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.”
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.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 
She lied, and she has lied before, usually about matters related to her own mistakes in judgment. She shouldn’t, it’s a character deficit, and IF ONLY she had an opponent who wasn’t bat sheet crazy and proud of his ignorance, I wouldn’t have to vote for her to prevent World War III.