Five lies Hillary Clinton told in Saturday's debate

Photo by Marc Nozell on Flickr

Maybe you’re like me and have grown used to Presidential debates giving no information at all. Turns out we’re wrong though: Hillary Clinton told these five lies in Saturday’s debate. By seeing what she’s lying about, we can get an idea of what her agenda is, or what she thinks her weaknesses are.


Photo by Marc Nozell on Flickr
Photo by Marc Nozell on Flickr

1. “I have a strategy to combat and defeat ISIS without getting us involved in another ground war”

That’s a lie. Secretary Clinton has no plan. It’s tautology:

Screen Shot 2015-12-21 at 12.44.03 PM

Saying that your plan to defeat ISIS is to crush ISIS, is saying that you have no plan at all to defeat the Islamic State, but you just want to signal to voters that you care. It’s the new “Message: I care” about the Islamic State.

She later goes on to explain that prong three of her plan to keep us safe is to, yup, “thirdly, to do more to keep us safe.” There’s no plan here, it’s empty words to duck the fact that there’s no daylight between Clinton’s foreign policy, and Obama’s failures.

2. “We have to do the best possible job of sharing intelligence and information.”

Clinton and Obama opposed CISPA, the idea Republicans have repeatedly supported in Congress to heighten information sharing between government and the private sector, about threats.

Private business are on the front lines every day. They are on the Internet bearing continuous attack from China, Russia, Islamists, and of course domestic anarchists. Getting them information about attacks, and letting them share what they’re seeing, is a no brainer, but she opposed it.


3. “We lose 33,000 people a year already to gun violence”.

This statistic is your classic lie with statistics. She wants you to imagine that’s 33,000 murders a year, but this includes accidents and suicides.

Given that we lose a similar number of people to automobile-related incidents every year, it’s easy to see that this misleading logic could lead to all sorts of nanny-state solutions.

4. “We also have to figure out how we’re going to deal with the radicalization here in the United States.”

Given that Clinton refuses to recognize, and in fact flatly denies that we are in a clash of civilizations, it’s hard to see how she’s at all prepared to deal with “radicalization” at home. If you’re not willing to accept that the ideology of Islam is one that is fundamentally incompatible with western values of liberty, equality, and opportunity, then you’re just paying lip service. You don’t mean the words coming out of your mouth.

5. “So we always have to balance liberty and security, privacy and safety, but I know that law enforcement needs the tools to keep us safe.”

What Clinton proposed at the debate is that we give government a “back door” into every encryption tool in America, essentially ending technological privacy in America. Any back door government can use, bad actors can get a hold of. So she’s not talking about balance. She’s talking turning the dial all the way toward government, back to the old Clinton administration’s “Clipper chip” ideas.


Key escrow is a great idea for encryption within an organization, such as the US government or a corporation. But for private citizens, it’s a bad idea. It’s a fundamentally dangerous idea as it eliminates the very idea of privacy, rather than simply threatening it. No more secrets.

Clinton just can’t tell the truth. But it’s no wonder when all she wants is to turn back the clock to the ideas Americans have been rejecting ever since she and her husband last left office.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos