Is there any definitive proof that Hillary Clinton didn't lie about Benghazi?

1. 52

   bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years ago

   Is there any definitive proof that Hillary Clinton didn't lie about Benghazi?
   
   I tried to find that proof, and I was not successful.  What are the facts?

   report
2. 86

   Genna Eastposted 9 years ago

   I think that the question might be:  What proof exists that she did lie about Benghazi?

   report
   1. 52

      bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Genna
      Facts that prove whether there were lies or not would answer both questions.
      It started out with the State Dept blaming the video, and we know that was not true? Then??

      report
   2. 84

      lovemychrisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The state dept got the info from CIA. Why didn't committee call Patreus to testify? Know why? He would have helped Hillary. CAN'T HAVE THAT. The PURPOSE of committee was to shake her down. They admitted it. 3 of them. And still the sham persists. SMH

      report
3. 84

   lovemychrisposted 9 years ago

   There have been 9 hearings. I'm sure you can find it on I-net and read them all. Meanwhile, Rubio says Clinton is responsible for 9/11.....facts? Chafittz used an anti-abortion group false document in a public hearing...where is the investigation of him? Where is Patraeus? How come he hasn't been called to testify? Pinkering, Ham.....not allowed. Hillary's assistant....not allowed to be seen by public. I think you should be asking; Is the attempt to criminalize a former Sec of State criminal in itself?? It certainly is taking Democratic tax dollars as well as yours. And frankly, I don't want to be part of the Elect Republicans Committee, thank you.

   report
   1. 52

      bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Sandie
      
      Where are the facts that prove she didn't lie?

      report
   2. 84

      lovemychrisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      In the transcripts of the 9 hearings.....you ought to get something for all that money. Because, you know well that had they found a lie: they would have had a parade down K Street. The fact they didn't indict her is the proof.

      report
4. 67

   lisavollrathposted 9 years ago

   It's difficult to prove a negative, so it's unlikely you'll find what you're looking for by starting with one. Trying to prove she didn't lie is starting with an assumption, and trying to prove it didn't happen. It would be far easier to look at the endless numbers of hearings, and evaluate her testimony: is it the truth? Or can any of her statements be proven as untrue? I think you'll find that it has not been proven that she lied.

   report
   1. 52

      bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Lisa
      
      The hearing are politics in action, and most of the time they don't provide any useful answers. I am not asking for proof of a negative, I am looking for the facts, and it is years past, and still no facts

      report
   2. 67

      lisavollrathposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Well, short of sitting her down in front of a polygraph, that's what we have to work with. There is nothing that says she lied.

      report
   3. 52

      bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The state department attributed the attack on the film, and they knew that wasn't the cause. Is there a difference between not telling the truth, and a lie? She was the state dept.

      report
   4. 84

      lovemychrisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      CIA told them it was film...
      That's why it's rather odd that they didn't subpoena head of it. Maybe they aren't after the truth. You think? I do.

      report
   5. 86

      Genna Eastposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree Lisa.  The statement assumes that she did lie, yet does not bear any facts to support that she did.

      report