Little White Lies + Big Damnable Lies = Hillary Rodham Clinton

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D'Andrilli
“I am a liar, and that’s the truth” said the inhabitant of Crete. Was the Cretan’s assertion a lie or was he telling the truth? ~ Epimenides’ Paradox

Hillary Clinton
There’s no “bottom line” here—just a bottomless pit, a black hole: a deep, dark abyss constructed on lie upon lie, upon lie, upon lie. Hillary Clinton asserts Director Comey said her answers “were truthful.” That declaration is itself a lie.
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -(Ammoland.com)- After almost eight months of avoiding a formal Press Conference, Hillary Clinton's handlers loosen Clinton’s leash a bit, allowing her to speak.

She spouts this drivel in response to a specific question concerning her position that the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, said Clinton's responses to F.B.I. questions, posed to her during her interview, were truthful:

“I was pointing out in both of those instances, that Director Comey had said that my answers in my FBI interview were truthful. That really is the bottom line here,” she said. “What I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. I may have short-circuited and for that I will try to clarify.” Hillary Rodham’s statement in response to a journalist a gathering of black and Hispanic journalists in Washington, D.C., Clinton, on August 6, as reported by CNN

There’s no “bottom line” here—just a bottomless pit, a black hole: a deep, dark abyss constructed on lie upon lie, upon lie, upon lie. Hillary Clinton asserts Director Comey said her answers “were truthful.” That declaration is itself a lie.

For that declaration contradicts Director Comey’s testimony before the Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held on July 7, 2016, in Washington, D.C. The Hearing took place two days after the FBI Director delivered an unprecedented statement to the American people, laying out, in clear, cogent, damning detail the nature of and extent of Clinton’s crimes.

Congressman Trey Gowdy, Republican, South Carolina, pointedly asked Director Comey whether Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI during the FBI’s interview of Clinton. He said she did. (video and transcript to follow)

A portion of that exchange is here:

“GOWDY: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received classified information over her private e-mail. Was that true?

COMEY: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent —

GOWDY: So it was not true? COMEY: That’s what I said.

GOWDY: OK. Well, I’m looking for a little shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was not marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received, was that true?

COMEY: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said ‘I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?

COMEY: There was classified material e-mail.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?

COMEY: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of State.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said all work-related e-mails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

COMEY: No. We found work-related e-mails, thousands that were not returned.”

For a transcript of the entire eight and one-half hour hearing, go to: https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/oversight-state-department/.

Interview vs Deposition

News groups make much of Hillary Clinton’s use of the expression, “short-circuited,” in her response to a journalist at the August 6, 2016 gathering of black and Hispanic journalists. The news groups were right to do so, for the expression means nothing. Clinton’s handlers came up with it as a useful and deceitful dodge.

At the news conference, Hillary Clinton says “she will try to clarify.” Yet she clarified nothing. She never does. She never will. She leaves her listeners ever more puzzled, confused. She lies and obfuscates and keeps diligently to her script, meticulously prepared for her by her speech writers. She tries to sound contrite. She can’t because contrition isn’t in her character.

Americans should place more stock in another term Clinton employed at the August 6, 2016 gathering of black and Hispanic journalists. It is a neutral, matter-of-fact word, but one requiring a close look. For it says much of the insidious design to protect Clinton from exposure to legal action. The term is ‘interview.’

Now, Clinton did truthfully refer to her meeting with FBI agents as an ‘interview.’ The FBI conducted an interview of Clinton, not a deposition. What’s the difference? The term, ‘deposition,’ is a legal term of art. The term, ‘interview,’ though, has many shades of meaning, colloquial as well as legal.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, defines ‘deposition’ as ‘a witness’s out-of-court testimony that is reduced to writing (usually by a court reporter) for later use in court or for discovery purposes.’ Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, defines ‘testimony,’ as ‘Evidence that a competent witness under oath or affirmation gives at trial or in an affidavit or deposition.’

The word, ‘interview,’ is not defined in Black’s Law Dictionary except in reference to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office form which has no application here. But the distinction between an interview and a deposition has particular import apropos of the Clinton matter.

The FBI didn’t record Clinton’s responses to the FBI agents’ questions, and Clinton didn’t formally swear, under oath, that her responses were truthful. This means the FBI didn’t formally depose Hillary Clinton. So her assertions cannot be used at trial.

Why didn’t the FBI formally depose Clinton? Certainly, the enormity of the allegations against her would seem to demand that. Why did Hillary Clinton create a personal email server system? Didn’t she appreciate the risks in doing so? Couldn’t she appreciate the risks? What does her creation of a personal email system, leading to the mishandling of secret Government information, say about her judgment as a high level Government official?

Again, we ask: why didn’t FBI agents formally depose or, at least, electronically record Hillary Clinton’s responses to their questions?

Curiously, there is precedent for refraining from recording an interview. Both State and federal law enforcement officers had traditionally opposed recording of interviews of criminal suspects. Of course, if interviews aren’t recorded, in some manner, and if the interviewee's declarations are not under oath or affirmation, they have little if any evidentiary use in Court proceedings. But, perhaps, then, that’s the point of dispensing with the recording of interviews. Perhaps, then, that’s the point of dispensing with formal depositions. Let’s look at the history behind this approach to dispense with formal depositions in these matters.

To Record or Not to Record

Prior to 2003, only two States required their law enforcement officers to electronically record interviews and, until recently, federal Departments, including the Department of Justice resisted recording interviews.

However, “[s]ince 2003, the number of states requiring law enforcement officers to electronically record some or all interviews conducted with suspects in their custody has grown from two to at least twenty-two. Until recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has resisted this trend; under its previous policy, the DOJ's three chief investigative agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) — rarely recorded custodial interviews. However, on May 22, 2014, the DOJ announced a substantial change in its policy, creating a presumption that FBI, DEA, ATF, and United States Marshals Service (USMS) agents will electronically record custodial interviews.” Recent Administrative Policy: Criminal Procedure — Custodial Interviews — Department Of Justice Institutes Presumption That Agents Will Electronically Record Custodial Interviews, Dep't Of Justice, New Department Policy Concerning Electronic Recording Of Statements (2014)., 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1552 (March 10, 2015).

The Department of Justice’s new policy, adopted in 2014, concerning recording custodial interviews changed. At the time of adoption of the new policy, Eric Holder was the Attorney General, appointed by President Barack Obama.

Actually, the new policy was a welcome change.

For, [t]he DOJ's new policy, which went into effect on July 11, 2014, flips its previous presumption against recording to one in favor of it. Agents no longer need to obtain supervisory approval to record interviews: FBI, DEA, ATF, and USMS agents are now expected to electronically record statements of individuals suspected of any federal crime in their custody when in a ‘place of detention with suitable recording equipment.’” Id.

Why did the DOJ change its stance concerning recording custodial interviews?

“Before the recent shift, the DOJ's position was that custodial interviews generally should not be recorded. The major federal law enforcement agencies strongly resisted recording interrogations, citing fears that recording would interfere with rapport building, lay juries and judges would misinterpret acceptable interviewing techniques as improper, and the implementation would be logistically difficult. These concerns led agencies to erect barriers to electronic recording and to rely instead on note-taking and agent memory. For example, the FBI's standard procedure was for an agent to take notes during the interview and later compile a summary known as a Form 302. The Agency had an exception to this practice that allowed recording if the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) ‘deem[ed] it advisable.’ In all but the three largest FBI field offices, there is one SAC who runs the entire office. Therefore, although the FBI claimed that its policy allowed ‘flexibility’ in deciding when to record interviews, internal DOJ analysis suggests that the policy actually inhibited agents' ability to exercise discretion regarding whether or not to record their own interviews, and created a ‘heavy presumption’ against recording. Recent developments, however, expose the shortcomings of the DOJ's previous policy. After decades of experience on the state level with recording policies, many of the FBI's concerns about recording interviews have been proven false. . . . And even where the concerns may prove well-founded, exceptions to recording requirements can easily address the problem; for instance, an exception could be granted for technological difficulties.” Id.

Note: the policy for recording of interviews refers to those individuals in custody. But, the FBI never held Clinton in federal custody. So the DOJ’s new policy, favoring recording interviews, doesn’t directly apply here. Still, one might ask why—given the severity of Clinton’s conduct and the damage she inflicted on the security of this Nation and its people—the FBI didn’t take Clinton into custody?

Regardless, nothing suggests the FBI SAC Officer couldn’t electronically record Clinton’s responses even if the FBI had not detained her. Still, “. . . the agent and prosecutor may decide not to record an interview conducted for the purpose of gathering information related to public safety or national security.” Id. It’s the SAC Officer’s call. But, given the seriousness of Clinton’s mishandling of the nation’s secrets—a felony—one would think sufficient reason existed for electronic recording of Clinton’s responses; and one can, therefore, certainly make the rational counter argument that it is precisely because Clinton’s transgressions rose to the level of national security concerns that the FBI SAC Officer should have recorded Clinton’s responses to the FBI agents’ questioning for eventual use as evidence against Clinton in a court proceeding if the DOJ ultimately brought charges against her.

Certainly, Congress would wish to review the transcript. Indeed, at the August 6, 2015 hearing, Congress pointed out its desire to obtain the SAC Officer’s Form 302 summary of the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton. Whether the FBI ultimately does so, that is an open question.

Indeed, that is a transcendental question relating to Government’s attempt to hide nefarious, probably illegal actions from the American people.

But, formal electronic transcript or no, one incontrovertible fact remains, Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is a federal crime—a serious federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

18 U.S.C. § 1001, sets forth:

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism . . . imprisoned not more than 8 years . . . or both.”

Lies are lies
This Country now raises the specter of nominating, to the highest Office in the Land, an incorrigible liar.

Of note, a person need not have perjured him or herself—that is to say, a person need not have testified falsely, under oath—to have violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001.When a person lies to a federal official—whether under oath or not—that person has violated federal law. Director Comey has acknowledged as much.

Hillary Clinton cannot claim an excuse to lie or a license to lie to the FBI simply because she did not formally swear to tell the truth. And, her claim to have told the truth, when facts prove otherwise, do not elevate her lies to truth simply because they were uttered out of the mouth of one, in her view at least, of esteemed status, beyond the rule of law that applies to us lesser mortal citizens of the United States.

Courts of law, in time past, have taken a very dim view of liars, whether their lies were produced under oath or not. The courts have denied citizenship to individuals who lied to naturalization officials. See, Petition of Ledo, 67 F. Supp. 917 (D.C. RI 1946). The Court denied citizenship to a liar, noting that, under the naturalization Statute, only a person of good moral character, who accepts the principles of our Constitution and is not predisposed to harm our Country is welcome to become a citizen. The Court held that a liar is not a person of good moral character. That is ground to deny a person his or he petition for citizenship.

8 U.S.C.A. § 707(a) provides:

‘No person, except as hereinafter provided in this chapter, shall be naturalized unless such petitioner, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing petition for naturalization has resided continuously within the United States for at least five years and within the State in which the petitioner resided at the time of filing the petition for at least six months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the petition up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.’

8 U.S.C.A. § 707(a) is now covered by 8 USCS § 1427(a) through (c). Of note, the language, especially, pertaining to moral character remains, in the present statute, exactly as written in the older Statute.

See, In re Spenser, 22 F. Cas. 921, 5 Sawy 195 (1895). The Circuit Court of Oregon pointed out that perjury is not only malum prohibitum [an act that is a crime merely because prohibited by statute] but malum in se [an act that is inherently immoral, like arson or murder] that wherever it affected the administration of justice, by introducing falsehood and fraud therein, it was at common law deemed infamous, and the person committing it held incompetent as a witness and unworthy of credit.

How far we have come. A court of law may forbid citizenship to a person who lies to a federal officer on the ground our Country does not deem such a person worthy of our Country’s grace, for that person is, both by law and by nature, an immoral person.

Yet, this Country now raises the specter of nominating, to the highest Office in the Land, an incorrigible liar—a person who lied to FBI. She then unabashedly compounds the lies told to the FBI by telling the American people she never lied to the FBI.

Crooked Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton

We have in Hillary Rodham Clinton a person capable of turning veritable lies into inviolate truths and, when pressed, will claim she simply made a “mistake.” Those“mistakes” translate into devastation and horror. Those “mistakes” have weakened this Country and its system of laws, led directly or indirectly to the deaths of thousands of Americans, allowed for the rise and strengthening of numerous radical Islamic groups, created political instability throughout the world, promoted civil unrest, but created hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clintons as they have placed, and will undoubtedly continue to place, our Country’s assets, its traditions, its values, its very Constitution and Sovereignty—all of it—on the auction block. Nothing is sacred or “off the table” for Bill and Hillary Clinton where their insatiable greed, lust for power, and capacity for unremorseful criminal misconduct are concerned. See the documentary, Clinton Cash.”

Under present and past naturalization Statutes and under U.S. Court law decisions—decisions going back to the 19th Century—Hillary Rodham Clinton would have been denied citizenship given her penchant for lying to federal officials. Such a person is beyond redemption. No one ought to be surprised, then, at Hillary Clinton’s audacity, as a citizen of the United States, to claim the Office of U.S. Presidency for herself, as her God-given right—and as the God-given right of her offspring in years to come.

_______________________________

Interested readers are invited to view the complete Arbalest Quarrel article here: http://arbalestquarrel.com/little-white-lies-big-damnable-lies-and-hillary-rodham-clinton-truths/

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

  • 71 thoughts on “Little White Lies + Big Damnable Lies = Hillary Rodham Clinton

    1. Mr. Kman, I am curious, why are you even on this site “AMMOLAND”? Hasn’t your government, like a overly strict nanny, told you “you cannot have guns”? Are you just perusing things you are not capable of owning like a hungry kid peering into a cafe window? It sounds like self-torture to me but maybe you’re into that. I am genuinely mystified by your presence. On another note, Mr. Trump may not be to your liking but one thing he is not is a felon, Hillary Clinton is. G’day to you sir.

      1. First of all – I just stumbled over this site on a google newsfeed and coudn’t resist throwing in my two cents worth. Secondly- we Australians are very happy with our ‘strict’ gun laws… They work! Results from a 2012 survey showed that in Australia, homicides by firearms were 1.4 per 1 million people compared to the US at 29.7 per 1 million people. Stats worth thinking about.

        1. Kman, now who’s a liar now. I’ve read a lot of posts from Australians and they are hopping mad at your government over the gun control issue. Maybe you live in the outback and don’t get out that much or maybe you just like to try to push your liberal BS, but found a bad place to try it. Too bad for you and your country!

          1. You could read 100,000 posts from disgruntled Aussies but they’d still be in the minority. Polls have shown that at least 85% of Australians are happy with our present gun laws and that’s good luck for our country!

            1. @Kmart, You could read 100,00 posts from disgruntled Aussies and all the posts from the other 85% of Australians (giving your statistics the benefit of the doubt) and, still, none of them would have any skin in our game.

            2. Kman – I think you are just mad that you can’t have a gun so you want to see that no one else does either. Poor little sheep!

        2. Kman, you gotta get off that stuff. We ARE NOT happy with our extreme gun laws at all, witness the explosion of pro-gun groups on social media, & pro-gun political parties / candidates. Back to your lattes.

            1. “We” is all the gun-owners who are not happy with the gun laws. Note I say “gun-owners” because the 85% you say *are* happy, are not gun-owners & wouldn`t even know what the laws / regs. are. A case of “ignorance is bliss” surely.

            2. @Kman, That is like saying you have a golf club why aren’t you happy.
              @darryl cheal, Why don’t you come to Texas and leave that slave country behind.

    2. @kman, Yes, Trump is a bit of an ass, yes he’s an egomaniac, but we don’t care.  Our country is a mess because our politicians suck.  The Republican Party is two-faced and gutless, and illegals are everywhere.  We want it all fixed!  We don’t care that Trump is crude, we don’t care that he insults people, we don’t care that he had been friendly with Hillary, we don’t care that he has changed positions, we don’t care that he’s been married 3 times, we don’t care that he fights with Megyn Kelly and Rosie O’Donnell, we don’t care that he doesn’t know the name of some Muslin terrorist.
      Assume that you’ve been on vacation for two weeks, and when you come home you find that your house is infested with raccoons.  Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean raccoons have taken over your house.  You want them gone immediately.  You call the city, the county and 4 different exterminators.  Nobody can handle the job. Then you hear of one guy who guarantees to get rid of them.  You don’t care if the guy smells, you don’t care if he cusses, you don’t care if he’s an alcoholic, you don’t care how many times he’s been married, you don’t care if he has plumber’s crack. You want those raccoons gone!  You want your problem fixed!  He’s the guy.  So you hire him. Period. Thus endeth the lesson.

      1. Trump is a liar (too). If the racoons remain after guarantees from this fast talking, would-be, political messiah then you’re stuck with the racoons for the next two terms.

        1. Kman, what lie did Trump tell. Spit it out or are you just reading liberal blogs and thinking it will pass here. Guess that liberals vest fits pretty well on you doesn’t it!!

          1. Not lie-lies. Go to The Daily Wire site ‘ 101 of Trump’s Lies ‘ ( One of many publications listing his lies and twisted statistics). Call the site liberal if you like but it’s backed by clear facts. And you don’t even need to go there. He’s even admitted he’s got it wrong sometimes like it’s no big deal. His quotes and retracted quotes are out there. All you have to do is listen to him objectively.

            1. Glad to know your one of the sheep. When they come to kill you remember to say something stupid like ‘WHAT ARE YOU DOING’ or “I HELP YOU, YOU CAN’T DO THIS TO ME;. It may make your death easier, but I don’t think so!

            2. ‘When THEY come to kill’ me? You crack me up, Mike. Who’s coming to kill me?The Taliban? Isis? Ths commies? The Toxic Zombies from the Swamp?
              Sounds like some advanced paranoia going on there.

    3. Kman – Pussy boy Obama and his clone Clinton have lost $10 trillion in the past seven and a half years! Guess math is not a requirement down under!!

    4. Be honest. It’s pretty obvious. She just reacted to a sudden volley of questions by humorously bouncing her head backwards in mock overwhelment ( perhaps a little over the top). But anyone who sees it as a stroke or seizure knows nothing about strokes or seizures or, more likely, their perception is clouded by hate.

      1. What was the bull dykes problem when it was dog barking ? The bull dyke is sick cu*nt and will never be president ! TRUMP/PENCE 2016 !

        1. Geez ,Tex. What’s this fixation with the ‘ bull dyke ‘ insult? Do you have a conspiracy theory about her sexuality as well? And the barking? Don’t we all break into a bark every now and again? I thought it was normal. Although I’m a bit of a howler myself. Anyway, it’s looking very likely that the women that churns your bile so much will be President. Nothing I can do about it … I’m in a another country (dodging kangaroo kicks). But if I was a yank I wouldn’t vote for either of them. And my only beef with Clinton would be about the job she did on Burnie Sanders. Pity… I like Burnie. He da man!!!

            1. The bigots, crooks and morons here hate intelligence and education. Don’t mind these wackos Kman. They are a very delusional minority here in the U.S. that is being closely monitored and incarcerated. They can’t tell the difference between friend and foe and 9 out of ten times they stand with America’s foe, Like ISIS.

            2. superwoman my ass, you are the uneducated one! Go drink some more koolaid and suck your thumb in your safe place!

            3. Superwoman is nothing more than a trannie Gee Bud and as for Kman, well the Aussies haven’t been much good as allies since WWI with the Lighthorse, and maybe the Chocolate Soldiers in WWII (but they were civilian volunteers)… so ignore the foreigners…. they need to stay out of American politics… besides, the Aussies are having their hands full with all the ragheads coming in. Ain’t socialism great?

            4. Ranger, my great great grandfather copped the business end of a Jap shell in New Guinea (WW2) . But the japanese where a clear and present threat to our country -unlike Vietnam and Iraq War. I don’t care much for Trump but he was right on the money in saying the Iraq war was a stuff up and created a vacuum for terrorists. These days I think Australians are bit more cynical about following the US into another useless war. And as far as staying away from your politics go, your foreign policies have a huge international effect so who’s in the oval office is relevant to us. Also, we’re not ‘socialists’ ….we’re just ‘moderates’ with a good health system.

            5. kman, You are correct when you state that U.S. foreign policy will have affects on many other countries. My question for you is who do you think your government will have more confidence in dealing with – the successful international businessman (Trump), or the proven congenital liar (HRC)? I personally abhor liars and avoid dealing with them unless absolutely necessary. If HRC is elected POTUS, your govt. will be forced to deal her lying ass. Does this make you comfortable?

            6. Kman – maybe in your english but not American englixh. Another reason to stay or of politics in this country!

            7. @kman, So you want to get involved in American politics? On this day in 1814 the British captured Washington, D.C. They burned the capitol, and scattered the worthless federal politicians of that time. So… how much do you need to do the same today? Just give me a ball park figure in USDs.

            8. Trump is a successful business man who has lost $1. 7 billion over the last 15 years. And how are those income tax records going?

            9. @kman. Trump lost 1.7 billion over 15 years. HA, that is nothing… Obama has secretly given the Iranians 1.3 billion in the past four years. I just saw it on TV. Obama is calling it interest payments! Interest on what? And why are the parents made in currency, pallets and pallets of American currency?

            10. kman, If that’s true, it was 1.7 billion of his own money, not the American people’s. I’d have to say that when anyone can afford to lose that much and still stay in business, he’s pretty damned successful. On the other hand, Obozo and the Dems have doubled this republic’s debt to 20 trillion in the 7.5 years he’s been in office. This was not his money, it was the American people’s money. And there’s no reason to believe that HRC and the ideologically warped Dems won’t do the same if she’s elected.

    5. Hilly C seems to have actually lost touch with reality. Add to that the outbursts of laughter at quite inappropriate moments…the goofy faces…her pop-eyed, gape-mouthed “smiles”…there’s definitely something wrong with this granny. I think she’s flipped her wig. I know she’s supposed to have Parkinson’s or something…and that may be. But I KNOW she’s gone for a stroll down the garden path.

    6. Now that it’s been proven to the world beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hitlery is a congenital liar, we must consider the ramifications of electing such a person POTUS. Fact: If elected, she’ll be OUR representative on the world stage. Fact: The governments of other nations will know that she’s a liar. Question: Are any of us ever comfortable when dealing with known liars? Answer: NO WE ARE NOT! Question: Will the leaders and governments of other nations be comfortable with the fact that they will have to deal with a known liar? Answer: NO THEY WON‘T. Conclusion: These two facts will put our foreign policy on very shaky ground and put the people republic in danger if she is elected POTUS, so logic and common sense dictates that we should NOT elect this proven liar. NUFF SAID!

    7. Another weekend at Bernie’s. Hillary is fading fast

      There is one thing the ruling elite establishment cannot control and that’s Ms. Hillary’s Health.

      They may hide it like FDR wheel chair, but she is very ill. The secret service can no longer hide it. She is very ill. She spent a whole year 2013 in the Hospital.

      She has Parkinson disease and she needs help and rest.Flash from cameras can set it off. They have to literal hold her up. She can not stand up without help.

    8. Hillary and Obama are in this together, that’s why he’s been protecting, propping he up and campaigning for her. He knows if she goes down, he goes down with her.

    9. This article can be summed up in two words to describe Hillary Robespierre-Stalin: megalomaniacal sociopath.

    10. AAAGGGGHHHH ;
      I need TWO BOTTLES of EYE BLEACH after that picture of the Shrill, Lying , HAG, and Criminal witch.
      It looks like an old well used PRUNE left out in the sun too long.
      She makes the evil witch in the old “WIZARD of OZ” look beautiful !!

      1. Bill gave her the ‘crows feet’. That’s from all the ‘squinting’ and saying “You want me to do what?” If she can’t handle a 3 AM ‘booty call’ how’s Hillary gonna handle a 3 AM call on the ‘red phone’?

    11. Wait. When did HRC lie to the FBI? Comey said her answers to the agents who interviewed her were “truthful”.

      I’m #NeverrHillary, but the article’s argument seems to hinge on this & I can’t see it.

      1. HIdapoupa – How will anyone every know if she lied to the FBI because they did not tape or transcript anything she said. Must be very nice to get special treatment from the FBI and DOJ. Your ass would be in jail and so would anyone else except for Clinton, pussy boy Obama and their friends!!!

    12. You guys are sucking up the bull Sh!t straight from the GOP crime families bung hole …..LOL Fools!

      1. Stuporthing spews more of the pasture droppings from between its ears.
        Wonder how MUCH this troll gets paid or just gets to visit Bill Boy the molester in the bedroom when he has a cigar that needs attntion.

    13. it is now a full court press by the media and liberal progressives to say that there is a vast right wing consiricy against crooked hilary. NOT.
      There is a huge conspiracy aganist trumps election. Rerepublican have many of shallow moral convictions that are showing themselves to be supporters of clinton

    14. The bull dyke has very serious physical health issues. It’s decades long history of mental issues is well documented. I would give even money that the bull dyke dies before the 8 Nov.’16 election due to her rabidly declining health.She is not wanting her medical records to become public knowledge for a reason.

      1. Yes, as the combined efforts of the entire criminal justice system of the United States of America can not seem to get hiLIARy in front of a judge, even once, maybe her declining health can get her in front of The Judge.

    15. How did this lying regressive sh*thole of a newspaper get its search results at the top of the Google newsfeed? Do you have pictures of Sundar Pichai misbehaving with schoolchildren or something?

      1. BAck to your liberal slop hole you leftist moronic troll and idiot. Since you don’t like it, Than haul you sorry little butt end off of it.
        By The Way, I understand Obama needs a new partner on his knees and you sound like you qualify.

      1. No. I’m not insulted because I know I’m not a moron. I’m also not an angry, seething, gun toting, redneck and I thank god for that even though I’m not a theist.

          1. No. I’m just an Aussie here in Sydney who came across this publication and couldn’t believe what he was reading. Hillary’s got to be the lesser of two evils. Trumps a psychopath and an international joke. And what’s the deal with this God and guns mentality over there? My idea of a Christian would be someone who emulates Christ… I can’t imagine Jesus toting an Uzi.

            1. @Kman,you’re just an Aussie moron that’s been kicked in the head by too many kangaroos. TEXAS PROUD/REDNECK PROUD !

            2. Hillary has Parkinson disease and she needs help and rest. Flash from cameras can set it off. She talks for 10 minutes and then goes home for three days.

            3. Come on, Tex. That’s no way to talk to an ANZUS ally. OK, maybe I was a bit out of line with the redneck comment but you’ve just use it as a term of endearment so we’re cool. So, who are you voting for- Clinton or Trump? ( remember Trump insulted your old governor and his brother ).

    Comments are closed.