Hillary the liar? Not so fast.
(Updated to include the James Comey misinformation, and a postscript)
It never ceases to amaze, how much nonsense is spoken about Hillary across the political spectrum. This sense of horror plus my natural despair at the constant streams of opinions regurgitated obliviously, unconcerned by the rather obvious need for some type of factual underpinning to such opinions, this has forced me to undertake the following fact based research.
I have only heard one accusation constantly thrown at Hillary that will require a non fact based rebuttal–but I will get to that later.
This will not be a puff piece. I will be throwing the right wing kitchen sink at Hillary and we will then see how she holds up–you will find the results very revealing. You will be liberated, liberated from confusion, liberated by knowledge. You will become invincible. Use it, knowledge is a weapon. The country, mankind—is depending upon it! I will tackle the newest assertion first, the supposed elephant in the room.
James Comey FBI Director -Hillary was “reckless”
Regarding the email pseudo-scandal, whilst it does criticize Hillary, I remain more than skeptical of GOP FBI Director James Comey. I would love to see what Comey would define as the most serious piece of classified information that Clinton emailed. I highly doubt that such supposedly dangerous material was remotely dangerous to national security–since virtually anything can be classified as “classified” by someone. But was she reckless? Apparently not at all, not according to James Comey under some simple cross examination:
“We have no basis to believe she lied to the FBI,” Comey said. Asked about Clinton benefiting from a different set of rules, he responded, “It’s not true.” Asked about classified emails, Comey said there were only three messages – each of which were not properly marked classified when she received them.
It is not that difficult for a smart person to know what email content should be avoided, whilst also understanding that informing someone of a “classified” bathroom break (excuse the poetic license) or a classified piece of news that is already in the public domain, can be treated with a pinch of salt. I wonder how an FBI director gets to cast aspersions on an individual that no other prosecutor would prosecute (for want of evidence of breaking any laws)–bearing in mind that prosecutors (especially a GOP political operative) are always going to have the bleakest view. It is not up to a prosecutor to be the judge and the jury, that would be the job of the Judge and the Jury. Fortunately we have already done the most thorough analysis of the email scandal undertaken by any independent fact based news service—here. But James Comey unprofessionally decided to be that Judge and Jury- a decision he must now be bitterly regretting after being attacked by the rabid zombie dogs of his own party. Why does stupidparty keep hitting its head against the same brick wall? Because really, this is all they have. They have this and Trump.
But now back to the basics. Simplistically, unless an email is marked top secret, it really is a non issue, especially so for senior staff. Now regarding all the rest of those eight chains coming out of 30,000 of Hillary’s emails and another 30,000 from other devices, I believe that Slate can sum it up best:
Top secret information is another matter, but the stuff that showed up in Clinton’s private email wasn’t so special. Seven of the eight email chains dealt with CIA drone strikes, which are classified top secret/special access program—unlike Defense Department drone strikes, which are unclassified. The difference is that CIA drones hit targets in countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where we are not officially at war; they are part of covert operations. (Defense Department drone strikes are in places where we are officially at war.) But these operations are covert mainly to provide cover for the Pakistani and Yemeni governments, so they don’t have to admit they’re cooperating with America. Everyone in the world knows about these strikes; nongovernment organizations, such as New America, tabulate them; newspapers around the world—including the New York Times, where some of the same reporters are now writing so breathlessly about Clinton’s careless handling of classified information—cover these strikes routinely.
The other top secret email chain described a conversation with the president of Malawi. Conversations with foreign leaders are inherently classified.
In other words, even if Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or Syrian spies had hacked into Clinton’s email servers, and if they’d pored through 60,000 emails and come across these eight chains that held top secret material, they would not have learned anything the slightest bit new or worthy of their efforts. The FBI’s discoveries should be viewed in that context.
But it gets better ( or worse for James Comey as is hapless efforts to appease his party rapidly disintegrate):
Click on the paragraph above – not below – for the pertinent video.
For final clarification on this issue and where Comey admits he was not aware of the fact that these were not actually classified:
Update: Now we have access to the FBI notes on the whole investigation and this is what Mother Jones concluded …
That said, this report is pretty much an almost complete exoneration of Hillary Clinton.She wasn’t prohibited from using a personal device or a personal email account, and others at state did it routinely. She’s told the truth all along about why she did it. Colin Powell did indeed advise her about using personal email shortly after she took office, but she chose to follow the rules rather than skirt them, as Powell did. She didn’t take her BlackBerry into her office. She communicated with only a very select group of 13 people. She took no part in deciding which emails were personal before handing them over to State. She had nothing to do with erasing information on the PRN server. That was a screw-up on PRN’s end. She and her staff all believed at the time that they were careful not to conduct sensitive conversations over unclassified email systems. And there’s no evidence that her server was ever hacked.
This whole email non scandal fails to ask the right questions. Why is it that Hillary gets targeted by endless GOP inspired investigations -all happening because the GOP knew Hillary was running for President?
It is not necessarily that Bush needed to undergo investigations – it is that the people investigating Hillary Clinton at massive taxpayer expense -they are the real criminals here, these people and the Roger Ailes’s and the Breitbart’s who have worked diligently to destroy the notion of Journalistic integrity, who just broadcast utter nonsense, keep repeating it, until enough people are suckered into assuming “where there’s smoke there’s fire”— that it some how becomes news. There is no substance, the news is not the substance – the news is that so many people believe in disingenuous slander.
But here is something else that people seem to overlook – it is not like the NSA really gave a dam about the issue back in 2009 -according to a CBS/AP story:
But with the actual legalities resolved and the email issue on its factual deathbed (obviously the Stupidparty and it’s Trumpeteers are desperate to maintain the misinformation -for they have nothing else),—now is a good time to tackle the most vital question–is Hillary a liar or is she in fact the Patron Saint of honesty?
Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%). Another wondrous comment (a comment that I will be addressing later), is a statement that Hillary made that Politifact described as “half true”.
Now according to Breitbart News (a typical right wing pseudo news site, whose accusations we will be analyzing) this translates to “That means it’s a huge, glaring lie.” I happen to find this interpretation amusing because that would mean that 78% of both Donald Trump’s and Ted Cruz’s statements are either huge glaring lies or far far worse. Now that is Stupidparty logic, signed sealed and delivered, 100% by Stupidparty. So how do the two most honest politicians stack up against their adversaries?
Most Honest: Hillary Clinton.
Second Most Honest: Bernie Sanders.
Compared to Pathological liars Donald Trump…
…and Ted Cruz
Or here is another way of looking at it:
But what these stats do not reveal is how egregious a specific lie is – as we all understand that lies are sometimes black and sometimes white and often somewhere in between. By measuring the egregiousness of lies -things just get so much worse for Stupidparty -so to understand the below graphic, the following link will clarify.
We are going to study Hillary’s supposed lies, holding nothing back. But perhaps some context is required before we zero in on Hillary’s perceived untruthfulness, or apparently dodging round naturally shifting positions. I have elsewhere proved that Stupidparty “lies” are 1,000% more “voluminous” than Democrat lies. Considering that Hillary rests on the better part of the honesty spectrum and Donald Trump is at the very bottom of a virtually bottomless well of clear cut lies–the difference between Hillary and Trump must be significantly greater than 1,000%.
With that said, let’s roll up our sleeves and tackle this issue head on.
“Hillary lied to the Benghazi families.”
It is impossible to know with certainty what Clinton told these families in brief conversations at a private reception only three days after Benghazi. Some, but not all, family members who have spoken to the media said Clinton mentioned a video or protests in their meeting. Some said she didn’t mention a video. Clinton says she did not.
If she did say something about the video, would it have been an intentional lie? It’s very possible that this is one of the many conflicting pieces of intelligence that the administration was working with at the time.
There simply is not enough concrete information in the public domain for Rubio or anyone to claim as fact that Clinton did or did not lie to the Benghazi families.
Hillary has been accused about a number of conflicting statements either made in public or in private conversations in the days after Benghazi–but the fact of the matter was that:
a) She was receiving differing, evolving pieces of intelligence.
b) When she speaks publicly she is on duty, bound to be more cautious than when she speaks “privately”.
c) To suggest she would lie to perpetrate some type of cover up–that she did not care deeply about the lives of people she knew, who served under her, to make these accusations with zero evidence—is libelous, poisonous and belongs simply to fringe fake journalists and extremely ignorant people. The whole Benghazi matter is best summed up by Ambassador Stevens’ sister:
Now, the far right have put up a video–13 minutes of nonstop supposed “Hillary lies”. To be totally fair, let’s present Hillary in her worst possible light and then analyze what is really going on. Anything in this video related to Benghazi or her missing emails has already been debunked.
The problem with this cherry picked and carefully edited montage, is that these are not lies. The problem with these out of context style attack video’s is that they totally fail to factor in that we are viewing nothing more than typical political pandering. You can dislike the fact that politicians base their positions on what is popular at the time, but it is a simple fact of life in a diverse, multi-faceted democratic society, where if you are not careful you get immediately labelled and attacked if you have an opinion that is not in line with at least 50% of the voters. Virtually all politicians have to parse their words, and the stakes simply get higher with each step up the political ladder.
Take gay marriage–like virtually everyone else she has evolved, being for gay marriage today–that does not make her a liar. Like Obama, she was probably for gay marriage long before she made any such public statement. Obama was forced (by Biden) to go public with his personal opinion, earlier than he had planned. Expecting a politician to be totally straightforward is totally absurd.
Is Hillary a moderate or a progressive? Well what does that question even mean? It is a stupid question. Progressive relative to what issue, which geographic region–compared to whom? You really expect a politician to go to a red state crowd and emphasize ones most progressive thoughts?
Is Hillary too close to big banks? Frankly I have no idea, but she has to tailor her position within the competing dynamics of raising money (the system is not her fault) and satisfying people’s anger that is on the one hand perfectly correct, yet sometimes very immature. Taxing bonuses for instance is very popular, but fundamentally very stupid (you can only tax overall income).
But telling people that they have stupid ideas is just not good politics. You have to pretend that idiots are smart, because you need those votes too. So if a politician is in a room with a bunch of idiots, expect them to blend in quite easily. Politicians are like actors and they have to play a role, they need to recieve applause, else the image dynamics will kill them off faster than Trump can say “Great.”
Thus I go back to the one supposed lie that was like a very minor version of Brian Williams’ touted bravery in Iraq fiasco. First Brian Williams, as a professional journalist must be held to a far higher standard, plus he was getting way too enamored at being the story rather than reporting the story. Hillary, who is not a reporter, claimed to be under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia. Hillary quite rapidly admitted she had misspoke–but before accusing her of lying, how about trying to get in her head and also understand the natural human tendency to exaggerate a good story. Stories are what entertain us. Evidently the plane she was landing in had been warned of some danger, and had approached from a different direction as a safety precaution—so it is not so tough imagining that Hillary’s imagination may have been heightened as she walked ever so calmly across the tarmac. She probably felt quite proud of her relaxed appearance.
Then she likely conflated what was in her head, an adrenaline adventure for her, what appeared to be just another walk in the park to an outside armchair observer, totally safe until some sniper have might have snuck through security to successfully fulfill a dream–shooting the wife of the President of America–an event that every first lady lives with and possibly crosses their mind in some fashion, every day of their lives. So not really a lie then.
The Guardian reported and concluded:
Clinton distrusts the press more than any politician I have covered. In her view, journalists breach the perimeter and echo scurrilous claims about her circulated by unreliable rightwing foes. I attended a private gathering in South Carolina a month after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Only a few reporters were invited and we sat together at a luncheon where Hillary Clinton spoke. She glared down at us, launching into a diatribe about how the press had invaded the Clintons’ private life. The distrust continues.
These are not new thoughts, but they are fundamental to understanding her. Tough as she can seem, she doesn’t have rhino hide, and during her husband’s first term in the White House, according to Her Way, a critical (and excellent) investigative biography of Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, she became very depressed during the Whitewater imbroglio. A few friends and aides have told me that the email controversy has upset her as badly
Like most politicians, she’s switched some of her positions and sometimes shades the truth. In debates with Sanders, she cites her tough record on Wall Street, but her Senate bills, like one curbing executive pay, went nowhere. She favors ending the carried interest loophole cherished by hedge funds and private equity executives because it taxes their incomes at a lower rate than ordinary income. But, according to an article by Gerth, she did not sign on to bipartisan legislation in 2007 that would have closed it. She voted for a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks that she initially opposed, drawing criticism from Elizabeth Warren. Clinton says she improved the bill before voting for passage. Her earlier opposition to gay marriage, which she later endorsed, has hurt her with young people. Labor worries about her different statements on trade deals.
Still, Clinton has mainly been constant on issues and changing positions over time is not dishonest.
It’s fair to expect more transparency. But it’s a double standard to insist on her purity.
So am I right? Is Hillary fundamentally honest?
I decided to undergo a final litmus test–I wanted to find out how Stupidparty disciples got their information on this subject. So where better than this article from one of the kings of fake news–a pillar of right wing pseudo journalism—Breitbart. I have previously discussed the origins, the scope, the integrity and the amazing incestuousness of the massive right wing fake journalism machine–an industry that has created so many idiots that in itself helps to explain how we have arrived at the day of the Trump. But now I will illustrate another mechanism by which a very small group of deceitful, well financed groupies are able to manufacture so many false narratives, twisting and distorting simple facts to promote utter codswallop against people like Hillary:
Let us now explore this list of lies, lies and more lies:
Hillary: “I have spent a very long time–my entire adult life–looking for ways…to find the ways for each child to live up to his or her God-given potential.”
Breitbart explains why this statement is a lie : “Well, unless you’re an unborn child. Then, get ready for a trip down the sink.” FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “Yes, finally, fathers will be able to say to their daughters, you, too, can grow up to be president.”
Breitbart explains why this statement is a lie: “Technically, you’ll have to marry a President first, however.” FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “Actually, I have been very consistent.” responding to Anderson Cooper asked Hillary about her supposed shifting positions on issues ranging from the Iraq war to same-sex marriage to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
My Comment about this line of Questioning: Yes her positions change on issues like this–which by definition are moving targets. You can however be consistent in one’s efforts to promote free trade and promoting efforts for the US to one day leave Iraq. So by definition this can not be a lie. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary on TPP: “I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn’t meet my standards.”
The facts: Clinton’s words then did not include the word “hope”, that she “hoped” that the deal would be the gold standard, and the omission of this word would suggest that she was certain it would be the gold standard . In her 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices,” she also spoke favorably of the deal. But she also said “It’s safe to say that TPP won’t be perfect – no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be – but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers,” she wrote. Therefore Breitbart is simply parsing words and magnifying a Hillary slip up, a memory lapse. On the one hand she was optimistic that it would become the gold standard, but she also recognized that it was bound to have imperfections. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “The Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy.”
The facts: Legislative elections were held in Libya on 25 June 2014 for the Council of Deputies. Whilst all candidates ran as independents, the elections saw nationalist and liberal factions win the majority of seats, with Islamist groups being reduced to only around 30 seats. Election turnout was very low at 18%. So Hillary’s statement was correct. Now you can have any opinion you want to have about the worthiness of the actual war, but only a fake journalist would call that statement false. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done… how to find common ground, and I have proved that in every position that I’ve had, even dealing with Republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly.”
Breitbart is of the opinion that this statement was a lie. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “When I think about capitalism, I think about all the small businesses that were started…”
Somehow this simple platitude is deemed a lie by Breitbart: FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “Well first of all, we got a lot of business done with the Russians when Medvedev was the president, and not Putin… There’s no doubt that when Putin came back in and said he was going to be President, that did change the relationship.”
Breitbart, being foreign policy experts, determine this to be lie on the grounds that Medevdev was simply a puppet. While there might be some truth to that notion about Medvedev, this would not make Hillary’s statement incorrect. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “I think while you’re talking about the tough decision that President Obama had to make about Osama bin Laden, where I was one of his few advisers, or putting together that coalition to impose sanctions on Iran…”
Again Breitbart uses its infantile worldview to try and make this statement appear like a lie. As Secretary of State Hillary obviously had a hand in maintaining and increasing the very successful sanctions against Iraq. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “We had a murderous dictator, Gadhafi, who had American blood on his hands, as I’m sure you remember, threatening to massacre large numbers of the Libyan people… Our response, which I think was smart power at its best, is that the United States will not lead this.”
Whether one agreed with the Libyan intervention or not is irrelevant–this statement is clearly not a lie. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “I think it has to be a continued threat from the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear material that can fall into the wrong hands. I know the terrorists are constantly seeking it, and that’s why we have to stay vigilant, but also united around the world to prevent that.
Breitbart cites this a s lie–because of the Iran deal. This is a preposterous stretch. Also bear in mind that since Iran never signed the nuclear nonproliferation deal, and that within the context of the Iran deal, that they have every right to seek nuclear capabilities. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “I want to make sure every single person in this country has the same opportunities that he and I have had, to make the most of their God-given potential and to have the chances that they should have in America for a good education, good job training, and then good jobs.
Evidently, and only by using some form of incomprehensible Palinesque logict, this standard political platitude is a lie because not everyone can marry the President of the USA. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “This inequality challenge we face, we have faced it at other points. It’s absolutely right. It hasn’t been this bad since the 1920s. But if you look at the Republicans versus the Democrats when it comes to economic policy, there is no comparison. The economy does better when you have a Democrat in the White House and that’s why we need to have a Democrat in the White House in January 2017.”
While the part about inequality is an opinion, the rest is a fact–so the very opposite of a lie. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “My plan would enable anyone to go to a public college or university tuition free.”
Breitbart: “College is not free. Somebody pays for it. Who? As always, the wealthy.” Here Breitbart is just parsing words in order to create the illusion of a lie. So…. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “Well, I can’t think of anything more of an outsider than electing the first woman president, but I’m not just running because I would be the first woman president… Well, I would not ask anyone to vote for me based on my last name.”
Something does not become a lie simply because you might be imagining or manufacturing a different thought process. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “California has had a paid leave program for a number of years….And it has not had the ill effects that the Republicans are always saying it will have.”
Evidently this is a lie because in Breitbart’s economic opinion–only trickle-down economics can work. The California economy has been outpacing the rest of the USA for several years. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “They don’t mind having big government to interfere with a woman’s right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood. They’re fine with big government when it comes to that. I’m sick of it.”
This is a fact not a lie. A pro-life agenda is actually pro-death. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Hillary: “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians.”
Breitbart :The Iranians are not Hillary’s enemies. They love her.” Only a fake Journalist would make such statement. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
Breitbart concludes this piece of fake Journalism by saying:
Hillary’s a liar. But Democrats don’t care, because liars prosper in a world where hard work and honesty are punished in the name of equality and the Great Socialist Utopia. FAKE JOURNALISM DESIGNED FOR MORONS
So I have killed three birds with one stone:
- I have elsewhere proved that the Stupidparty leader’s lies are 1,000 more voluminous than Democrat lies.
- I have illustrated how fake journalism has turned so many people into total morons.
- I have proven that relatively speaking Hillary Clinton is the Patron Saint of honesty.
Hillary The Patron Saint of Honesty? How did that happen?
Who are the most trusted most truthful politicians today? President Jimmy Carter, President Barak Obama, Bernie Sanders, President Bill Clinton and one day Hillary Clinton. Is there a common denominator? Not quite, but there is an explanation that begins to provide a pattern.
President Jimmy Carter, undoubtedly an honest person, who came out of nowhere (sorry Georgia) and never had to compromise his humanity. Most of the politicians before and immediately after Carter would have been tainted by America’s obscene energy policy leading to an obscene foreign policy – all beginning with the assassination of JFK. President Carter tried to stand up to same dark forces that JFK ran into, but he was outmaneuvered.
Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator from Vermont, consistently touting pretty obvious truths, never had to sacrifice his soul and was thus able to retain his integrity.
President Obama, an exceedingly intelligent charismatic fresh faced Senator, brought back the aura of JFK and Camelot. But Obama, as a black man, had to confront an ever more bigoted Republican party. By 2008 right wing fake journalism was out of control. To survive Obama could not put a foot wrong. His administration remains stunningly unblemished—it had to be, otherwise he would have been impeached for crossing the road whilst black.
So that leaves President Bill and Hillary Clinton. Coming out of Arkansas politics of the 1980’s, I am not convinced that Bill’s early political life was unblemished. Little Rock (I suspect) had a history of pretty tawdry political shenanigans. On top of this, like JFK—he was a serial philanderer. But JFK was never diminished by that; nor should Bill Clinton have been. Before Bill Clinton ever became President, one did not need to be a rocket scientist to conclude that he was a womanizer, and yet we voted him President anyway, so that should have been the end of that. But then we had Whitewater, Whitewater, Whitewater—a non-scandal created by the the Bush Sr. re-election team. After years and years of coming up empty on this and dozens of other even more absurd conspiracy theories, all that these dark forces came up with (by accident) was an extra-marital dalliance, totally unrelated to Whitewater – and a bunch of serial adulterers then sat in judgement of a far better human being than the accusers. The Clinton’s during the 1990’s endured endless vacuous attacks. They learnt that they could only survive by not putting a foot wrong.
Since those days Bill has bounced back to become one of the most impressive philanthropists in human history. His approval rating went through the roof. Hillary became a Senator, then Secretary of State and on retiring from that job her approval ratings went through the roof. But by running for President in 2016, of course extraordinary resources were destined to be spent looking for errors, inventing new garbage and re-litigating all the failed attacks in the past. If you keep repeating these utterly vacuous attacks, then such lies become part of the fabric of the political debate. Going after the Clinton foundation, stating that only 15% of its income goes to charity, implying that foundation funds line the Clinton pockets, are sick lies. Blaming Clinton for an Ambassador’s death, saying that she slept on the job—these are sick lies, inventions that take on a life of their own inside the dysfunctional, gullible, malleable and fearful brains of Stupidparty disciples.
I have no idea if Hillary would have become the Patron Saint of Honesty if she had followed an orthodox path and been treated equitably. Both Bill and Hillary undoubtedly started out as idealists. But there is also no doubt that she and Bill have had to evolve into unusually truthful politicians as a consequence of the vast right wing conspiracy. Bill almost got impeached for nothing (nothing but politics). Luckily these Democrat politicians do not need to lie, for they are all extremely intelligent, brilliant politicians who know how to use facts and act with basic decency. They do not need to lie, they do not want to lie—they actually want to help people, help humanity—not just their own tribe. More selfless than selfish.
Hence Hillary Clinton, for whatever reason, has evolved into perhaps the most honest Senior politician (after Obama?)—and thus she is entitled to the title – Patron Saint of Honesty in the land of American Politics.
Fun Fact: (Yes I know that I said that this was not going to be a puff piece, but since Hillary confronts so much absurdist hate -let’s even out the score just one little bit)
Another Stupidparty lie debunked:
Hillary being mean ( “viciously attacked”) women who claimed to have had affairs, or unwanted encounters with Bill Clinton + Monica
Trump and Stupidparty are trying to attack Hillary regarding Bill’s likely adulterous behavior. First off— any women in Hillary’s situation is bound to as mad as hell with both their husband and their husbands mistress or accusers. Further if such women continue to act in a way that threatens the family – the wife is most unlikely to remain seated with a smile on their face. The wife has a very personal choice to either save or end the marriage. Far be it on a third party to decide what should be the correct decision. There are far too many unknowns – not least of which the condition of the human heart and how best to bring up ones children. This would be Hillary’s choice – not Trumps, or a hateful Trumpeteer. There is no evidence that Hillary ever committed adultery – and even it there was, there really is little excuse for an outside party judging her for her apparent efforts to save her marriage. Now let us fact check the supposedly horrible things Hillary did “going after Bill’s other women”
It is clear that Hillary Clinton reacted in what could be seen as negative ways. According to some accounts, she at the very least went along with the hiring of a private investigator to look into the background of Gennifer Flowers. Some see her reaction as especially problematic coming from a person who promotes herself as a champion of women. Still, Juanita Broaddrick’s example of intimidation is open to interpretation, and is weakened by her answer to NBC that no one “near Bill Clinton” had tried to intimidate her. Kathleen Willey is not able to link the incidents that occurred directly or indirectly to Hillary Clinton. The comments Clinton made about Lewinsky were spoken in private to a close confidante. And Paula Jones has not pointed to a specific attack.
All, in all, we think Trump’s blanket charge that Clinton “viciously” attacked these women to be an exaggeration too far.
I would like to share a couple of comments that readers have made about this blog as they add more depth to my points about the supposed email scandal:
- Excellent analysis – it opened my eyes a bit. Especially on the Benghazi affair. I long since gave Clinton a pass on the email server issue. It’s absurd to think that just because an email server is private it is more prone to hacks than a government server. In fact, I can make a case that government servers are actually less secure because most of them are well-known targets – their general location are also well-known. Private servers tend to be… well… private. The only way you can know the name of a private server (and discover routing and IP address) it is by receiving email from the individual in question. And even then… is it hackable? Government servers have weaknesses that private servers do not. For one thing, government servers may need multiple open ports to accommodate legacy equipment in the field. You can’t change government servers too quickly – you have thousands of users. You can do anything you want to a private server – one day, you can open one port, the next day you change it to another port. You can modify software, protocols, and encryption – at will, easily, simply because you have a handful of users – in this case, one? Two? LOL. Ask just about any field tech that does this work for a living. The Clinton Email scandal was a pile of guano from the very beginning.
- I would like to add a couple of points to your analysis. Most people commenting on the email issue know next to nothing about classified materials. I was in military intelligence and dealt with top secret information every day. If i had received something marked the way that the so-called classified emails were marked for Clinton, I, too, would not have thought that they were classified. There is a strict protocol on how classified materials should be marked and it is done so that there can be no doubt. The classification level should be at the top of the page in extra large letters and, in the case of paper, with red colored ink. A marking of (c) at the end of a sentence would seem meaningless to those of us used to the proper markings. Secondly, Clinton and others have pointed out that she wanted to continue to communicate the same way as she had while a senator–via her Blackberry. Because the NSA refused to give her a secure phone, she was left to her own devices. Another Congressman has pointed out that many, if not most, representatives in Congress still handle information the way Clinton did and they undoubtedly deal with some classified information. Finally, Trump and others have made a big deal out of the deletion of so many emails. I used to be the head of the Records Management Program for the City of San Diego. Our program was based on the Federal program as set up by NARA (National Archives and Records Administration). End users are supposed to delete or dispose of all non-record material when they no longer need it. And something may be non-record even though it is work related.The two are not directly related. For example, copies of documents are not records; only the original usually is (there are exceptions). Things of a transitory nature, or ephemera are not considered records. Meeting announcements or reminders, for example. It was my experience that most items kept by government workers can and should have been disposed of. Thus, there is no reason to doubt that Clinton’s attorneys were correct in deleting so many emails. The mistake was that Clinton used the term work-related when that is not the relevant criterion. She should have said official record materials and she would be on firmer ground.
Hillary has faced 40 years of sexism.