“While political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report for their own partisan purposes, in reality, the Inspector General documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other Secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email. The report shows that problems with the State Department’s electronic record keeping systems were longstanding and that there was no precedent of someone in her position having a State Department email account until after the arrival of her successor. Contrary to the false theories advanced for some time now, the report notes that her use of personal email was known to officials within the Department during her tenure, and that there is no evidence of any successful breach of the Secretary’s server. We agree that steps ought to be taken to ensure the government can better maintain official records, and if she were still at the State Department, Secretary Clinton would embrace and implement any recommendations, including those in this report, to help do that. But as this report makes clear, Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email was not unique, and she took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records.”
—-Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon, spinning the IG report with revelations which prompted that right-wing rag the Washington Post this morning to call his boss’s conduct, in an editorial, “inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules.”
Whatever Hillary Clinton’s campaign is paying Brian Fallon to lie for her, it’s not nearly enough.
Imagine: the State Department IG issues a devastating condemnation of Clinton’s conduct, one that proves (as stated here since March, 2015, because it was obvious that early) Clinton has been lying about her conduct, her motives and the consequences of her actions regarding her personal e-mail server installed precisely to avoid the legal reach of the Freedom of Information Act at the risk of compromising national security, and the Clinton camp response is to say, “See? She was telling the truth all along!”
This response is..
And before I start exposing, let me address the comments of the liberal end of Woodward and Bernstein (that would be Carl), who while agreeing on CNN this morning that the IG’s report is “devastating” in its near complete demonstration of how much Clinton has misrepresented the facts and her conduct to the news media and the American people, summed it all up be saying that Hillary has had “an uncomfortable relationship with the truth.”
To evoke the late Fred Rogers: Can you say “habitual liar”? Sure you can! A woman who has had “an uncomfortable relationship with the truth,” Carl, is a liar. Don’t sugar-coat it and obfuscate. That’s what the Clintons do. You sound like a Clinton! She’s lying. She lied about the server. She lies all the time. You’re a journalist. Just say it, loud and clear. That’s your damn job.
But I digress.
Let’s just go over how poor Brian Fallon’s statement of desperate mega-spin is dishonest, misleading, and, to be blunt, a pack of lies:
1. “While political opponents of Hillary Clinton are sure to misrepresent this report for their own partisan purposes”…
Deflection, misdirection and an ad hominem attack. It’s instructive that the first thing mentioned in Fallon’s spinning is Hillary’s “enemies,” in order to deceitfully suggest that somehow this report by an Obama-appointed, independent inspector general is a political ploy, and thus should be ignored. How the report will be used is irrelevant to what it says. As I suggested in the previous post, note well the names of the Democrats and pundits who use this tactic, and never trust them again.
Here’s one: Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, ranking Democrat on the House oversight committee, responded to the report by accusing Republicans of attacking Clinton only because she is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. A damning inspector general report is a Republican attack. How can these people look at themselves in the mirror? How can a voter trust a party like this?
2…in reality, the Inspector General documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other Secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email.
It sure does: the report show that her practices weren’t consistent at all. Other Secretaries didn’t install a private server. Other secretaries didn’t refuse direct requests to get with the system. Other Secretaries didn’t fail to report hacking attempts. Moreover, the practices of Secretaries of State from 2000-2008 are by definition different in kind from what a subsequent Secretary’s standards had to be, because the use of e-mail, the dangers of electronic communications and government policies as these factors evolved were changing and evolving constantly.
Most of all, only Clinton, unlike her predecessors, lied about what she did, constantly, repeatedly, brazenly, for more than a year. I’d call that considerably “inconsistent.”
3. The report shows that problems with the State Department’s electronic recordkeeping systems were longstanding and that there was no precedent of someone in her position having a State Department email account until after the arrival of her successor.
This one is hilarious, or would be if so many of the Clinton Corrupted won’t be repeating it like Polly the Parrot. This is mega-deceit:
- Yes, the problems were long-standing. Unstated, in order to deceive: As Secretary of State, Clinton was accountable for not addressing these problems. Instead, she decided to exploit them for her own purposes.)
- Yes, there was no precedent for Clinton having a State Department e-mail account. Unstated in order to deceive: That is because before her tenure, State was careless as it adapted, too slowly, to the realities of the new cyber world. Conditions had changed dramatically, making such conduct irresponsible and reckless beyond anything previously. Violating policy is not “precedent” as that term is used in government and law–precedent establishes presumably valid practice that can be subsequently relied upon. Moreover, even using the warped application of the term “precedent,” there was no precedent for what Clinton did: install a secret private server to intentionally foil the law at the risk of exposing sensitive documents to hacking
4. Contrary to the false theories advanced for some time now, the report notes that her use of personal email was known to officials within the Department during her tenure, and that there is no evidence of any successful breach of the Secretary’s server.
Again, awe-inspiring deceit. Yes, some officials knew about the personal e-mail. Unstated in order to deceive: They also tried, unsuccessfully, to make her address the problem. And they did NOT know about the personal server, which is the crux of the whole scandal. Note the use of “was known to,” but not any language to suggest that Clinton asked and received permission, as she has falsely claimed, and the IG report disproved.
5. We agree that steps ought to be taken to ensure the government can better maintain official records, and if she were still at the State Department, Secretary Clinton would embrace and implement any recommendations, including those in this report, to help do that.
Right: the IG report was just about improving record-keeping. This is epic deflection and straw man mastery.
6. But as this report makes clear, Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email was not unique…
Liar, liar, pants on fire. What else can you say? “My God! Just stop digging!” was MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Scarborough’s, response to this on his morning show ( as his Democrat shill partner Mika sat looking miserable). “Why can’t she just say she was wrong and ask for forgiveness?” The private server made her conduct unique. Her failure to report possible hacking was unique. Her lying was unique (not for her, for her lying is routine, but for a Secretary of State).
Most of all, the fact that she’s the one running for President of the United States makes her conduct unique. Even if it was accurate in this case, which it isn’t, “Everybody does it” is not a rationalization available to aspiring Presidents.
7. “... and she took steps that went much further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records.”
Heck, if you are going to lie as much as this statement does, why not go the whole distance and include a mega-whopper as a grand finale? So Brian swings for the fences…
A. There were no “others” in an analogous situation, so she went further than others because no others existed. Cute. Wow.
B. Those steps didn’t include preserving all of her e-mails on the server (she destroyed about 34,000 e-mails she says were just personal—and hey, why doubt her? Has she ever lied to you?), or turning over the ones she did when she said she did, or following State policy.
Other than 1-7 above, Fallon’s statement is completely honest, fair and accurate.