Another Day, More Lies From Donald And Hillary. Whose Are Worse? How Will Their Supporters Excuse Them This Time?

Donald and Hillary

This election is going to be something to watch, with two compulsive, shameless liars each backed by ethically inert loyalists, fighting for the biggest prize in politics. I’m stocking up on Pepto.

Today’s edition of Lying Donald vs. Lying Hillary:

First let’s look at Trump’s lie, because it’s funnier: from the Washington Post:

“A recording obtained by The Washington Post captures what New York reporters and editors who covered Trump’s early career experienced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s: calls from Trump’s Manhattan office that resulted in conversations with “John Miller” or “John Barron” — public-relations men who sound precisely like Trump himself — who indeed are Trump, masquerading as an unusually helpful and boastful advocate for himself, according to the journalists and several of Trump’s top aides.”

This is, of course, an early result of the Post’s “Let’s dig up embarrassing stuff on Trump” project, which Bob Woodward talked about this week. There is nothing wrong with the Post doing this with Trump; what is despicable is that they didn’t do it with Obama in 2008.

On the fake publicist story, the Post has Trump cold. He even confirmed that he masqueraded as “John Miller” and “John Barron” under oath in a lawsuit, and forensic experts have confirmed the voice is Trump’s. Never mind. Now he’s not under oath, so he’s denying it all. Trump  hung up on two Washington Post reporters when they asked him this afternoon about  masquerading as his own publicist in interviews and he lied directly to USA Today, saying:

“I have many, many people that are trying to imitate my voice and you can imagine that. This sounds like one of these scams, one of the many scams. It doesn’t sound like me. It was not me on the phone. And it doesn’t sound like me on the phone, I will tell you that. It was not me on the phone. Let’s go on to more current subjects.”

Okay, here’s a current subject: Your lying and cowardice. Why should anyone trust you, when you lie about past conduct that  is undeniable, and that you admitted to in court? How can you claim to be tough when you don’t have the guts to admit what you did?

How will his supporters excuse this? I guessed, then I checked the comments on various news reports online. Aside from the predictable “Yeah, well Hillary’s lies are worse”  comments, the pro-Trump comments followed the logic of Joan V-126881992, who wrote,

“This is what the Washington post pays its reporters for? Yawn,really?”

I win! That was how I assumed the Trump-worshipers would react: “Who cares?” After all, they don’t care that Trump is incoherent, doesn’t believe in his own policies, doesn’t respect veterans or women, approves of torture, encourages violence and thuggery, routinely lies and demonstrates the reasoning ability and values of a pre-teen. Nothing he does, has done or will do matters to them.

Trump pooped in a church pew? Who cares? He’s a straight talker!

Trump punched a toddler in the face? Who cares? He’ll build a wall!

Trump keeps sex slaves chained in his basement? Who cares? We’re angry!

Now on to Hillary.

More Hillary e-mails off of that private server, released this week, reveal that while Secretary of State Clinton instructed her Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills  to call her unsecured home phone after attempts to connect over a secure line failed. Clinton has been insisting that she always followed the proper procedures for handling classified information. This was not, obviously, proper procedure.

The February 22, 2009 e-mail exchange was  initiated by Clinton when her flight landed, and it went like this:

“I just landed and will be home shortly We can try a secure call at your convenience. [redacted] Let me know what time works,” Clinton wrote. Mills responded that she was available, so Clinton writes, “Are you calling me? What #? I called ops and they gave me your ‘secure’ cell which I just tried but only got a high-pitched whining sound.” Clinton can’t get through, so she writes back about 20 minutes later, “I give up. Call me on my home #.”

This is the second proven example of Clinton instructing an aide to use an unsecured means of communication for her convenience.

Moreover, the e-mail exchange with Mills and other e-mails released in the latest batch, show that Clinton and aide Huma Abedin used e-mail accounts as early as January 2009, contradicting statements made by Clinton and her campaign that she did not begin using the private e-mail server until March 2009.  The dates of the newly released e-mails also indicate that the declaration signed by Clinton under  oath, asserting that she surrendered all her work-related e-mails to the State Department on December 5, 2014 was false.

Perjury is a felony.

How will the Clinton Corrupted brush off this latest proof that she has been lying through her teeth regarding her handling of classified information? I’ve made my guess; now let’s look…

Hmmm. Well, I underestimated the stupid. Like this..

ken_lov • 2 hours ago
….The notion there’s something sinister or improper in the Secretary of State talking to a member of staff on an ordinary phone connection is preposterous. Childish nonsense.

Gee, this guy comprehends State Department security about as well as Hillary did!

Over at The Hill, I find this typical of the Clintonista retorts..

tedev • 15 hours ago

So what. Every day like a soap operas some totally ridiculous piece of news that is supposed to show Clinton did something wrong. Do not care anymore. It like a tattletale session by kids in the 4th grade. Clinton did nothing wrong.

I guess I lose this time. I was betting that the deniers and the corrupted would default to the Faux News, “vast right wing conspiracy”  tactic, but they sound more like Trump supporters. Perjury, wilful violation of policies, outright lies–so what?

I’m going to put a poll at the end to see whose lies you think are worse. I’ve already decided whose supporters are most unethical in their denials: Clinton’s. After all, they may be corrupt, but they are presumably smarter than the Trump supporters. Like Forrest Gump,  the Trumpsters  are a few candies short of a box; they have an excuse for being idiots. I see no such excuse for the Clinton Corrupted.

Here’s the poll:


Sources: Washington Post, USA Today, The Hill

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts, and seek written permission when appropriate. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work or property was used in any way without proper attribution, credit or permission, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at



16 thoughts on “Another Day, More Lies From Donald And Hillary. Whose Are Worse? How Will Their Supporters Excuse Them This Time?

  1. Vote? Not on your life! I can see you from here: You are within 3/4ths of an inch from the polling place and that is illegal. And probably unethical.

    • Vote? Not on your life! I can see you from here: You are within 3/4ths of an inch from the polling place and that is illegal. And probably unethical.

      At this point… Who cares?

  2. The reason that this will go nowhere, though, is that virtually nobody has figured out how to implement and actually follow data security policies.

  3. The rationalization is often quite amusing and the great mass of hoi polloi care little about it. For the supporters of both, it is always some type of blather from the opposition that is responsible.

    The real strength of America will be demonstrated if we can manage to survive this latest pair of “dough faces.”

  4. Okay. I’m probably going to stir controversy by saying this, but I voted for “Who cares?”.

    Note that I think both lies were reprehensible. Both lies proved that the candidates in question were unworthy of office.

    It’s just that it’s pretty difficult, except in really extreme cases, to talk about “more” or “less” unethical in cases like this. One action will be worse by one ethical analysis and set of priorities; the other will be worse under another approach.

    This might have impat in isolation — if these behaviors were the only examples of unethical conduct we could find, or even were representative of the reasons why both candidates are unworthy of office. They’re not. They, at best, represent a tiny, tiny subset of the problems with each candidate.

    The question becomes, eventually, who we think the country can survive having as President… and these are just a handfull of examples among many of why I am regretfully coming to conclude that the answer is neither.

  5. I’m going to go on record as Trump’s lie being worse. Here’s why. Clinton’s lie is reprehensible and unethical, but it can be filed under the “politics as usual” column that grows longer every day because of our horrible elected leaders.

    But Trump’s lie? It is a whole new flavor of crazy. I can hold my nose and vote for a cynical, lying politician if I have to, but Trump is all that and a bag of chips.

    • Your comment brings to mind PJ O’Rourke’s comment, highlighted here earlier this week, that Hillary is wrong in every way, but “within normal parameters.”

    • Hillary was a lawyer, first lady, senator and Secretary of state, she has a duty to the citizens to tell the truth. Trump is still a private citizen and has never been given charge of any government office. She has legal requirements to tell the truth, he doesn’t. She continues to try to get around any oversight.

      Their both awful but she is lying about her actions while serving in government.

        • I would say that we the voters have a duty to hold him accountable, that he has a duty to make himself available to the press so we can get to know him. A responsible and ethical candidate wouldn’t pull the shit he does but since he hasn’t held office and violated it none of his lies can reach the level of Clintons.

          The same lie told by a private citizen and a government appointee is distinguished by the duty the officeholder has sworn to uphold.

          I despise Trump but I continue to find myself stepping in when this comes up, we are down to comparing two awful candidates, there is no virtue to either. For ethical people the difference between the two is one we suspect will violated our trust and diminish the office and the other one we know will. Even if you disregard the national security issues, far too many are supporting Hillary based on the policies she says she supports, but she has no credibility and changes her position on issues at the drop of the hat. She attacks wall street while meeting with them behind closed doors. She has sold her influence to everybody including those who she says she will regulate when elected. Her support of various policies are meaningless.

          She has violated her oath of office in the past how the hell can anyone get beyond that?

  6. I’m guessing that I’m missing something in the question: didn’t Clinton’s statements arise directly from her conduct in office, while Trump’s arose about business he conducted years ago? It seems a more appropriate comparison would be Clinton lying about her cattle futures deals, now deemed irrelevant because there are no voters under 35 who might find it interesting.

  7. As LoSonnambulo points out, Clinton’s lies are about a national security matter directly related to the duties of the office she held, whereas Trump’s lies are about his private dealings with the press many years ago. Clinton’s lies are clearly worse.


    As Beth points out, Clinton’s lies are “politics as usual.” That’s not to say they should be excused because Everybody Does It. However, because so many politicians do stuff like this, Clinton’s lies are the sort of political chicanery that we understand and know how to deal with.

    Trump’s lies aren’t as bad in and of themselves, but they reveal a serious character defect. Trump lies with the abandon of a psychopath and laughs at those who complain about it. If Trump had been in Hillary’s position, there’s no reason to believe he would have been more attentive to the rules. The only reason Trump’s lies are less bad is because Trump is less important. Elect him to office, and he’ll be able to do much worse.

  8. I have been voting since I was twenty-one, some fifty years now, and in all that time, I have always been able to find a reason to vote for a specific candidate. More that that, I was always the guy who exhorted people to “Get out and vote…don’t care who for (I did but it sounded better), just go vote.” I even went so far as to tell folks that if they didn’t vote they had no right to complain about the winner. And every year, just like this one, I paid close attention to the candidates and the issues at hand, especially local issues, propositions and measures that could affect me directly. Naturally, I intend to vote on the amendments to the State Constitution that are sure to show up and on any local propositions that may be presented. However, I’m running into a little bit of a problem at the very top of the ballot.

    Specifically, I am now presented with a choice between a narcissistic pathologically lying thug and a grinning, narcissistic pathologically lying thug with delusions of grandeur. Neither one of them has a clue how to do the job, and neither one of them has any interest in actually doing the job. That’s probably just as well, as I don’t believe either one of them could ever LEARN to do the job. At this point, if I vote for President at all (unlikely, that), it will be because I do not want to see an unrepentant serial rapist returned to the target-rich environment he so loved.

    So, I am now in an odd position, for me. I cannot and will not advise anyone not to vote. That is anathema to me. However, in my heart of hearts, I also know that I cannot, with a clear conscience, vote for either of these two…people (I use the term advisedly). These two clown, although not entirely to blame for this situation, have become a strong argument for including “None Of The Above” on any ballot in which people are involved. I would further suggest that the two parties (or three or four or however many, or individuals, for that matter) share in the expense of redoing the election, with the admonition “This time, pick somebody viable”.

    • Suggestion: if it comes to it, just write in the name of the eligible person who you admire most. Doesn’t have to be a politician or someone famous. Just don’t give anyone the chance to say that you’ve walked away from representative democracy.

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.