We 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?