NY Times: Say, Hillary Is Pretty Much A Liar On Her Email Server, Eh?

The NY Times Editorial Board has finally chimed in on the State Department’s report on Hillary’s illegal email server, and finds her to be as secretive and lying as always, which is interesting, considering the same NY Times EB has been rather supportive of Hillary and dismissive of her detractors, regarding her email issues

(NY Times) Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency just got harder with the release of the State Department inspector general’s finding that “significant security risks” were posed by her decision to use a private email server for personal and official business while she was secretary of state. Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claims that the department had “allowed” the arrangement, the inspector general also found that she had not sought or received approval to use the server.

So far, no security breaches have been reported; a separate F.B.I. investigation is looking into that. But above and beyond security questions, the inspector general’s report is certain to fuel doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s trustworthiness, lately measured as a significant problem for her in public polls.

Significant? I’d say so, as noted at the Washington Free Beacon

Voters most associate the words “liar,” “not trustworthy,” and “scandals” with Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, according to the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Kornacki also described how only 19 percent of voters believe Clinton is honest and straightforward, according to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Trump hits 35%. Oh, and the FBI investigation? They aren’t just looking into whether there were any breaches: they’re investigating whether laws were broken by Clinton and her cohorts, including the Espionage Act. Back to the Times

This defensive posture seems at play in the email controversy, as well as her refusal, for that matter, to release the lucrative speeches she made to Wall Street audiences. The reflex she is revealing again now — to hunker down when challenged — is likely to make her seem less personable to many voters, and it will surely inflame critics’ charges of an underlying arrogance.

Donald Trump, her Republican rival, will be merciless in swinging the inspector general’s report like a cudgel. Accordingly, Mrs. Clinton now faces a measurably greater challenge in proving that she is the well-qualified politician her supporters know her to be, based on her varied career as a senator, secretary of state and first lady deeply involved in public life. This is a challenge to be faced not with a contrived campaign makeover, but with a far greater investment of candor before the public.

Two points. First, don’t expect candor. A Zebra cannot change its stripes, and the comments of Hillary and her surrogates since the report was released show they are attempting to spin it away. Second, we’re still waiting to hear exactly what her accomplishments were.

Even now, it seems a stretch to say that Mrs. Clinton’s email mishaps should disqualify her for the White House, particularly considering the alternative of Mr. Trump with his manifold evasions — not least his refusal to release tax returns that could shed light on his claims to great wealth, his charitable contributions and other deductions and possible conflicts of interest.

They aren’t mishaps: they break the law. If you were a private citizen using an outside server in an attempt to keep your corporate email conversations separate from the company, you could easily be in civil and criminal trouble. It’s those pesky records keeping laws, and the government has them for the government, as well. Oh, plus all those criminal laws about protecting national security material, for which others have been prosecuted, and convicted, over much less. Trump hasn’t broken the law.

But the nation should not be judging leadership as a measure of who is less untrustworthy. Mrs. Clinton has to answer questions about the report thoroughly and candidly. That is her best path back to the larger task of campaigning for the presidency.

Interesting: we’re suddenly supposed to ignore trustworthy as a measure of leadership.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “NY Times: Say, Hillary Is Pretty Much A Liar On Her Email Server, Eh?”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    … and as I’ve said many times, if I could do it over again, I would have done it differently.

    -something every criminal says after they’ve been caught

  2. John says:

    the key phrase here is “willfull intent”
    So far the FBI has said they have yet to find that
    They have not even identified her as “a person of interest”
    Are you sure that your info sources know more than the FBI?

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    the key phrase here is “willfull intent”

    – fucking retard

  4. david7134 says:

    john,
    Why do you comment on things that you have no knowledge of? No, you do not have to have “willful intent” in Hillary’s crimes. All you have to show is negligence or not following the protocol. If you are keeping up with the news, those goals were met according to the inspector general. That means, Old Hillary broke the law.

  5. Hank_M says:

    david7134, John is a partisan democrat, as is another commentor here, and he’ll defend anything they do.
    Even if he doesn’t have a clue about it.

    You’d think he’d be ashamed to have to resort to word games but that’s all Hillary supporters have left.
    She’s corrupt, a liar and as many have written, a truly despicable person.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9626 access attempts in the last 7 days.