The Unethical Job Of Hillary’s Paid Public Deceiver

liarWe were definitively introduced to Karen Finney when she delivered a vile concoction of deceit, misrepresentations, rationalizations and double-talk as Hillary Clinton’s surrogate to respond to the then emerging State Department e-mail scandal. Prepare to see and hear a lot of her, and since everything about Hillary involves deception, pretense and sleight-of-word, prepare to bang your head on the floor…that is, prepare if you care about ethics and transparency, or if you are not gullible, ignorant, or already a victim of Clinton Corruption.

Yesterday, CNN’s Jake Tapper tried to ask her a direct question regarding her position on the Pacific Partnership bill, a reasonable question since Congress just delivered a blow to its prospects of passage by voting down President Obama’s bid for fast track authority to negotiate its terms.

JAKE TAPPER: First I want to ask you about this breaking news in Washington D.C. today and about Secretary Clinton’s position on the President’s trade bill. In a 2012 speech in Australia, Clinton who was a big proponent of the Pacific Partnership bill said quote, “It sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free transparent fair trade. The kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.” It sounds to me like she is a big supporter of it but as a candidate she said nothing about it.

KAREN FINNEY: Well, but what you just read, that was from 2012 and we are now in 2015 and this deal has gone back and forth between the House and the Senate and then it sounds like we are going back and forth again another couple of times so that is part of why as you played earlier on your show, Hillary has made it very clear that she has her two kind of standards. Any trade deal has to meet those two tests and she has voted for trade agreements that she thought were good and she has voted against those that she thought were bad.

TAPPER: Okay so she opposes this one?

FINNEY: Well, no, that is why she has said that though that she really believes what’s really important from a policy perspective, not the political conversation, she really believes that the final language is really what is important. Because we can talk about currency manipulation but how do we get there? How do we accomplish that?

TAPPER: But Karen I am talking about policy because Democrats in the House and Senate have now voted on this. This is an issue that every single Democrat who has announced that they are running for the presidency has taken a position on except for the one who helped push it and did she even help write it? I believe she helped write it.

FINNEY: I can’t speak to that because I wasn’t at the State Department. But again I just go back to the bigger picture and that is what she has really been focused on. And I hear what you are saying and I know that there are people who, you know, they have things that they want her to say about this but she and, you know, you played her own words. This is how she has laid out her position on this issue in terms of does it protect American workers, does it keep America safe, what is the final language? I mean again you have seen the ping-pong back and forth…

TAPPER: But Obama says it does. Pelosi says it doesn’t. I don’t think. I’m not asking her about her personal life…

FINNEY: Do you really think we are at final language at this point? I don’t think we’re done at this point given the game.

TAPPER: Karen, isn’t this exactly what people hate about politicians? That they won’t take a position because as soon as they take a position they are so fearful what the response is going to be from voters? Like she was part of this administration. This administration supports this trade bill. Okay, what I don’t understand is why you just won’t say we oppose it now in its current form. We oppose it. We don’t support it anymore.

FINNEY: You know what Jake, I hear you. And again my point is I think when she has talked to voters what they have wanted to talk to her about is the economy and jobs and college affordability so…

TAPPER: This IS about the economy and jobs! This is the little switcheroo people do sometimes. Like as if I am asking about her hair or her clothes. I’m not. I’m asking about a trade deal.

FINNEY: I didn’t say that you were saying that. My point is she has made it very clear where she is broadly on ths deal. I don’t think we are at the final language…

TAPPER: So generally speaking she supports it?

FINNEY: Generally speaking any trade deal has to meet her two tests and that is where she is at.

TAPPER: I can see I am getting nowhere..

Normally I would interject where Finney’s responses jump the ethics rails, but since her entire participation in the exchange is off the ethics rails, and her effort to obfuscate is so blatant and obvious, that would be insulting to you. My favorites are “I can’t speak to that because I wasn’t at the State Department” (No, but you are being paid to speak for the former Secretary of State, who was at the State Department, and whom we know briefs the people she pays to lie for her ) and “I hear you,” which is translated today, as it was when it became common passive-aggressive BS in the Seventies, as “I have no intention of paying any attention to what you just said.”

Tapper distinguishes himself from 99% of his colleagues by both diligently trying to do his job and refusing to accept Finney’s disrespectful evasions. Nonetheless, he doesn’t do enough: he should have ordered her off the set, saying that she could return when she was prepared to give direct answers and to stop trying to mislead and confuse his audience on behalf of candidate Clinton.

What kind of low-life accepts the job of lying for someone else? Does someone like Finney think that she is less dishonest because she lies by proxy? How can she think such a job is ethically tolerable? How can she believe anyone who would hire them for such a role is worth working for, rather than a coward who corrupts others with their superior wealth, inducing others to do in public the unethical deeds they lack the skill and the courage to do themselves?

24 thoughts on “The Unethical Job Of Hillary’s Paid Public Deceiver

      • I’ve used it and had it used on me, and I always took it to mean “I heard what you said, and I comprehend it, but I am giving it no weight,” like a supervisor you complain to about having too many cases vis-a-vis the other attorneys in the section, or a law clerk complaining to you that they can’t find anything that’s directly on point.

        • I’ve occasionally used it to mean “I emotionally validate what you just said” when my friends tell me about the problems they’ve had to deal with that day. It’s a good thing to say when you both know emotional validation is all the help you can give them at the time.

          • I could see that, but I think, if that was what I meant, I might explain it a bit more so the person doesn’t think I’m brushing away the substance of what they said.

            • I have used “I hear you” like E.C. for decades – never realizing it was a brush-off, never intending to communicate that.

              So, I never learned the correct meaning of the expression from the earliest times I began to hear it often (that is, if Jack’s explanation of its meaning is the correct one). I might have meant to say “I hear you” as a kind of sarcasm, once or twice, similar to how Jack explains it. I don’t know. My memory is poor. The worst I can imagine that I ever would have meant by saying “I hear you” to someone would be, “I realize that there is nothing I can say at this moment to persuade you otherwise” (when it seems clear there is disagreement), or, “I am not saying any more” (when I mean to indicate agreement or empathy).

              On the topic: All the TV shows, their hosts and their guests have become utterly a waste of my time, for whatever purposes they might have served in earlier times (and for whatever purposes they think they are serving). Deception reigns there; I am looking for hidden treasures of truth (as are ever more cleverly hidden) elsewhere. I am still reading here…for that, will I read a “I hear you”? (chuckling)

              • Well, the context and the tone in which you say it would make it clear in most cases, I think. I use a sympathetic tone to indicate that I understand and empathize.

                And yeah, I hear that. I mostly get all my news from here, from people I know personally, and from the Wall Street Journal when someone recommends an article. I do make a habit of finding news stories that contradict what I read to get multiple sides of a conflict. Whenever I read something that makes it seem like one side is [i]obviously[/i] right, it usually means there’s something I’m not being told.

  1. I think you presume he has more authority than he does. Ordering the presumptive next President’s spokesperson off the set and essentially calling her a liar in front of the whole nation would kill that network’s access to the White House and kill his career. Only the top network executives could pull the trigger on a decision like that.

    • The power in the interviewer-interviewee relationship is with the interviewee. They can and have walked off. We don’t have any really big and influential interviewers who command the national respect that they have to answer. Interviews have degenerated to either partisan, gutless,or hamstrung.

      • Oh, I think that’s backwards. Walking out of an interview always makes the interviewee look petty or as if they are afraid of something, and bad RThis kind of deceptive junk does nothing but make fair debate and rational balancing of complex factors impossible. Shame on everyone involved PR always follows. Kicking someone off is a badge of honor, unless you are Ed Schultz.

        • That’s the problem, the guest has too much of the power, that they are allowed to evade and lie without being called on it. Else the guest won’t come back… Thing is, a quest on a talk show should accept that most anything related to their fame and the topic of the show is fair game. Mr.Finney’s golf game would not relevant on a news and opinion show, but Ms Jenner’s could, and should be responded to honestly. There have been some ambush interview questions, but you come ON these shows to answer questions.

          If you don’t want to, don’t come on them. Have a cook out or take a nap and don’t waste everyone’s time.

          • Then they don’t come back. So what? Paid liars and party flacks don’t have anything spontaneous or surprising to say. Who needs to hear Debbie Wassermann Schultz, or Finney, or Anna Navarro? Either be an honest guest, or you’re not welcome.

            • Unfortunately, if you want access to the leaders once they are elected, as everyone assumes Hilary will be, then you have to give their shills and spokesmen airtime now. Otherwise, come January 21, 2017, you won’t be able to get an interview with the White House janitor.

    • I think you are factually wrong. The public would side with him, and it would be a great promotional opportunity for CNN. Fire an anchor for refusing to let a guest lie to his audience? Suicide.

      • I would dearly love to see an interviewer say something to the effect of “Look, I’ve asked you the same question three times and have gotten nothing like a straight answer. Final chance, either answer the question or the interview is over.” It’ll never happen, of course, if for no other reason than that the time slot would still have to be filled.

        • Or the interviewer could always walk off like Dan Rather, leaving the network to broadcast dead air, then ignore it later and try to resort to pit-bull journalism when an interviewee calls him on it.

          • Yeah, but that just looks like an ego problem on part of the interviewer. Responsibility should rest with the interviewee to give straight, informative and honest answers. And if they don’t, there should be consequences. That’s the point of the interview, after all.

            • Yes, but it also makes the network look bad for broadcasting nothing. The interviewee isn’t going on that show to let the interviewer control things, he’s going on the show to get his message out. If this show won’t let them get the message out, then he can blacklist it and go to a more compliant show.

              • But that particular sword cuts both ways. The interviewee should not be in control, in any way. I have seen interviews in which the questions had to be submitted in advance. That’s not an interview. I’m not entirely sure what it is, but it isn’t an interview. If you go into an interview, you should be prepared, because if you dump on one interviewer, others may not be willing to give you air time so THEY can get dumped on, too.

  2. When I now see “Hillary” mentioned it has the same impact as “Kardashian” being mentioned. My mind is semi-mush and extended exposures to Hillary Speak by her or her minions will convert it to full mush.

  3. My personal favorite is what comes right after “I hear you:” “And again my point is I think when she has talked to voters what they have wanted to talk to her about is the economy and jobs and college affordability so…” Huh? College affordability? Are you kidding me? Incredible.

    This is pure, unabashed, Debbie Wasserman Schultz style talking point reading. Embarassing. And incredibly insulting and grating.

    • And why do TV interviewers let people come on their shows and read the talking points they’ve just gotten hot off the press from the DNC that afternoon?

  4. What kind of person would take such a job, you ask? A cynic would probably say “lawyer” and leave it at that! Someone seeking to impress you might go into a long essay of psychological and medical terms, and end it by blaming either XY females or global warming. For myself- lowbrow type that I am- I’d just say that there are always going to be a certain percentage of people so lacking in a personal sense of honor that they will prostitute their services to another in any manner they deem profitable… and all else be damned. Call them sociopaths or just “no damned good”, they’re just one of those hazards of life on Earth that one must deal with. One of the great early lessons for a man is spotting them as quickly as possible and knowing never to turn one’s back on them if at all possible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.