I have, for years, been following the career of Hillary Clinton, not out of admiration, but more like the spectator of a particularly gruesome, bloody train wreck: I just can’t not look. Just like Barack Obama, one can tell when she is lying: her lips are moving. But as poor a public speaker as Barack Obama is, Hillary is even worse, and has all the charm, sincerity, political acumen, and likeability of a rattlesnake. I suspect the fascination come from the fact that, despite all of these political failings, peccadillos that would deep six any Republican, Democrats not only embrace Hillary, many worship her, though with demonstrably less fervor than “The One.”
For the first time since she announced her upcoming coronation as the first female president, Mrs. Clinton condescended to allow the media to interview her the other day, choosing a female CNN–Clinton News Network–reporter who had, coincidently, recently attended the wedding of a Clinton aide. In the finest traditions of CNN, Hillary was allowed to blatantly lie, avoid even the softball questions gently lobbed at her, to dissemble, erect and pummel straw men, you name the politician’s stereotypical evasion, Hillary got away with it. It was a particularly unseemly train wreck.
Consider this from Legal Insurrection:
Mrs. Clinton joined CNN Tuesday night for an interview that was stranger than fiction. In fact, I’m honestly not sure if the awkward conversation was meant to be self-parody or an earnest attempt at a prime time interview. The pants suit, the seemingly botoxed brow and resultant crazy eyes, and the passionate dedication to fibbery made for fascinating television. [skip]
What’s a Clinton interview without a vague reference to the vast, right-wing conspiracy? When asked if she played a role in the public questioning of her trustworthiness, Mrs. Clinton spoke of a, ‘theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years.’ She went on to say, ‘at the end of the day, I think voters sort it all out. I have great confidence. I trust the American voter, so I trust the American voter one hundred percent because I think the American voter will weigh these kinds of things.’
‘Would you vote for someone you don’t trust?’ asked CNN’s Brianna Keilar.
‘Well, people should and do trust me and I have every confidence that will be the outcome of this election.
Golly. How hard might it be for CNN to review even its own archives and find a great many examples of Mrs. Clinton’s blatant public lies with which to follow up? Of course, Keilar did no such thing. Just for the fun of it, two of my favorites are her claim that her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. Unfortunately, Hillary was born in 1947 six years before that 1953 feat. I also liked her claim of having heroically landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, only to have photos of her arrival pop up showing her receiving a bouquet from a little girl who didn’t appear to be sniping at her, at least not so anyone might notice.
But she made even more, and more obvious and easily proved, lies:
Brianna Keilar begins, ‘one of the issues that we’ve seen has eroded some trust is the issue of your email practices while you were Secretary of State. I think there’s a lot of people who don’t understand what your thought process was on that. Can you tell me the story of how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed?
To which Mrs. Clinton, with a pretty much straight face, replied, without directly answering the question:
Well let’s start from the beginning. Everything I did was permitted. There was no law, there was no regulation, there was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate. Previous Secretaries of State have said they did the same thing and people across the government knew that I used one device. Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.
Amazingly, Keilar did follow up, at least a little:
But you said that they [former Secretaries of State] did the same thing. That they used a personal server, and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them,’ interjected Keiler, engaging Hillary Death Stare Sequence Phase II.
‘You know you’re starting with so many assumptions that are, I’ve never had a subpoena, there is no, again, let’s take a deep breath here,’ said Mrs. Clinton, obviously rattled and speaking to herself. ‘Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.’
‘Now I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me. Because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official, already was in the State Department system. And now I think it’s kind of fun. People get a real time, behind the scenes look at what I was emailing about.
I suspect the surviving families of the Americans killed at Benghazi, and the countless other survivors of the victims of Mrs. Clinton’s many foreign policy debacles might be having somewhat less “fun.” Moe Lane is also failing to find the inherent fun, particularly about her claim never to have been subpoenaed:
The House Select Committee on Benghazi today released its March 4, 2015, subpoena to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in response to her inaccurate claim she had not been subpoenaed. The committee subpoenaed Clinton directly after it became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server and that the State Department was not the custodian of Clinton’s official record. The State Department failed to reveal this essential information to the Benghazi Committee or any other investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks until days before a media outlet was going to publish the information, meaning no investigation prior to the Benghazi Committee’s had access to the Secretary of State’s communications as part of its review.
‘The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public,’ said committee Chairman Trey Gowdy. ‘I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy. The committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them.
In short, she’s lying about everything. Her string of assertions in the CNN clip embedded above contain numerous verifiable falsehoods. She was absolutely not within her statutory and regulatory rights to set up, and exclusively use, an insecure email server to conduct official business. The notion that she went “above and beyond” what was required of her is “laughable,” according to an expert on government transparency compliance. She did not utilize a single mobile device for the sake of “convenience” (nor did she use just one email address, as claimed). Her correspondence with top aides did not automatically end up in the “government system,” as several of them followed her lead by using private accounts (to say nothing of State’s shambolic email archiving practices). And she did not turn over all non-personal, work-related emails to the State Department, as she still insists. There’s concrete evidence that her team withheld official records in the process of unilaterally deleting tens of thousands of messages with no independent oversight. Almost nothing that she stated in that answer represented the full truth. Quite a lot of it wasn’t even partially true. But she did cheerily note that she finds the whole controversy ‘kinda fun,’ chuckling that any whiff of impropriety was surely dreamed up by crazy partisans who are always out to get her. Spoken like a woman who’s confident in her ability to get away with virtually anything.
What is truly frightening, gentle readers, is that this woman will almost certainly become the Democrat nominee for 2016, and she has, at least at the moment, a better than even chance of becoming the next President. Like Barack Obama, she too studied, raptly, at the feet of Marxists and anarchists. A second Clinton presidency would be little different, perhaps even worse, than the Obama presidency. The damage would be, I fear, more than America could withstand.
Hillary Clinton truly believes we’re stupid. She also knows that the media will never subject her to even a tiny portion of the skepticism and scrutiny they reserve for Republicans, such as that evil Marco Rubio, who earned his money–he isn’t even remotely close to the Clinton fortune–the old fashioned way: he earned it. Hillary Clinton can lie all she likes, and the media will let her get away with it, Democrats will love her the more for it, and despite her utter lack of human warmth, charm, charisma and political skill, it may be enough to elect her, and seal the doom of the American experiment.
UPDATE, 07-09-15, 1010 CST: Eyow! Even the Lamestream media and reliably leftist media personalities and outlets (I know; I repeat myself) are taking Hillary to task for her non-responsive interview. Go here to Legal Insurrection for an article and links to others, and it would be worth your time to visit Slate.com–of all places–for an article by Josh Voorhees. Voorhees has edited a transcript of the interview to remove all extraneous mumblings, and condensed it down only to Hillary’s evasions and sort of-partial answers to questions. He also makes plain the questions she actually answered–very few. It’s a very short transcript and makes the point that where Hillary and the truth as concerned, there’s no there there.