You know, my head can only explode so many times. It is already a callenge chore getting through the day without a ceiling clean-up when I have to listen to otherwise smart and reasonable friends and relatives justify their defense of Hillary Clinton’s corruption and dishonesty by resorting to rationalizations and selective memory, but the cranial pressure becomes unbearable when Hillary herself provides another example of her ethics corruption wizardry and reporters applaud.
As has been thoroughly explained here and elsewhere, Clinton decided to duck Bernie Sanders’ accusation that her Wall Street contributors expect something in return and that her pose as a tough Wall Street reformer was inherently incredible by changing the subject and playing the 9-11 card. Her entire explanation for why Wall Street firms were throwing millions her way:
“So, I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”
Somehow, I missed what happened next, which is why I didn’t mention it in the two debate posts. Maybe I was stricken with a merciful moment of deafness. Maybe Clinton’s answer caused me to black out temporarily. Or maybe that was the moment I was screaming at my sister, “THAT’S WHO YOU THINK SHOULD BE PRESIDENT??? WHAT THE HELL’S WRONG WITH YOU???” For whatever reason, I just learned about this now.
After Clinton’s 9-11 spin, a rueful tweet from a law professor arrived during the debate: “I’ve never seen a candidate invoke 9/11 to justify millions of Wall Street donations until now,” wrote Andy Grewal, a law professor at the University of Iowa.
CBS passed it on to Hillary. “And Secretary Clinton, one of the tweets we saw said this,” said CBS’s tweet-mistress Nancy Cordes. “I’ve never seen a candidate invoke 9/11 to justify millions of Wall Street donations until now.” The idea being, yes, you were a champion of the community after 9/11, but what does that have to do with taking big donations?”
Hillary’s answer—Let me strap down my head after wrapping it in duct tape—there— “Well, I’m sorry that whoever tweeted that had that impression because I worked closely with New Yorkers after 9/11 for my entire first term to rebuild.”
KABOOM!
She’s sorry he had that impression??? Only Bill or Hillary would have the audacity and the contempt for their supporters to deny, on live TV, that what just happened on live TV happened. The question was about her getting millions in widespread Wall Street firm support. Her answer, whole answer and only answer was:
“So, I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”
It wasn’t the professor’s impression that this invoked 9/11 to justify millions of Wall Street donations. That’s what she did! That was her intent, that was her meaning, that’s what the words communicate, that’s what everyone heard, that’s the only possible interpretation of what just happened, and Hillary Clinton’s response, when someone pointed out how outrageous what she just said is, was to deny she she said it, mere minutes after she said it!
Why doesn’t this alone disqualify her to be President? Why didn’t every single bewitched and bewildered Democrat who was preparing to support her have the veil fall from her eyes and shout, “My God! This woman is a shameless, compulsive liar, and she thinks she can get away with anything! How could I have ever have thought she could be trusted to lead the country?”
Then, and I am re-taping my head as a type this, Washington Post reporters Abby Phillip and David Weigel write of this mendacity:
[S]he apologized.
ARRRRRRGHHHHH!
Apologized? APOLOGIZED??? She said she was sorry he “had that impression”!!!
‘I’m sorry you didn’t understand what I said‘ isn’t an apology! It is the opposite of an apology! Yet two Washington Post reporters actively misrepresented it as one, to help Hillary extract herself from one more smoking gun gaffe.
They’ll kill me yet.
Ethics Alarms 
“Why doesn’t this alone disqualify her to be President? Why didn’t every single bewitched and bewildered Democrat who was preparing to support her have the veil fall from her eyes and shout, “My God! This woman is a shameless, compulsive liar, and she thinks she can get away with anything! How could I have ever have thought she could be trusted to lead the country?””
Because they, like the duped groups before them, were willing to let horrible people do horrible things so long as the ends justified the means. She also has a vagina. Sexist.
In a lot of cases I think it’s virulent hatred of Republicans. It is both amusing and depressing to watch multiple left leaning friends who, eight years ago, were both highly critical of Hillary and deplored the fact that the Clintons were establishing a political dynasty now force themselves to grin and cheer her on. “At least she’s better than the GOP candidate”. And this despite not knowing who the Republican candidate actually is yet.
Partyism, then: partisan demonization and bigotry. If Hillary did everything the same but was a Republican, they would regard her as the devil incarnate.
I would think intelligent people would be able to see that.
Don’t worry, battalions of loyal leftwing acolytes are currently figuring out exactly which connotative meanings her words *could* mean and we will soon know what “she really said” so that we can all fall back into goodthink.
For me the head explosion came when I found that in the deleted e-mails there was a comment from Huma that Hillary is often confused. Huma controls what Hillary hears is how I read that. Is that not a problem for anyone but me?
I’m also completely in awe that this easily confused lady can be such a complete liar. I thought you had to have a good memory to be a good liar.
Well, she apparently forgot that she was denying what she just said. Not a good sign. Lying is hard if you have short term memory problems.
Okay, that’s a nine AND a ten on The Apology Scale. She’s good!
I’m interested in the “way to rebuke the terrorists.” In other words she was expressing disapproval to them for their behavior. I didn’t see Hillary speaking so I don’t know if she wagged an admonishing finger toward the camera when she said it. You naughty boys! Broke the window, did you? Well, we’ll just have to replace that window, won’t we. There now, it’s all put together again, aren’t you sorry for that humpty-dumpty you shattered into more than two thousand six-hundred pieces. Shame on you, you bad boys! And see? See Hillary get her money back!!
Oh, she’s VERY good.
When your entire life has been a lie up to this point, there’s nowhere else to go. You’re caught in your own meshwork of repeated deceits.