Washington Post Awards Clinton 4 Pinocchios
It comes as no surprise that numerous conservative web sites have taken Hillary Clinton to task for lying about her private e-mail server and the classification content of messages sent over it (among other things). What is surprising is that the Washington Post has now joined the fray. In a July 31, 2016 article, under the “Fact Checker” heading, Post writer Glenn Kessler awarded Clinton four “Pinocchios” for her lies.
This isn’t the first time Kessler has questioned the veracity of Clinton’s statements and the Democrat spin on them. In Fact checking the Hillary Clinton email controversy, published March 9, 2016, Kessler examined a variety of statements and found them all to be largely false.
In his most recent Fact Checker article, Kessler dealt specifically with Clinton’s statements during a July 31st interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. (You can watch the complete interview on YouTube.)
In awarding four “Pinocchios”, Kessler noted, “Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation.”
He also notes, “And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.”
As expected, responses to Kessler’s article fell along Clinton excuser/Clinton attacker lines. Excusers largely denied that Clinton had done anything wrong or stated there were less than a handful of classified emails involved and therefore considered the whole matter irrelevant.
Lies, lies, everywhere lies
Others determined that whether Clinton lied or told the truth was irrelevant to her candidacy. Clinton attackers condemn Clinton for lying, citing Comey’s testimony when questioned by Trey Gowdy.
(GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
COMEY: That’s not true.)
Clinton attackers also cite a trove of other Clinton statements as having ‘questionable veracity’ (the politically correct term for lies) in their condemnation of her.
While people on both side of the debate have become mired in the minutia of the number of classified emails sent and received, the designation of emails originally unclassified subsequently being labeled as classified, and the depths of her deceit, the point/counterpoint conversation has neglected a salient issue.
Specifically, Clinton’s motivation for using a private server and multiple communication devices should be a primary concern, yet it has all but been ignored.
The conscious and deliberate decision
Hillary Clinton is neither stupid nor naive, and she had to know that maintaining a private server was ill-advised at best, and illegal at worst. So why did she do it? Convenience has been put forth as her justification, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. More likely, she wanted complete control of the server and the ability to not only keep certain emails from public view, but to delete them if necessary.
That issue goes well beyond simply lying to Congress and the public. It appears that Clinton consciously decided to hide her email activities from Congress, the public and anyone else who was looking. One can argue whether those actions were in fact illegal, but there’s no doubt they were unethical. And just as her husband did when he stated he did not have sex with “that woman”, Clinton appears to be telling whatever lie is needed to cover up her actions.
What difference does it make? She is UNFIT to be president
One might rightfully ask, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Clinton supporters cite missteps by other presidents and federal office holders as justification for her actions. In essence, their position is that Clinton’s actions fall under the classification of “business as usual”, so all the uproar is unjustified.
The flip side of that argument is that Clinton broke the law, lied to Congress, the American people and the world, and is unfit to be president.
Individual opinions aside, Clinton’s actions do make a difference- they set the tone not only for her campaign, but for her presidency, should she be elected. Hillary Clinton obviously has no qualms doing whatever she feels appropriate to serve her personal agenda, and then lying about her actions when exposed.
If she does become the next president, the message is clear; a majority of the American people don’t merely accept, but welcome untruthfulness and deceit in their chosen leader. That thought should ultimately dissuade anyone from voting for her. But it won’t, because her excusers choose to turn a blind eye to any truth they find inconvenient.