SHOCKER! Hillary Caught Lying (again) About Grandparents Being Immigrants

[duane1969]

Is Rubio held to the same standards? Or is it cool that he has lied on a number of occasions about his own family history, their flight from Cuba and when it all took place.

It would seem that if we are ready to blast one political candidate for stumbling through a speech we should do the same for a candidate who lies about the timing of his familys move to the United States.

Do you provide evidence of such things or just random statement and hope for the best? And before you go firing off HuffPost and other similarly biased links, please try to provide something confirmable and not just propaganda.

If you are going to go after the before/after Castro took over thing, he has already gone on record as saying his parents left before the revolution, not after and that he had made a mistake about the dates. So he has already set himself above Hillary by admitting he was wrong and correcting it, unlike her who lies more, destroys evidence and has people killed to keep her skeletons deep in the closet.

[timber09]

So he lied (sorry, "made a mistake about the dates") on a myriad of occasions, was questioned about it, had time to double check something that he made the point of discussing in the first place and continued to lie (ooops, I did it again "made a mistake about the dates) until he finally got pushed hard enough about it and even then it took another couple weeks for him to update the biography on his own web page.

I am sure this is somehow less offensive than Hilary's lie (I guess I should be consistent here "made a mistake about the dates") because, well, you like Rubio and hate Hilary.

Here is the proof you wanted - but it sounds like you knew he was full of it and are willing to give him a pass.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...-america-foll/

[duane1969]

Sorry, but even the link you provided doesn't show he was "pushed" then lied some more. Perhaps you should actually read what you linked first.

In September 2011, Rubio chatted with Miami Herald reporter Marc Caputo for a story about his upcoming autobiography. They talked about Rubio's parents' immigration from Cuba. Caputo, later recounting his notes, said Rubio "struggled to recall the year ... and said it was in ' '57 or '58 or '59.' "

So in September he is already admitting that he isn't sure of the exact year.

An Oct. 19, 2011, story by the St. Petersburg Times said naturalization records showed Rubio's parents, Mario and Oriales, became U.S. residents in May 1956.

And a month later we see the first public question of the accuracy of the dates.

"The dates I have given regarding my family’s history have always been based on my parents’ recollections of events that occurred over 55 years ago and which were relayed to me by them more than two decades after they happened," he wrote on Oct. 20. "I was not made aware of the exact dates until very recently."

And one day later he admits he was wrong and corrects his error. So your whole first paragraph is pure crap. But hey, look at the bright side, the Democratic party LOVES sheeple like you. Just keep on making excuses for Hillary's lies (notice that is plural) because Rubio took one whole day to admit he was wrong on one thing (something Hillary has never done), the Democratic party needs you.

[timber09]

So what you are saying is that in one month's time, he didn't have either the thought or the stones to do some research into something that was so important to him and his family that he included it in his stump speeches and his own bio. Do you think if you were running for public office you may fact check stuff that you put in writing on your webpage? Especially verifiable family history information that was clearly easily accessible to all?


I could personally care less about Hilary. She wouldn't be my choice for the next President by a long shot. But post like this are just silly and hypocritical. These scenarios are the exact same, I would argue that Rubio's were planned and part of his strategy and that Clinton's seemed like a more off the cuff remark so I would cut her a bit more slack on it than Rubio myself but, even so, they are not that dissimilar to try to make a significant issue out of either.

You can call me "sheeple" all you like - maybe that help's you sleep at night, I don't know. But that doesn't change the facts that he was clearly exaggerating his family history and the excuse that he didn't remember the dates doesn't hold any water either. Either he flat lied knowing the exact truth or he made stuff up to fit the narrative - pick whichever you prefer.

[shrewsbury]

how many times has Rubio "misinformed" us?
how many times has Hillary "misinformed" us?

someone who has been caught numerous times "misinforming" people is more likely to a liar, than someone who has done it once or twice.

the fact that Hillary has misinformed us many, many times, is what makes this not so silly.
she has been a known liar for nearly 5 decades.

I will point out her nor Rubio would get my vote.

[duane1969]

So what you are saying is that in one month's time, he didn't have either the thought or the stones to do some research into something that was so important to him and his family that he included it in his stump speeches and his own bio. Do you think if you were running for public office you may fact check stuff that you put in writing on your webpage? Especially verifiable family history information that was clearly easily accessible to all?

One would think, yet politicians say things without checking exact dates and facts all the time. Making a major issue over something this tiny is exactly why the liberal left never gets anything done. Ultimately the liberal motivation is singular...distract from reality.

I could personally care less about Hilary. She wouldn't be my choice for the next President by a long shot. But post like this are just silly and hypocritical. These scenarios are the exact same, I would argue that Rubio's were planned and part of his strategy and that Clinton's seemed like a more off the cuff remark so I would cut her a bit more slack on it than Rubio myself but, even so, they are not that dissimilar to try to make a significant issue out of either.

Making an issue of an error in dates versus someone saying they are 2nd generation descendants of immigrants is hardly the same, but tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to make it OK to vote for a habitual liar.

You can call me "sheeple" all you like - maybe that help's you sleep at night, I don't know. But that doesn't change the facts that he was clearly exaggerating his family history and the excuse that he didn't remember the dates doesn't hold any water either. Either he flat lied knowing the exact truth or he made stuff up to fit the narrative - pick whichever you prefer.

Why would he exaggerate his family history? What gain is made by saying they left Cuba in 1959 instead of 1956? It doesn't change that they actually did leave Cuba or that he actually is the son of immigrants. Saying they left after Castro took over versus before Castro took over is non-consequential.

[duane1969]

how many times has Rubio "misinformed" us?
how many times has Hillary "misinformed" us?

And how significant are the "misinformings"?

I have already said that her lie about her grandparents being immigrants is small potatoes, but looking at the big picture, who would you be more trusting of? Someone who "mislead" about what date their parents came from Cuba, or someone who played a role the death of Americans in Benghazi and then tried to mislead Americans about it by claiming it was caused by a YouTube video, portrayed herself as an average American with no wealth while living in $15 million dollar summer mansions and giving $200,000 guest speeches, and claims she was under sniper fire when in fact she was accepting a bouquet of flowers from a little girl?

Just to summarize...a list of her admitted lies:

— Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

— Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

— She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

— She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)


And the lies she won't confess to, but have been confirmed as lies...


— She didn't know about the pardons of members of the violent Puerto Rico nationalist group FALN.

— She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

— Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

— She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

— She didn't know that the Peter Paul fund-raiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

— She opposed NAFTA at the time.

— She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

— She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

— She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

— The Rose Law Firm billing records showed up on their own.

— She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

— She was always a Yankees fan.

— She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400 to 12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

— She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

[andrewhoya]

how many times has Rubio "misinformed" us?
how many times has Hillary "misinformed" us?

someone who has been caught numerous times "misinforming" people is more likely to a liar, than someone who has done it once or twice.

the fact that Hillary has misinformed us many, many times, is what makes this not so silly.
she has been a known liar for nearly 5 decades.

I will point out her nor Rubio would get my vote.

How long has she been in the public spotlight?
How long has Rubio been in the public spotlight?

[timber09]

One would think, yet politicians say things without checking exact dates and facts all the time. Making a major issue over something this tiny is exactly why the liberal left never gets anything done. Ultimately the liberal motivation is singular...distract from reality.

So I am to believe his flub should be turned aside because he's a politician and not so good at fact checking. And - we should let him slide because the liberal left is trying to distract from reality by slandering him on a fairly minor slip-up.
All that seems odd coming from the OP who is blasting Clinton for the exact same thing.

Why would he exaggerate his family history? What gain is made by saying they left Cuba in 1959 instead of 1956? It doesn't change that they actually did leave Cuba or that he actually is the son of immigrants. Saying they left after Castro took over versus before Castro took over is non-consequential.

I couldn't begin to understand why he felt it important to stretch out this narrative, but he did. He felt is so important that it was a part of his speeches and his bio. If it were unimportant to him and his strategy, why would it be in there at all?


At the end of the day, I could really care less about either one of these candidates - but singling one politician out for lying or stretching the truth is a huge exercise in futility. Name one politician where we can't find exaggerations, waffling in political opinions from one day to the next or flat lies - chances are pretty good that we can uncover that on every single candidate in about five minutes on google.

[duane1969]

How long has she been in the public spotlight?
How long has Rubio been in the public spotlight?

That sounds like an easy scapegoat, but the bulk of her lies come since she became a NY Senator in 2001. Rubio has been in public office since 2000. So we have 18 provable lies and another half dozen cover-ups and intentional misleadings from her in essentially the same time period that we have one from him.