Four Pinnochio’s: Hillary and Her Bizarre Lies About Her Email

Obviously, Hillary and her team have decided that as long as they have an enabling, lap dog media this should be the approach to questions about her lies and crimes, three words “deny, deny, deny.”

Hillary does it again. On yesterday’s edition of The Teri O’Brien Show (listen by clicking on the player right above, or here on spreaker at ~70:25)  we played you the stunning audio of Hillary Clinton’s interview with Chris Wallace on yesterday’s Fox News Sunday, in which she claimed

“Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

And come to find out, that was a lie! And that’s not just me saying it. It’s the Washington Post, which gave the former 1st Enabler Four Pinnochio’s for her deceitful answer to Chris Wallace.

Her answers were “truthful?” Director Comey said no such thing. Attention Clinton campaign, there’s this thing now called “video,” and we can actually go back and see EXACTLY what someone said or did on a given day. Of course. past experience has shown that Hillary Clinton has no problem telling easily provable whoppers, including, but certainly not limited to:

The one about her being named after Sir Edmund Hillary

The one about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia

The one about Chelsea being at Ground Zero as one of the planes hit

Don’t expect her to admit that the FBI Director stated clearly that she lied over and over. Just as she has been allowed to brush aside the very real issue of her signing  “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” — or Standard Form 312 — on Jan. 22, 2009. Democrat operative George Stephanopoulos asked her about it back in January, no doubt in an attempt to allow her to say that question was “asked and answered,” even though she did the same thing with that question as she did with yesterday’s regarding her email, contradicting reality and relying on the questioner not to press the issue.

I’ll ask again: how can anyone, other than a partisan apparatchik or a crony client receiving financial rewards from doing so, vote for this hideously corrupt woman?

The Teri O'Brien Show

book