Yes, fanbois gonna fan.

Well, or tell them to lie to the country. But yeah, keep coming up with excuses.

I guess you ignored the corroborating evidence, like people who worked for her (e.g., Susan Rice) talking publicly about the video and her not contradicting them. Granted, I didn't mention that explicitly, but I did say that the reported statement wasn't the only piece of evidence.

What does any of this have to do with jury duty? Anyways, this post seems to say that you read the opposite of what I actually said about the Clintons and their history with legally admissible stuff. Is that trolling or just poor reading comprehension?

I guess the alternative to trolling is that you really are as crazy as your posts appear.

I doubt anyone would say the Clinton's aren't pretty good about keeping their noses legally clean enough. But that along with all of the noise about the video that was said by official administration officials is proof enough for me. Are you really giving her the benefit of the doubt here? Or just trolling as usual?

I think she did, although not in public. She had other people doing that for her.

Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods, who died defending the CIA annex, shared with Fox News the diary notes he took after his encounter with Clinton during the ceremony on Sept. 14, 2012, when the bodies were flown back to the U.S.

"I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son," the entry says.

"She said -- the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son," Woods emphasized as he read his diary entry.

It has one of my all time favorite lines.

[Jim Carrey's lawyer character, on phone with criminal defendant client]: STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!

...actually read the bill? Maybe it's all in there.

...any of that meant anything to anyone who liked the conclusions of the book.

How much racism would a race baiter bait if race baiter could bait race?

This is the closest I've ever seen you come to saying, "I was wrong," when you clearly are, so I'll consider this a victory. How do you think Democrats respond to Republican ideas? Appeals to identity politics are most of what they have. "Racists!" "War on Women!"

The Reid money quote was further down in the article:

I guess you'd try to weasel out of this one like you did for welfare.

How about the leader of the party, or maybe the chair of the DNC or Senate Majority Leader? Are those examples official enough?

That was after a really quick search. I can also find stuff about water being wet, if that would help. I would add that smitty's examples of non-official Democrats point out how much worse it is than simply professional partisans (though probably MSNBC should be included there) using such ridiculous arguments with straight faces.

I'm familiar with smitty and how he writes. And he's absolutely correct that the official response of the Democratic Party is racism accusations, though they've diversified their fallacious shrieks lately by blaming the Koch brothers.

But I don't see that smitty considers Aaron to be part of the Democratic Party. That still seems like a fiction you've created in order to have a nice straw man to beat up on. Can you see the difference between noting that official Democrats say something and that others say something?

The only one talking about Hank Aaron's status as a politician is you. I'm not sure what your point is, either. Maybe you're just continuing a different argument in a place where it doesn't belong.

I would rather have remained ignorant about his remarks, because he seems like a pretty decent guy (and a hell of a ball player) otherwise.