Why doesn't Hillary lying bother her supporters?

[Horn6721]

Even though it has been known Hillary and others in BOs admin lied about a video supposedly inciting the attack on Benghazi now the State Dept records have been released( after a protracted FOIA request). There it is in plain view for all people to see. Will it affect any supporter?
from Judicial Watch
"
At 10:08 p.m. on September 11, Mrs. Clinton issued an official State Department press statement, approved by the White House, placing the blame for the attack on an Internet video:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Yet the next day, in her 7:49 PM September 12 conversation with Kandil, Clinton said, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest.” Kandil responded, “You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda.”

On September 15, in a telephone call with then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr, Clinton emphatically portrayed the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the Benghazi violence. Clinton told Amr, “I have repeatedly, as has the President and other officials in our government, deplored not only the content of this stupid, very offensive film… But we have to exercise more self-discipline… otherwise we’ll be in a vicious downward circle against everyone who has ever felt offended, particularly on the internet….”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...edly-releases-new-clinton-benghazi-documents/

And remember she lied to the families as they stood in front of their loved ones caskets at Dover.

There is another pretty important reveal in the JW link. It should be pretty troublesome for supporters as well.

Will any supporter admit her lies are too much and not vote for her?

 

[Joe Fan]

Because self-interest trumps ethics?

 

[Musburger1]

Hillary's supporters consist of at least two major categories.
1. Her financial contributors who have bought and paid for her services.
2. The legions of underclass on the government dole.

The former (Wall Street, major corporations, etc.) doesn't give a wit about ethics. Their goal is to see that policy continues to protect their interests and squelches competing interests.

The latter category, of those who pay such attentions to such things as Behghazi, the email scandal, and the continuous stream of lies, justify their support by rationalizing that all of the politicians are corrupt anyway, so might as well vote for the corrupt politician that has my back.

 

[Hollandtx]

I would add a third category. It is smaller than the two you mention, but there are many women in my age group who will vote for her just because she is a woman.
Much like many people wanted to be a part of electing the "first black president", women in my generation feel like a woman president is far overdue, and will vote for any candidate that is female.
I hate stuff like that. Sex and race should have nothing to do with things.
The lying doesn't bother them due to the oldest, and worst excuse in the book. "Everyone else lies".

 

[Horns11]

With regards to Benghazi, I think her supporters understand that no matter what company line she espoused/lied about, there's nothing she could have done to prevent the murders from happening. She would have needed the foresight that 7 different investigations proved no one had. Blaming it on a stupid video was a stupid, placating move that people warned her not to do, but her "Clinton" side got the best of her.

Now, as for her Whitewater investments and handouts from foreign nationals, I think that's more concerning.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The reality is that most voters don't mind being lied to if the liar is on their team. If you're a liberal Democrat, you're only outraged if a Republican lies. If you're a Republican, you're only outraged if a Democrat lies.

Most voters will deny that their favored politicians lie by presuming (without evidence) every conceivable fact scenario that if true would make the lie technically true. If their favored politician is proven beyond any doubt to have lied, they'll try to justify the lie. If the lie is proven and shown to be completely unjustifiable, then they'll rely on this:

The lying doesn't bother them due to the oldest, and worst excuse in the book. "Everyone else lies".

And this is the worst excuse for a few reasons. First, though it's mostly true, it's not completely true. Second, even if almost everybody lies, if you let it slide even when the liar is caught red-handed you essentially communicate to the political class that they have nothing to fear when they lie and to the few who are honest that their honesty isn't appreciated and is meaningless. The effect is that you strongly encourage more lying and bigger lies.

It's like speeding. Everybody does it, but what if the " everybody does it" defense would actually hold up if you got caught? Essentially you wouldn't have speed limits anymore. You'd have people driving 70 mph in school zones if they were in a hurry.

And why do we engage in this self-deception? It's because our worst nightmare isn't electing the wrong person. It's having to admit that our initial evaluation of the candidates and parties was wrong. Sad.