Why do people support Hillary Clinton?

There is NO SPECULATION. Carson made a very specific claim. That he marched in the Memorial Day Parade in Detroit. Afterward he was introduced to Gen Westmoreland and two Medal of Honor winners and then went to dinner with them. Sometime during or after that dinner but that night he claimed to have been offered a scholarship to West Point. That is claim is demonstrably FALSE. No speculation on my part not opinion. Westmoreland was NOT there. He did not have dinner with Westmoreland that night. Westmoreland would NEVER offer anyone a scholarship to West Point because he KNEW that he did not have the POWER to do that but he wasn't there to offer Carson anything anyway. Carson lied about that whole meeting. It is a fabricated story and proven to be a fabricated story. This is not my opinion or speculation it is PROVEN FACT.

Again this isn't about what Hillary has or has not done. Those are deflections. This is about a lie Carson told.

 

You are claiming things that are not factual. At first the SPECULATION was that it was likely related to the video. That was a true statement when it was made. The subsequent investigation proved otherwise they corrected record. It is like saying someone is covering up the bombing of the Russian jet liner because they didn't say it was the result of a bomb hours or even days after the airliner went down. You are talking nonsense.

 

Carson did march in the Memorial Day Parade in Detroit. At least I haven't read accusations to the contrary. As far as the date he met with Gen Westmoreland, going back to 1969 it's more than plausible that got specific dates mixed up. Politico acknowledges it, other sources acknowledge it, because the February meeting has been shown to be possible.

I think it's funny that if this was really a 'smoking gun', the tabloid press would still be all over it. You're beating a dead horse that the news outlets have already dismissed. Again, all you're offering is your opinion that the date discrepancy is too fishy to believe. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not proof.

As far as "this isn't about what Hillary has or has not done. Those are deflections", this thread is supposed to be about Hillary. Look at the title. But no matter. It's obvious why you won't answer my questions. Either through your silence or your twisting and turning, I wanted to get your response. Mission accomplished. Thanks.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing PUUUHHHHHLEASE!!!! Sorry I am not doing nutter anymore. Im sick of if this horse(*)(*)(*)(*) you guys have the audacity to sit there and spew. She lied to faces of the victims mothers all the while knowing it had absolutely nothing to do with a youtube video. Be American!

 

Ok, so if they are misleading me what is the truth? Did she delete them before she was asked for copies or after? Also why do you trust that she only deleted emails that were private and not relevant to her job? Finally do you not believe that she should have followed the rules laid down by her own department on how official correspondence is to be handled?

 

I am not questioning whether or not he marched in the Memorial Day Parade. What is demonstrably false is his assertion in his book that after the parade he was introduced to Westmoreland by Sgt Hunt...this is false. That he was then asked to dine with Westmoreland and two Medal of Honor Winners...this is false. He then claims that sometime during or shortly after the dinner he was offered a full scholarship to West Point...this is false. These are not opinions but FACT. Your defense is it is possible that some semblance of these events could conceivably have taken place some 3 months previous to this. I am saying since I know for a FACT that he lied about the Memorial Day meeting that his word on any subsequent meetings is not acceptable as proof. You are willing to accept his word...I am not. Besides this does not change the underlying FACT. Westmoreland would NEVER offer anyone a scholarship to West Point. He would not have the authority to do this at all. So now we have your opinion that he is at least partially telling the truth to my FACTS that he is lying.

 

You are not being factual as patently demonstrated.

 

She did follow the rules laid down by the State Department. Second, there would be no reason for her to delete those emails as they would as always exist in other places and have been collected by other means so yes I believe she only deleted those that were personal and before the request had been made because it would have been logical for her to do so.

 

Says the guy who says Hillary didnt lie.

 

Why are you afraid of the GOP?

Hopefully not Hillary though.

 

Why do so many support Hillary? Because there is so much "waste"---and sewage seeks its own level.

 

Apparently, the chronic Hillary haters follow the lead of their ideological radio entertainers in thusly whinging about her.

As noted, all they really need to do if find one GOP opponent the American people would prefer.

Meanwhile, to give credit where due, they're putting on a most mirthful performance, instead.

 

I never said that she didn't lie. Everyone lies...politicians more than most but that does not mean your claim is not factually inaccurate.

 

Its not a claim..its a fact. Didnt you watch the hearing?

 

I listened to the whole boring eight hours and there was no instance when there was anything nefarious proven or even really hinted at. The whole hearing, at least from Republican point of view, was a dismal failure. Nothing new was learned, no claims of lying or misdeeds proven or even hinted at. Your claims that she somehow lied to cover something up are factually untrue. You are perpetuating a myth that has been proven false.

 

I cant make you listen better. Sorry. The rest of the world including the msm couldnt deny it after that. But keep on keepn on. Its great forum fodder.

 

You continue to ignore that several sources say the meeting in February could have happened. I'm not going to call anyone a liar when recalling the timing of events 45 years ago. Hillary made a similar timing error when discussing watching the MLK march. As much as I enjoy piling on Hillary, I can't call her to task for an honest error. I'm guessing you're a young guy, so you don't yet have the perspective of time and recollection. You're not going to agree on this, so there is nothing further to go over on this point.

And you're going off again declaring what Westmoreland would or wouldn't do. You really don't know. You can't know. What happens behind the scenes in different aspects of life would surprise you. I'm not going to cover that ground again.

The only FACT here is that you think Carson lied. That's your personal opinion based on what you've read, and your own deductive reasoning. Even though I don't agree with your personal conclusions, I respect your right to feel the way you do. But don't confuse your feelings with slam dunk provable facts. They're not the same in this instance.

 

I would have to dispute "she did follow the rules laid out by the State Department."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/u...nt-follow-government-email-policies.html?_r=1

As to the rest there would be very good reasons to delete things if they would look bad if seen by the State Department. If the personal emails were harmless it would be illogical to delete them since by deleting them it made her look suspicious. She has harmed her campaign by doing it and that is not logical if there was nothing to hide. So either she made a boneheaded mistake in deleting them which should make us wonder if she is fit for the job. Or she made the right decision to delete them because there was something there which is worse then making her people suspicious.

 

Hillary has given Obama an "A" on policy, meaning to me she will support his policies and I'm sure that includes his methods, which are unconstitutional.

 

Again not personal opinion. Did Carson claim that he met and had dinner with Westmoreland after the memorial day march...No that is a lie. The only proof that we have is Carson's word which is proven suspect. I am sorry you don't like the fact that he lied but you do not put something in a book with such detail such as when, where and who introduced you and get the date off by months.

As far as what Westmoreland would or would not have offered him it is not even conceivable that any General would make any such offer. It is simply not possible.

 

You can take issue with that all you want but it is true. The State Department guidelines allowed for her to use her private email period. The judge in this case like the case of the CSM is being more than slightly misleading. He is stating something that on the surface seems to point a factual conclusion without actually making the factual conclusion. This is because he could not in fact make a statement of factual conclusion that she violated the policy because the policy clearly allowed her to use private email.

 

I have looked at the state department procedures that deal with this subject and I disagree with your conclusions. Can you show where it is allowed perhaps I missed it?

 

According to State Department regulations at the time record keeping was to conform to both Federal Records Act and NARA. Neither of which preclude the use of private email.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-31

https://foia.state.gov/Learn/RecordsManagement.aspx

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...9&node=36:3.0.10.2.10&rgn=div5#se36.3.1220_11

Nothing in any these requirements at the time precluded her from using private email. Please show me where it does specifically.

 

I gotta tell ya, after living through Bush, I'm tired of people whining about constitutionality.

 

Even if Bush 43 was guilty of something, it doesn't justify Obama's policy or what Clinton say's she would follow. Of course what you and I feel are Constitutional Acts, might not be the same.....Obamacare to the Iran Deal....