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 clintonemail.com 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:
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.