I really, really wanted to be through with Hillary Clinton today…this week…as long as possible. You’ve got to believe me!
Then comes this breathless announcement from ABC News: Hillary finally apologized!
Of course, when you have said repeatedly that there was nothing to apologize for, and you aren’t going to apologize, see no reason to apologize, because you did nothing wrong, and it was allowed, and lots of others had done similarly without anyone making a fuss, and the whole thing is nonsense, and made up by Fox News and Republicans, and then you apologize because you can’t stop the criticism and your advisors are saying “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, HILLARY, THE MEDIA IS BEGGING YOU TO APOLOGIZE AND MAYBE IF YOU GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT WE CAN BURY THIS!!!!,” what kind of apology is it?
An insincere apology. A desperate apology. A cynical, dishonest, Machiavellian apology, containing no contrition, humility, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, remorse or acceptance of consequences. In other words, not an apology at all. Just another tactic,
Is anyone really fooled by this? If you are, what’s the matter with you?
Even by fake apology standards, this was awful. Clinton said (my comments in Hillary Soul Black):
“I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier.
You mean better as in not using one rationalization after another, lying , falsely claiming that the e-mails of the Secretary of State contained no classified information before you adopted the Clintonian “no e-mails marked as classified?” Or better as in doing a better job lying?
“I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that.
Because Clintons never appreciate the need to tell the truth unless they are about to be exposed. Because Hillary is only running for President—why would she appreciate the need to be transparent and honest to the public? Why, though, was the alternative to doing a better job answering questions sending out one smirking, talking-point programmed surrogate after another to say that the issue was a sham? Why didn’t she appreciate the need not to do that?
“What I had done was allowed, it was above board.
In other words, she still refuses to admit she did anything wrong! What’s she apologizing for? And no, it was not above board, because it was a secret private server specifically designed to keep Clinton’s communications hidden when she wanted them to be. “Above board” means “
“But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails.”
Again, she is refusing to admit wrongdoing. This is just more of the “it wasn’t the best choice” deflection.
“That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that.
Sorry about what? Not having two accounts, even though it was “allowed”? Where is the contrition for not following her own department’s policies and those of the administration regarding proper handling of official e-mails? Where is the regret for jeopardizing U.S. security so she could avoid FOIA requests from the press? Where’s the understanding that it was wrong to destroy 30,000 e-mails before anyone not on her payroll could review them? Where is the acknowledgement that she engaged in the appearance of impropriety? Or that her admitted ignorance of cyber-security issues is indefensible for the head of the State Department?
“I take responsibility.”
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
How does this apology rank on the Apology Scale? At best—no, Hillary, it’s not the best apology—it’s a Level 10:
An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.
I think even that’s giving it too much credit. It’s not an apology at all.
[Addendum: Here is Hillary’s expanded “apology” on her Facebook page. It is no better, and arguably worse.]