimore 6 cops got off because the judge was racist.
Was pointed out that:
A. not all the cops were white and
B. The judge was black.
And after a look of terror the person stated that the judge must have been bought off.
Must. Adhere. To. Narrative.
Ah another interesting email which destroys one of the myriad of lies uttered by Obama and Hillary and their acolytes:
Clinton aide talked of needing to ‘clean’ up Obama’s comments on email server
A top Hillary Clinton aide expressed alarm in early 2015 that President Barack Obama claimed he was unaware of Clinton’s private email server until he learned about it in the news.
“We need to clean this up – he has emails from her – they do not say state.gov,” said Clinton adviser Cheryl Mills in a hacked email posted Tuesday on WikiLeaks.
As the scandal over Clinton’s use of a private email server was still emerging in March 2015, Obama told CBS News that he learned about the arrangement through the media. “The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” Obama told CBS News’ Bill Plante.
Mills was smart enough to know that some (present company included) would see a contradiction where there was none, and that there’d be public relations work to do.
Obama denied knowing that Clinton was using a server in her house for all her official unclassified email. Obama did know Clinton’s email address. But knowing her address wouldn’t tell him that it was her only address, or that the server was a private one in her house, so there’s no contradiction to get excited about.
Unlike you, Mills was smart enough to “get excited about” it.
Wow…just wow.
Mills clearly recognizes that Obama’s lie is exposed and say so…….
..and you think it’s a fairy tale.
Wow.
And you think Obama is far too stupid to know that if it’s not a .gov email address that it isn’t legal or safe…do you imagine he didn’t have to take the security course or that he just blew it off?
Wow.
you think Obama is far too stupid to know that if it’s not a .gov email address that it isn’t legal or safe…
Having a non-.gov email was not illegal; if Obama had thought it was, he’d have been wrong.
Obama wasn’t asked if he knew Clinton had a non-.gov address, he was asked if he knew that Clinton used a private server in her home for all her email, and he said he didn’t. There’s no reason to believe he did — there were people on Clinton’s staff who didn’t realize that was the case.
He said he didn’t know that she used email outside the US government until he heard about it in the news. Give it up. He lied.
Transmitting classified information to any address that isn’t SIPRNET or JWICS is a violation of the Espionage Act. Neither network ends in .com, and they certainly have no nodes including the name “clinton.”
Communicating about work between the President and the Secretary of State on an email address other than .gov (for unclass) would never happen for any legitimate reason. You are way out of your depth here, Jimbo.
Even presidents get security briefings Jim. He lied and he got caught.
“Having a non-.gov email was not illegal; if Obama had thought it was, he’d have been wrong.”
What is illegal, oh partisan tool, is sending classified documents between the president and Clinton via the non-government email. This is why Huma Abedin exclaimed, “How could this NOT be classified?”
See even sees the problem if you do not.
Here’s the interview in question. The question was:
“When did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was Secretary of State?”
Obama’s answer: “The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”
I think it comes down to whether Obama interpreted the words “for official business” in the question as “for any of her official business” or “for official business”. He had reason to know the former, but not the latter, and much of what came out in those news reports (such as the fact that the server was in Clinton’s home) was news to him too. A better answer would have been “I knew that Secretary Clinton had a private email address, as many officials do, but was not aware of the specifics of her email setup until the recent news reports.”
Communicating about work between the President and the Secretary of State on an email address other than .gov (for unclass) would never happen for any legitimate reason.
Powell and the Bush White House did most-to-all of their business on non-.gov accounts.
What is illegal, oh partisan tool, is sending classified documents between the president and Clinton via the non-government email.
The law makes no distinction between .gov and .com where the handling of classified documents are concerned.
When I saw this, guess who I immediately thought of?
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2016/10/hillarys-the-real-victim-here/
She just wanted to get away with it:
The conversation came one day after The New York Times first published evidence of the former secretary of state’s controversial email setup, which put her work-related correspondence outside the reach of officials who responded to Freedom of Information Act requests.
‘Why didn’t they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy,’ Tanden said.
Podesta responded, calling foot-dragging by Clinton and her lawyers Cheryl Mills and David Kendall ‘unbelievable.’
‘[I] guess I know the answer,’ Tanden chimed in, answering her own question.
‘[T]hey wanted to get away with it.’
Mills and Kendall, along with former Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines ‘sure weren’t forthcoming on the facts here,’ Podesta fumed.
In addition to counseling her legally, Mills was Clinton’s chief of staff at the U.S. State Department from 2009 to 2013.
‘This is a [C]heryl special,’ Tanden griped.
‘[I] know you love her, but this stuff is like her Achilles heal [sic]. Or kryptonite. [S]he just can’t say no to this s**t.’
Sure weren’t forthcoming on the facts………
Pretty clear statement – to everyone with common sense.
Summary: Clinton allies thought the way she handled her email setup, and its subsequent disclosure, would hurt her politically. And they were right!
You’re almost there Jim. Why were they right?
They correctly anticipated that Republicans would be able to spin Clinton’s selfish mistake into something that appeared nefarious, and even criminal. Which they did.
“I know this email thing isn’t on the level. I’m fully aware of that,” Tanden wrote in an August 2015 note to Podesta. “But her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem (more so than honesty).”
…not on the level……
We don’t have the email Tanden was replying to. It sounds like she’s agreeing that the attacks on Clinton over the email issue weren’t being made in good faith, but that Clinton should apologize anyway. And Tanden was right on both counts.