Translation: “OK, Lying And Denying Responsibility Haven’t Worked; Let’s Try Lying And Accepting SOME Responsibility.”

Said Candidate Hillary Clinton at a campaign stop in Iowa:

“I know people have raised questions about my email use as secretary of state, and I understand why. I get it. (1) So here’s what I want the American people to know: My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department. (2) It clearly wasn’t the best choice. (3) I should’ve used two emails: one personal, one for work. I take responsibility for that decision, and I want to be as transparent as possible, which is why I turned over 55,000 pages (4), why I’ve turned over my server (5), why I’ve agreed to — in fact, been asking to — and have finally gotten a date to testify before a congressional committee in October. (6) I’m confident that this process will prove that I never sent, nor received, any email that was marked classified. (7).


(1) She got it once her poll numbers started going down. What Hillary gets is that the stonewalling wasn’t working.

(2) She takes full responsibility, but what she did was allowed by somebody else…the Department that she was in charge of! Isn’t this great?

(3) “It wasn’t the best choice” is deceit. It falsely implies that it wasn’t a bad choice, just not the best one, which, of course, is the best of good choices.

(4) 55,000 sounds like a lot, but it was not all the pages. More deceit.

(5) That’s not why she turned over her server: this a lie. She turned over the server because the FBI demanded it.

(6) She will testify only after intentionally destroying e-mails before the subpoena she knew was coming from the committee demanded them. This is called “destroying potential evidence,” and is unethical, if not criminal.

(7) Note “marked.” She did send and receive e-mails she had to know would have been marked classified if she hadn’t recived them on a private account. Note “marked classified.” The FBI believes that some of the e-mails she received were marked “top secret.” Not classified, though.

This is called “a Clintonism.”

17 thoughts on “Translation: “OK, Lying And Denying Responsibility Haven’t Worked; Let’s Try Lying And Accepting SOME Responsibility.”

  1. #4, we should recall is a lower number than it ought to be because she destroyed likely evidence…euphemistically referred to around here by Progressives as “making a poor decision with her personal emails”

    Let’s also recall those same Progressives and others would vote for her anyway, despite her complete lack of ethics, over a moderate from the opposition, simply because they want to retain veto power, even though that moderate would likely run compromises and a bipartisan leadership style in stark contrast to what we currently have sitting.

  2. “I know people have raised questions about my email use as secretary of state, and I understand why.”

    I think you mean to say “I know a criminal investigation has been launched regarding my illegal use of a private server and personal account.”

  3. Hillary Clinton has made her career by: (1) marrying a like-minded and equally power-driven man whose coattails she rode until she made enough of a name for herself to (halfway) go it alone; (2) relying on obfuscation, denial, deceit, and outright lying whenever she’s caught doing something unethical or illegal; (3) playing into the hands of knee-jerk liberals and Democrats whenever possible, while ignoring other more important issues that may have a negative impact on her reputation; (4) collecting a cadre of flacks who will support her in the electronic and print media no matter what, and no matter how ridiculous their supportive statements clearly are; (5) using the basis of Bill Clinton’s organization to create one of the strongest, creepiest, most effective personal image-makers and campaign planners imaginable (in my opinion, very Nixonian), and frankly, is working less and less effectively as time goes on; (6) creating a phony foundation which provides millions of dollars under the unpardonable name of charity, which is basically hers to spend — on salaries for family and friends, untold trips that need not be reported as “campaigning,” including multi-million dollar gifts from other nations (a clear conflict of interest which of course she denies, but never explains why they don’t create a conflict for either a Secretary of State or the Chief Executive of the United States); (7) limiting interviews and press conferences — wherein she might actually have to answer questions — and concentrating on speeches, advertisements, and carefully chosen photo ops; and (8) having an enormous (if unfounded and with no basis in achievement) ego, which overrides any sense of right and wrong.

    Still, there she is. And there she will be, unless Biden runs and the Republicans winnow down their candidates to one or two who could beat the pantsuit off her, AND, the increasing and continuing evidence that even the liberal press and media are (kind of) catching on, AND, if the FBI and Justice Department do their jobs.

    One final note. Looking at the photos here, and the many also seen on television and print media… can’t you see that every expression is phony? That when she’s lying she shows it? That she will never, ever, have Bill’s ability to lie outright and still have people like him. In spite of all the above, she really should lose because — honestly, regardless of her promises — no one really likes her. And no one should. Good.

  4. “My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department.”

    False, there was a policy against it.

    Truthful rewording “I allowed myself to violate policy”.

    “I’m confident that this process will prove that I never sent, nor received, any email that was marked classified”.

    False. They have already discovered e-mails classified as top secret before they were sent and still classified as such, including NSA spy satellite photos.

    You can’t be confident that something won’t happen after it has already happen. You can’t be confident that no hurricane will ever hit New Orleans. What they have also found is that Clinton aides cut and pasted material into e-mails to remove the classification notice.

    Truthful rewording “I thought my aides had illegally removed all the classified markings before they sent any sensitive material in unencrypted form to my unsecured e-mail server.”

  5. I don’t get it. Did she use only 1 email account during her SOS tenure and that 1 email account was a personal account set up on her personal server….so, she never had or used an official state department email address?

    Are we to believe then that she never discussed business by email? Or just never sent or received “classified” business?

    How does one person stop someone else from sending you a “classified” email that goes through your server?

    If the Secretary of Defense sends a classified email to Secretary of State, who’s violated the law? Both, I’d say.

    • The government has an entire separate email system that is intended to be secure and that all classified material is supposed to move on. Clinton’s position is that whenever she had to work with material from this system, she had it printed out and worked with it on paper.

      It seems her claim is that she did not send anything through this system herself, as she said on August 18: “Whether it was a personal account or a government account, I did not send classified material and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified, which is the way you know whether something is.”

      I don’t think anyone is claiming that she did not conduct business by email (part of her defense is that many government employees saw email from her that had a non-governmental email address). The story has changed from her private system never had any classified material on it to (now) it never had anything “marked” classified (see the main post).

      If an employee receives classified material away from the classified email system (including the general government email system), there are procedures to report it. If one employee sends something classified and the other does not report it, then yes, both can be in trouble.

      • They have found that her aides took the e-mails from that classified system, and cut and pasted into e-mails for use on her personal system. The removed the indications that the material was classified in the process. But that is OK, because now it isn’ marked classified.

  6. Just to add something: the Clinton comment that is just jaw-dropping to me is, “… material that was marked or designated classified, which is the way you know whether something is.” It’s very scary that anyone could go through security training and not pick up that it’s the content, and not the stamp, that is the thing that controls classification. For someone who was a lawyer for at least twenty years, who you would think had to deal regularly with the analogous concept of privilege, to not understand that that the stamp is just a caution flag to make the classification impossible to miss, is pretty much unbelievable.

        • Let’s pretend that the private server isn’t even a question:

          Then, if something were classified by the State Department, would Hillary’s mere actions with her Department’s classified documents as the head of the state department have declassifying consequences if she treated something classified by a lower authority as if it were de-classified?

          I understand of course that this wouldn’t apply to items classified outside the State Department.

          If so, would her handling of internal classified documents then not be a matter of illegality, but simple irresponsibility and extremely poor judgement borne of laziness?

          I understand of course that doing so with external documents would be illegal.

          • It’s been a while since I read the rules, but I don’t think so.

            IIRC, there are minimum time frames for classified information (depending on the level of classification) and a formal, proactive process is required to declassify anything before that time frame has expired.

            That said, the Secretary of State would indeed have the authority to declassify anything that was classified from within the Department of State.


  7. This is not even new. She is just repeating the same basic points over and over, hoping that repetition will breed belief.

  8. I am not that up on I.T. but I seem to have seen something about this — here? and elsewhere? — that makes “(3) I should’ve used two emails: one personal, one for work” an invalid defense because they shouldn’t even be on the same server for good security. Not that I want to hear about her making even further assumptions about her listeners’ ignorance.

    • I’m sorry, but what I think this really boils down in the most simple ways…we need to define the word “is” to see if she has any culpability or committed any wrongdoing.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.