Is Bill Clinton Telling the Biggest Load of Bull?

On Friday, August 12, 2016, former President of the United States Clinton made remarks concerning a lack of public faith in the veracity of Hillary Clinton due to a large number of outright lies she told the public on numerous occasions associated with her lack of judgement handling confidential information.

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/bill-clinton-calls-hillarys-email-scandal-biggest-load-of-bull

Former President Clinton: “First of all, the FBI director said when he testified before Congress, he had to amend his previous day’s statement that she had never received any emails that were classified. They saw two little notes with a ‘C’ on it — this is the biggest load of bull I ever heard — that were about telephone calls that she needed to make and the State Department typically puts a little ‘C’ on it to discourage people from discussing it in public in the event the secretary of state, whoever it is, doesn’t make a phone call.”

There are many indications of fabrication and deceit in this statement.

“First of all” – indicates there will be multiple points and the point the speaker is about to make is the most important point.

“the FBI director said” – this is the most important point. Someone other than Hillary Clinton made a statement more important than anything Hillary Clinton said or did.

Notice the most important thing the speaker needs to tell us is not a denial Hillary Clinton lied to the public. The lies of Hillary Clinton are an accepted fact by the speaker. Hillary Clinton lied. No argument there from either side.

“that she had never received any emails that were classified” – the speaker wants to make it clear to everyone Hillary Clinton did receive classified emails. The emails in question were “classified”, no doubt about it.

“this is the biggest load of bull I ever heard” – the entire statement hinges on this phrase which tells the acute listener the entire statement is “the biggest load of bull I ever heard”, especially the next part. It is physiologically difficult to tell a fabrication and one of the defense mechanisms of the mind is to insert truth, such as “this is the biggest load of bull I ever heard”. The speaker is correct, he is telling bull and he expects you to buy it.

The rest of the statement is a crude attempt to minimize the importance of a document marked “classified”. Perhaps the listeners will believe government officials marked only three emails out of tens of thousands “classified” because they contained simple return phone call information.

It is interesting former President Clinton, who spent most of an hour in private on a plane with the Attorney General just prior to the statements of the FBI Director, has such detailed information on the contents of classified emails, information which does not seem to be generally known by the media.

It is also interesting former President Clinton changes the number of classified emails with markings from the FBI Director’s statement of “three” to “two”. Apparently, losing emails runs in the Clinton family.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

“But Comey reported that, of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 individual emails contained classified information, and three of them bore markings signifying their classification status. Eight email threads contained top-secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information.”

If the remarks of former President Clinton were the only statements about this issue known by a listener, a reasonable conclusion might be Hillary Clinton was only irresponsible with two emails. In this case, we have the benefit of other sources of information, so we know the truth to be well over one hundred classified emails were mishandled.

Former President Clinton assures us with this statement Hillary Clinton lied to the public on numerous occasions in the recent past.

Former President Clinton assures us with this statement he personally is not above lying if it suits his purposes.

Former President Clinton assures us with this statement, although he is an accomplished liar, he is no better at hiding his lies now than when he occupied the White House.

Did Donald Trump Encourage Gun Owners to Kill Hillary Clinton?

On August 9, 2016, Donald Trump made remarks which included the words “Second Amendment”. Many media outlets reported Donald Trump incited violence with these remarks. We will examine the words of Donald Trump.

You can hear a discussion about what Donald Trump may or may not have meant in the video. The discussion lacks an analysis of the actual words and references interpretations many times. Interpretation may vary, but the words Donald Trump spoke do not.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/09/trump-suggests-2nd-amendment-people-could-stop-clinton/88479722/

Donald Trump: “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

The words of Donald Trump contain no words or references of violence.

There are only two phrases which are open to interpretation:

“maybe there is” – Donald Trump suggests there may be a route open to stop an attack on the Second Amendment by Hillary Clinton. The route is interpreted by liberal media as violence.

“Second Amendment people” – this is the phrase which the liberal media uses to justify their interpretation of violence because the Second Amendment is a constitutional guarantee citizens have the right to bear arms. The liberal media equates this right with violence.

If we replaced the word “Second” with the word “First” or “Fifth”, would the liberal media have printed headlines claiming Donald Trump was inciting violence. Why isn’t the First Amendment, the right to free speech, equated with violence? Doesn’t a lot of violence break out at rallies in which opposed sides are vociferously utilizing their right to free speech? Why isn’t violence associated with the Fifth Amendment, the right to remain silent, when we are all aware violent criminals use this right to escape justice?

Only by equating “Second Amendment people” with murderers capable of gunning down a candidate for President of the United States of America can the words of Donald Trump be interpreted as a call to violence.

The liberal media equates “Second Amendment people” with killers.

If you believe the Second Amendment is, or people who support the Second Amendment are, to be equated with violence, you should seriously reconsider your viewpoint. Our founding fathers were intelligent and talented agents of democracy who understood deeply the absolute necessity for each of our guaranteed constitutional rights. An attack upon any right is an attack upon all. Freedom is defined in our society by our Bill of Rights. Freedom is not violence.

Freedom is not free. Each right comes with a price, just as all our rights were and continue each day to be bought with the blood of our brothers and sisters. The price of free speech is tolerating verbal and written attacks upon our other rights. The price of the right to bear arms is the acceptance of the maxim with great power comes great responsibility.

Practice your rights as a responsible citizen. Vote!

Did Clinton Tell the Truth to the Public?

On August 5th, 2016, Hillary Clinton remarked at length when asked a question about the truthfulness of multiple statements she has made to the American public regarding the FBI investigation into her use of unsecured email servers for sensitive and classified information exchange.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-email-truthful-answer-226725

Hillary Clinton: “And I have said during the interview and many other occasions over the past months, that what I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. So, I may have short-circuited it and for that, I, you know, will try to clarify because I think, you know, Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other because of course, he could only talk to what I had told the FBI and I appreciated that.”

“And I have said during the interview and many other occasions over the past months, that” – What is about to be said has been said many times, yet the use of the word “that” indicates a distancing from the next statement. Although what is about to be said has been said many times, the speaker is uncomfortable repeating here. Words are chosen by the brain and transmitted to the tongue in microseconds, a feat surpassing the swiftest of computers. Lying requires a conscious interruption of this process in order to replace truth with fiction. This process causes physical symptoms, the measurement of which is the basis of polygraph testing. These physical symptoms are uncomfortable. The discomfort, both psychological and physical, created by the process of lying is reflected in the choice of words. “That” is a common signpost of discomfort, which often indicates a lie is to follow.0

“the past months” – this phrase limits the statement to a specific time frame. What was said during this time frame does not match what was said at other times. Limitations are often inserted by liars to ease the discomfort of the lie.

“that what I told the FBI” – whatever was told to the FBI has a degree of discomfort attached to it, there is something about it the speaker does not like, perhaps the fact she had to tell it to the FBI. This is an odd phrasing because of the word “what” which is an extra and unneeded word which starts a lengthy convoluted wording which could have been “I told the FBI the truth”. When someone uses more than the minimum phrasing, the odds the statement is untruthful rise in direct proportion to the amount of extra words.

“which he said was truthful” – who is he? The listener is led to believe the “he” is the FBI Director, but the speaker does not identify “he”. Never assume to whom or what a pronoun refers. Someone said “what I told the FBI… was truthful”. This is not a statement “what I told the FBI” is the truth. In fact, this is a carefully worded statement to avoid directly stating if “what I told the FBI” is the truth. Tellers of truth do not avoid the truth, they do not side-step the truth. “He” is stating the words were truthful, but the speaker is not.

“So, I may have short-circuited it and for that, I, you know” – What? “Short-circuited”? To what does “it” refer”? The truth? “So, I may have short-circuited” the truth. When someone short-circuits the truth, they circumvent the truth, the circle around the truth, they case the truth to malfunction. These are all euphemisms for lying. This is a statement by the speaker she lied, although there is a softening by the use of the word “may”. She may have lied. Maybe. You decide. She doesn’t know if she lied or if she told the truth. She claims she cannot distinguish between lies and truth.

“and for that, I, you know” – to what does “that” refer? We know whatever it is, the speaker wishes to distance themselves from it. We are left to assume “that” refers to the speaker lying. For lying, the speaker is, “you know”. The phrase “you know” is a verbal suggestion the listener already knows what the speaker will say and since the listener knows and is still listening, the listener agrees with what is about to be said, if you are still listening, you must agree with what is about to be said because “you know”.

“will try to clarify because I think, you know” – The speaker will attempt to “clarify” the lie. The speaker told an unclear lie. You know she told an unclear lie and you knew she was going to try to “clarify”, just as “you know” and implicitly agree with what will be said next. The speaker thinks “you know” this… of course you do… and you agree. You are in the “know”.

“Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other” – the use of the word “probably” indicates the speaker is not declaring she and Wallace were “talking past each other”, but possibly they were and even though she was there and a participant and she doesn’t believe they talked past each other (if she did, she wouldn’t need to insert “probably”), maybe you should. “Probably” you should believe what she is saying because for some reason, if you do, it is best for the speaker.

“because of course, he could only talk to what I had told the FBI” – “of course” is equivalent to “you know”, a verbal assault on the independence of the thoughts of the listener.

“he could only talk to what I had told the FBI” – why was Chris Wallace limited to “only”? Did Wallace and Clinton have an agreement as to what questions could be asked during this interview? Is this a limitation Wallace imposed upon himself or one imposed by Clinton? How could any self-respecting journalist or honest candidate for president place public statements made by the candidate off-limits for any interview? This appears to be a statement of collusion between Chris Wallace and Hillary Clinton which would bring the impartiality of the press in this interview into question and open a larger question of who else at the network may be involved in such agreements. How can Chris Wallace “talk to what” he was not present to witness?

“and I appreciated that” – what did the speaker appreciate? The fact Wallace “could only talk to”? The fact Wallace agreed he “could only talk to”?

Fact check – this is what Wallace said during the interview:

“After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/31/clintons-claim-that-the-fbi-director-said-her-email-answers-were-truthful/

Wallace “talks to” the statements Hillary Clinton made to the American public, but Clinton states he “could only talk to what I had told the FBI”. Lies upon lies upon lies until even the speaker is unable to keep the truth straight.

“he could only talk to what I had told the FBI” – the “he” which seemed to refer to Wallace as only Wallace is named in the statement, refers to the FBI Director, who “could only talk to what I had told the FBI”. Whether the FBI Director was required to only talk to what Clinton told the FBI is debatable, but he did repeatedly decline to answer questions about the truthfulness of Clinton to the American public. This is what Clinton appreciated, as he could have made a statement she did lie because she clearly did just within this one short segment of a much longer series of remarks.

What have we learned?

We have learned the discomfort of lying makes even presidential candidates insert a multitude of unneeded additional wording into what would be short simple statements if they were truth.

We have learned Hillary Clinton was relieved by the words of the FBI Director because she knew in her heart his statements could have been devastating.

We have learned multiple lies can be packed into two sentences.